MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027688992 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20509

Improved gas holdup in novel bubble column

2011· article· en· W2027688992 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. Dhanasekaran, T. Karunanithi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCountercurrent exchangeReciprocating motionMechanicsSuperficial velocityBubblePerforationColumn (typography)EmulsionChemistrySpargingMaterials scienceChromatographyThermodynamicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Petroleum engineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsFlow (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This investigation reports the experimental and theoretical results carried out to evaluate the gas holdup for air–water system in a novel hybrid rotating and reciprocating perforated plate bubble column under countercurrent condition. The response of this hybrid column is found to be similar to that of reciprocating plate column (RPC) showing mixer‐settler, transition, and emulsion regions. The effect of agitation level, superficial gas velocity, superficial liquid velocity, perforation diameter, and plate spacing on gas holdup is studied and found to be significant. The gas holdup is found to be least in the range of agitation level of 1.3–1.5 cm/s. For all the superficial gas and liquid velocities considered in this present investigation, the critical agitation level at minimum gas holdup remains nearly same. The gas holdup in this hybrid column is 1.2–1.7 times higher in mixer‐settler region and 2.1–2.7 times higher in emulsion region than that of RPC. Correlations have been developed and found to concur with the experimental values. It can be used with 95% accuracy. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207