MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074971409 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810503

The Effect of Bed Temperature on Mass Transfer between the Bubble and Emulsion Phases in a Fluidized Bed

2003· article· en· W2074971409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenyuan Wu, Pradeep Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGranular flow and fluidized beds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBubbleFluidized bedMass transferInterphaseEmulsionSuctionMass transfer coefficientMaterials scienceTRACERAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Particle (ecology)Particle sizeThermodynamicsChemistryChromatographyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rate of interphase mass transfer between the bubble and emulsion phases of a bubbling fluidized bed is of primary importance in all models for fluidized bed reactors. Many experimental studies have been reported, however, all these investigations have been carried out in fluidized beds operated at room temperature. In this work, the effect of the bed temperature on the interphase mass transfer is reported. Single bubbles containing argon – used as a tracer – were injected into an incipiently fluidized bed maintained at the required temperature. The change in argon concentration in the bubble was measured using a suction probe connected to a mass spectrometer. The effects of bed particle type and size, bubble size, and bed temperature on the mass transfer coefficient were examined experimentally. The interphase mass transfer coefficient was found to decrease with the increase in bed temperature and bubble size, and increase slightly with increase in particle size. Experimental data obtained in this study were compared with some frequently used correlations for estimation of the mass transfer coefficient.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicGranular flow and fluidized bedsFrench-language works237,207