Solids Deposition from Two-Phase Wax–Solvent–Water “Waxy” Mixtures under Turbulent Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deposition of solids from two-phase waxy mixtures (comprising a multicomponent paraffinic wax dissolved in a multicomponent solvent and water) was studied under turbulent flow conditions in a flow-loop apparatus, incorporating a cocurrent double-pipe heat exchanger. The deposition experiments were performed with 6 mass % wax solutions, containing 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 vol % water, at different flow rates over 5600 < Re < 25 300, and at different hot and cold stream temperatures. In the bench-scale apparatus, the deposit was formed rapidly such that a thermal steady state was attained within 10–20 min in all experiments. The water content of the deposit was found to be not related to the water content of the waxy mixture. The deposit mass was found to decrease with an increase in Re, the waxy mixture temperature, and/or the coolant temperature. The deposit mass also increased as the water content of the waxy mixture was increased to about 10 vol % and decreased thereafter. The deposition data, analyzed with a steady-state heat-transfer model, indicated that the liquid–deposit interface temperature was close to the wax appearance temperature of the waxy mixture. The average thermal conductivity of the deposit was estimated to be 0.38 W m –1 K –1 . Overall, the results of this study confirm that the deposition process from waxy mixtures is primarily thermally driven.
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) | 0.006 | 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".