Interaction between a hollow‐cone spray and the co‐axial swirling stratified flow in a novel spray pyrolysis furnace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure‐swirl nozzles producing hollow‐cone sprays are widely used in many engineering applications, but the induced high‐speed stream along the centreline of the spray cone was ignored in designing spray chambers. The high‐speed stream influences the flow field especially in minimized spray chambers, but it is difficult to characterize experimentally. Hence, computational fluid dynamics was applied to investigate the multi‐phase flow interactions inside a novel spray pyrolysis furnace for liquid ore exploitation. The mass flow rate distribution of the co‐axial swirling stratified flow inside the furnace, the gas‐solid separation efficiency, particle size distribution, and residence time were investigated under different positions and directions of the hollow‐cone spray. The results proved that different spray operations would cause variation in the air mass flow rate distribution and gas‐solid separation efficiency, which should be paid attention to in the design of process intensification. The distribution of particles sized from 30 to 40 μm were most sensitive under different flow rates. The recommended operating conditions of the spray pyrolysis process were confirmed as the inlet velocity of 5 m/s and downward spray from the top of the furnace chamber.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".