Modelling gas‐liquid mass transfer in a two‐phase jet flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The efficiency and selectivity of chemical reactions are influenced by the mixing characteristic of the reactor. Existing models for reactor precalculation are often based on mean values, e.g. for the energy dissipation rate or the volumetric mass transfer coefficient, and assume a homogeneous mass transfer behaviour. As a result, process optimization by avoiding mass transfer limitations is not efficient, due to the missing knowledge of local limitations. Jet reactors typically provide inhomogeneous mixing and mass transfer behaviour, where the highest rates occur in the jet vicinity. Hence, the mass transfer processes in the jet flow, which cannot be properly characterized in gas‐liquid two‐phase flow, dominate the reactor performance. Experimental results concerning the volumetric mass transfer coefficient in the jet vicinity of the Jetzone‐Loopreactor are discussed, and a model approach for describing the phenomenon is presented. It is shown that the mass transfer rates strongly depend on the hydrodynamics of the loop flow. The model is adapted to the loop flow determining mechanisms, the drag coefficient, and the density difference between the circulation and the jet flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".