A Recipe for Optimum Mixing of Polymer Drag Reducers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparation of large-scale homogeneous solutions of drag reducing polymers requires an appropriate mixing procedure to ensure full disentanglement of the polymer chains without chain scission due to over-mixing. The latter is known as mechanical degradation and reduces the performance of drag reducing polymers. The dominant large-scale mixing parameters including time, impeller type, impeller speed, and impeller-to-tank diameter ratio are investigated to obtain a recipe for maximum mixing with minimum polymer degradation. Three water-based solutions of 100 ppm Superfloc A-110 (flexible structure), Magnafloc 5250 (flexible structure), and Xanthan Gum (XG) (rigid structure) are considered. The performance of the mixing parameters for each polymer is evaluated based on the solution viscosity in comparison with the highest viscosity (i.e., optimum mixing) obtained by 2 h of low-shear mixing of a small-scale polymer solution using a magnetic stirrer. The results demonstrate that optimum large-scale mixing is obtained at mean and maximum shear rates of ∼17 s−1 and ∼930 s−1, respectively, after 2–2.5 h of mixing for each of the polymers. This shear rate is obtained here using a three-blade marine impeller operating at 75 rpm and at impeller-to-tank diameter ratio of 0.5. The resulting polymer solution has the highest viscosity, which is an indication of minimal degradation while achieving complete mixing. It is also confirmed that chemical degradation due to contact with a stainless steel impeller is negligible.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it