Second Law Analysis of Adiabatic and Non-Adiabatic Pipeline Flows of Unstable and Surfactant-Stabilized Emulsions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entropy generation, and hence exergy destruction, in adiabatic flow of unstable and surfactant-stabilized emulsions was investigated experimentally in different diameter pipes. Four types of emulsion systems are investigated covering a broad range of the dispersed-phase concentration: (a) unstable oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions without surfactant; (b) surfactant-stabilized O/W emulsions; (c) unstable water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions without surfactant; and (d) surfactant-stabilized W/O emulsions. The entropy generation rate per unit pipe length is affected by the type of the emulsion as well as its stability. Unstable emulsions without any surfactant present at the interface generate less entropy in the turbulent regime as compared with the surfactant-stabilized emulsions of the same viscosity and density. The effect of surfactant is particularly severe in the case of W/O emulsions. In the turbulent regime, the rate of entropy generation in unstable W/O emulsions is much lower in comparison with that observed in the stable W/O emulsions. A significant delay in the transition from laminar to turbulent regime is also observed in the case of unstable W/O emulsion. Finally, the analysis and simulation results are presented on non-adiabatic pipeline flow of emulsions.
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) | 0.001 | 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".