Mixing performance comparison of milliscale continuous high‐shear mixers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixing performance of two continuous flow millilitre‐scale reactors (volumes 9.5 mL and 2.5 mL) equipped with rotor‐stator mixers was studied. Cumulative residence time distributions (RTD) were determined experimentally using a step response method. Distributions were measured for both reactors by varying impeller speed and feed flow rate. The mixing effect was determined by measured RTDs. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were used to verify that the residence time distribution in the measurement outlet agreed with the outlet flow. The mixing power of both reactors was determined using a calorimetric method. The reactor inlet flow rate was found to affect mixing performance at 1–13 s residence times but the effect of impeller speed could not be noted. Both milliscale reactors are close to an ideal continuous stirred‐tank reactor (CSTR) at the studied impeller speed and flow rate ranges. The specific interfacial area was found to depend on the reactor inlet flow rate at constant impeller speed for the case of copper solvent extraction.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".