Effects of particle shape and size distribution on the overall fluid‐solid reaction rates of particle assemblages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of particle size distribution on fluid‐solid reaction kinetics was evaluated for particle assemblages made up of particles of different shapes. The most commonly used size distributions, the Gate‐Gaudin‐Schuhmann (GGS) distribution, the Rosin‐Rammler‐Bennett (RRB) distribution, and the Gamma distribution, were chosen. The effects of the following factors were simulated: the shrinking unreacted‐core reaction mechanism, rate‐controlled either by interface reaction or pore diffusion; the three basic particle shapes; and the coefficient of variation (CV) of the size distributions. It was shown in this work that the effect of size distribution can be represented by the CV value regardless of the type of distribution, which makes the analysis convenient. The results show that the reaction kinetics progressively deviates from those of uniform particles as the CV value increases and the particle shape deviates from spherical toward flat. Additionally, pore diffusion‐controlled kinetics tends to deviate more than interface reaction‐controlled kinetics under the same CV value. For spherical particles under the two rate‐controlling mechanisms, the effect of particle distribution for GGS on the kinetics is insignificant for CV values up to 0.5. For the RRB and Gamma distributions, the effect is tolerable up to the CV value of 0.75.
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".