Mechanisms of solids drawdown in stirred tanks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Agitated tanks are used in several industrial processes to achieve complete drawdown of floating solids in liquids. The design requirements for this process are not completely defined, and are currently limited to heuristics regarding the use of a surface vortex and the effect of wettability on the difficulty of mixing, along with several initial studies in the literature. In this study, the effect of the type of impeller, particle size and shape, solids concentration, impeller submergence, and baffle configuration on the minimum drawdown speed ( N jd ) are investigated. It was found that the formation of a large surface vortex acts to hold particles close to the surface. Suppression of the surface vortex is recommended. In baffled tanks where the formation of a large surface vortex is suppressed, the intensity of turbulence and mean circulation velocity of the liquid are responsible for solids drawdown and distribution in the tank. The submergence of the impeller relative to the liquid surface and the pumping mode of the pitched blade turbine (PBT) were found to be the controlling parameters. CFD simulations were carried out to obtain a better understanding and interpretation of the flow patterns and drawdown mechanisms for the different baffle configurations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it