Friction between co‐current upward gas–solid flow and column wall
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 Friction between co‐current upflow gas–solid flow and column wall was investigated by measuring apparent solids concentrations and actual ones in two circulating fluidized bed (CFB) risers with fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) and sand particles, respectively. A new model to predict frictional‐pressure drops between the gas–solid flow in the fully developed zone and the column wall was developed. The results show that the friction between the gas–solid flow and the riser wall causes a significant deviation of the apparent solids concentration from the actual ones, especially under those operating conditions with higher superficial gas velocities and solids‐circulation rates. When superficial gas velocities are greater than 8 m/s, the apparent solids concentrations in the fully developed zone of the risers can be greater than 60% of the actual ones. Particle diameters have different influences on the frictional‐pressure loss under different superficial gas velocities. After the frictional‐pressure drops predicted by the proposed model are deducted from the measured total pressure drops, the predicted actual solids concentrations agree well with the measured actual ones. Copyright © 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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