Variables affecting specific energy requirements for repulping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 0.25 m3 laboratory repulper was built for the purpose of determining which variables (pulp type, rotor tip speed, pulp suspension temperature, rotor design, rotor to extraction plate clearance, power to vat volume ratio, and pulp suspension consistency) affect the specific energy (kW‐h/ton) required for repulping. Scale replicas of 3 commercial repulper rotors were constructed to test the effect of rotor geometry on repulping specific energy. The pulp types used included kraft aspen, C‐flute corrugated cardboard, office printing paper, and unbleached paper towel. The energy required for repulping was found to vary with pulp type, temperature, consistency, and rotor design. It was found that a given material at a given temperature and consistency requires a unique quantity of energy to be repulped independent of the rate of energy addition. It was also found that repulper rotors show Reynolds independence at rotor tip speeds greater than 12m/s. It was found that the specific energy consumption in a 0.25 m3 laboratory repulper was identical to that for a 15 m3 repulper given the comparison was made with identical pulp types, temperatures, consistencies, and rotor designs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".