Fluidization characterization of nano‐powders in the presence of electrical field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternating electric field was used as an external assistance method to enhance the quality of fluidization of nanoparticles. The electric field was applied to the bed using two parallel electrodes, one grounded and AC voltage applied to the other. Varying electric field strength in the range of 0–1 kV/cm was used in the experiments. Hydrophilic TiO2 nanopowder was used as the bed material. The bed was fluidized with either pure nitrogen or nitrogen containing isopropanol vapour. It was found that increasing the alternating electric field strength decreases the minimum fluidization velocity, bubble size, and agglomerate size. Adding isopropanol vapour to the fluidizing gas decreases the minimum fluidization velocity, bubble size, and agglomerate size, compared to fluidization with dry nitrogen, at the same field strength. It is shown that increasing the alternating electric field strength increases the voidage of the bed at minimum fluidization and decreases the voidage of agglomerates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".