Revisiting Thomson equation for accurate modeling of pore scale thermodynamics of hydrocarbon solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As stated by the classical Thomson equation, the pore scale thermodynamics of a solvent is different from bulk conditions, being critically controlled by capillary characteristics. This equation shows that the boiling point temperatures decrease remarkably as the pore size becomes smaller, after a threshold value. This paper experimentally investigates this phenomenon for hydrocarbon solvents and compares the results with the values, obtained from the Thomson equation, to test its applicability in modeling heavy-oil recovery by solvents under nonisothermal conditions. As an initial step, the boiling point temperatures of two single-component solvents (heptane and decane) were measured by saturating Hele-Shaw type cells with variable apertures (ranging from 0.04 mm to 5 mm) and monitoring the boiling process. One experiment was run with a thickness of 12 mm to represent the bulk case. As the aperture (pore size) became smaller, the boiling point temperature decreased. For example, the measured boiling temperatures of heptane and decane were approximately 58 °C and 107 °C for the aperture values less than 0.15 mm, which were considerably lower than the “bulk” values (around 40%). In the next step, the same experiments were repeated using micromodels, representing porous media. Using the Thomson equation, the boiling points of the selected liquids were mathematically computed and compared with the experimental results from Hele-Shaw and micromodel experiments. Finally, modifications to the Thomson equation and alternative formulations were suggested.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".