Characterization of flow regimes in fluidized beds by information entropy analysis of pressure fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow regimes in a gas‐solid cylindrical fluidized bed of 150 mm (i.d.) × 1.2 m (high) with three different sand masses (1.5, 3, and 4.5 kg) were studied via information entropy analysis of pressure fluctuations. Three classes of methods of information entropy were adopted to characterize the flow regimes. It is shown that the first‐class dimensional methods are suitable for illustrating the distinct characteristic of the flow regimes under different operating conditions, while the other two dimensionless methods are appropriate for finding the similarities or common rules. Tsallis entropy and Renyi entropy do not provide more valuable information than Shannon entropy. Most importantly, the Shannon entropy method is a good choice for characterizing the flow regimes but is weak at revealing the transition velocity (U c ) clearly. This deficiency can be made up by the method of component Shannon entropy. Shannon entropy is partitioned into 4 component Shannon entropies (named CH1CH4), which may be related with a 4‐stage fluidization process assumption. A rule is found that the transition of flow regimes transition from bubbling bed to turbulent bed takes place when the contribution proportion of CH3 is exceeded by that of CH1, and it brings new enlightenment on interpretation of the transition mechanism.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".