Study of fluid dynamic conditions in the selected static mixers part II‐determination of the residence time distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presented paper is part of the complete description of fluid‐dynamic conditions in the selected static mixers: Koflo and Kenics. The research was also performed for an empty pipe used as a reference state. The scope of work included the analysis of the residence time distribution in the mentioned devices for different Reynolds numbers for both laminar and turbulent flow regimes. The report contains a discussion about residence time distribution function E(t) , cumulative distribution function F(t) , as well as the parameters like the mean residence time t m and the variance σ 2 . The main aim of the presented work was to show the applicability of static mixers as chemical reactors and to present their operation characteristics to evaluate the derogations distinguishing them from well known ideal states (i.e. plug flow or ideal mixing). As a result of the accomplished study it was proved that Reynolds number increase results in narrower RTD in all of the tested devices, however the fluid motion is far from plug flow due to axial and radial mixing and the considered equipment should be treated as non‐ideal reactors requiring some additional models for the right description. What is more, in the case of laminar flow, the Kenics static mixer showed the narrowest spread and was considered as the best solution among the studied devices. In the turbulent flow, the difference between E(t) functions for all of the mentioned equipment was so small that the suggestion of small impact of insert type on the RTD was made.
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 | 0.001 | 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".