An experimental investigation of the cross‐flow of power law liquids past a bundle of cylinders and in a bed of stacked screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The steady flow of power‐law polymer solutions normal to arrays of cylinders and in a bed of screens has been investigated experimentally. Extensive pressure drop measurements have been made for three different test cells (two tube bundles and one bed made of screens) of different voidages for a series of inelastic carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium alginate aqueous solutions. The resulting values of friction factor correlate well with a modified definition of the Reynolds number based on the capillary bundle representation of the bed. The new data extend considerably the range of voidage values from ∼0.6 to ∼0.87. Extensive comparisons have also been made between the present experimental data and our previous calculations based on the use of simple cell models. The close correspondence between the two demonstrates the utility of such idealized analyses. All in all, the present results embrace the following ranges of physical and kinematic conditions: Reynolds number: 0.01 to ∼1200; power‐law flow behaviour index: 0.38 to 1; and three values of voidage, namely, 0.74, 0.78 and 0.87.
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".