Experimental investigation on micromixing characteristics of coaxial mixers in viscous system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experimental investigation into the micromixing performance of coaxial mixers in a viscous system is reported, in which the iodide‐iodate reaction system is chosen to quantitatively characterize the product distributions. The effects of feeding time, feeding position, impeller speed, inner impeller configuration, and operation mode on the segregation index, Xs, are examined. It is revealed that the feeding near the inner impeller benefits micromixing and should be regarded as the preferred position. The presence of the rotating outer impeller causes the micromixing performance of the coaxial mixer to be significantly better than the single‐shaft mixer. While an increase in the outer impeller speed has a limited influence on micromixing, the inner impeller speed is the dominant influencing factor, that is, the Xs decreases obviously when the inner impeller speed is increased. On the other hand, the coaxial mixers with multiple and axial inner impellers have a better micromixing performance at the same specific power consumption, PV, than that with single and radial inner impellers. Among the configurations consisting of a Rushton impeller (RT), six‐straight‐blade turbine impeller (SBT), and six‐pitched (45°)‐blade turbine impeller (PBT), the Xs of the coaxial mixer is always the smallest at the same PV when the PBT + RT configuration is used as the inner impeller. In addition, it is found that the difference in Xs that results from various operation modes is small in terms of power consumption; however, the co‐rotation mode is still recommended for the micromixing of the coaxial mixer due to its excellent performance in general.
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) | 0.000 | 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".