Impact of a draft tube on industrial‐scale Fluid Coker™ Spray Jets in fluidized beds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In fluidized bed reactors such as Fluid Cokers™, liquid injections are used. Good contact between liquid and bed solids is required to maximize product yields and quality, and gas‐atomized nozzles are, therefore, used in all these processes. The spray nozzle technology is known to affect the liquid distribution. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effect on liquid distribution of a draft tube located downstream of the spray nozzle, inside the fluidized bed. Experiments were conducted at a relevant scale, using a commercial‐scale nozzle with a liquid flow rate of about 100 L/min in a large‐scale pilot fluid bed containing about 7 tonnes of silica sand. Liquid injected into a fluidized bed either forms liquid‐solid agglomerates or free moisture, consisting of individual particles coated with a thin layer of liquid. Several electrodes were used to map the free moisture distribution throughout the bed. A draft tube greatly improves the contact efficiency throughout the bed. It also increases the penetration of the gas‐liquid jet formed by spray inside the fluidized bed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".