Impeller diameter and submergence effects in solids drawdown with up‐pumping impellers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floating solids drawdown speeds of up‐pumping pitched‐blade and hydrofoil impellers increase with increasing impeller submergence, with the pitched‐blade speed increasing more rapidly than that of the hydrofoil. For submergences greater than 40 % of the vessel diameter, performance of the pitched‐blade impeller is adversely affected by the discharge flow impinging on the vessel wall rather than the free liquid surface. Drawdown speeds of both impeller types decrease in a similar manner with increasing impeller diameter. For both impeller types, drawdown torque continually increases with increasing impeller diameter, while drawdown power exhibits a minimum at an intermediate impeller to tank diameter ratio; however, power is not a strong function of impeller diameter to tank diameter ratio over the range of this parameter typically used industrially (D/T ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 was studied in this work). Drawdown torque and power of the hydrofoil impeller are lower than those of the pitched‐blade impeller, with the differences between the impeller types increasing rapidly with submergence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".