Experimental study on the flow field characteristics of the two‐layer impinging stream mixer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impinging stream mixer is an efficient equipment for fluid mixing with potential for many chemical engineering and industrial applications. In this paper, the flow field characteristics of symmetrical and asymmetrical flow field in the two‐layer impinging stream mixer were investigated. The concentration field was obtained by planar laser induced fluorescence (PLIF) and the velocity field was obtained by time resolved particle image velocimetry (TR‐PIV). The velocity field was reconstructed by proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) to extract dominant coherent structures from the perspective of energy. The influence of Reynolds number, nozzle diameter, and nozzle spacing on flow field energy and mixing rate were investigated. The results show that in the symmetrical flow field, the flow field energy and mixing rate increased with the Reynolds number. With the increase of nozzle diameter, the flow field energy and mixing rate increased firstly and then decreased. In the asymmetrical flow field, the flow field energy was higher than that of the symmetrical flow field, while the mixing rate was smaller than that of the symmetrical flow field.
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 | 0.001 | 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".