A comparison of flow development in high density gas‐solids circulating fluidized bed downer and riser reactors
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
Comparison of flow development in high density downer and riser reactors is experimentally investigated using fluid catalytic cracking particles with very high solids circulation rate up to 700 kg/m 2 s for the first time. Results show that both axial and radial flow structures are more uniform in downers compared to riser reactors even at very high density conditions, although the solids distribution becomes less uniform in the high density downer. Solids acceleration is much faster in the downer compared to the riser reactor indicating a shorter length of flow development and residence time, which is beneficial to the chemical reactions requiring short contact time and high product selectivity. Slip velocity in risers and downers is also first compared at high density conditions. The slip velocity in the downer is much smaller than in the riser for the same solids holdup indicating less particle aggregation and better gas‐solids contacting in the downer reactors. © 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 61: 1172–1183, 2015
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 | 0.001 | 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