Deposition from waxy mixtures in a flow‐loop apparatus under turbulent conditions: Investigating the effect of suspended wax crystals in cold flow regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of suspended wax crystals in wax‐solvent mixtures on the solid deposition process in the cold flow regime was investigated experimentally and analyzed with a steady‐state heat transfer model. A bench‐scale flow‐loop apparatus, incorporating a concentric‐cylinder heat exchanger, was used to measure solid deposition, in the cold flow and hot flow regimes, from wax‐solvent mixtures under turbulent flow conditions. The deposition experiments were performed with two wax‐solvent mixtures, at two flow rates, with two coolant temperatures, at 8 wax‐solvent mixture temperatures, and for several deposition times. The role of wax crystals on the deposition process was investigated by repeating some of the deposition experiments with a pre‐filtered wax‐solvent mixture. In all experiments, the deposit was formed rapidly such that a thermal steady‐state was attained within 30 min. The deposit mass increased with decreasing the mixture temperature in the hot flow regime, reached a maximum as the mixture temperature became equal to the WAT, and then decreased linearly to zero in the cold flow regime as the mixture temperature approached the coolant temperature. Also, the deposit mass decreased with an increase in the Reynolds number and the coolant temperature. The data and predictions confirmed the solid deposition to be a thermally‐driven process. The experimental deposit mass results in the cold flow regime, supported by model predictions, were identical for the unfiltered and filtered mixtures, which showed that the suspended wax crystals do not affect the deposit mass or thickness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".