Numerical and Experimental Validation of Mixing Efficiency in Periodic Disturbance Mixers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shape and dimensions of a micromixer are key elements in the mixing process. Accurately quantifying the mixing efficiency enables the evaluation of the performance of a micromixer and the selection of the most suitable one for specific applications. In this paper, two methods are investigated to evaluate the mixing efficiency: a numerical model and an experimental model with a software image processing technique. Using two methods to calculate the mixing efficiency, in addition to corroborating the results and increasing their reliability, creates various possible approaches that can be selected depending on the circumstances, resources, amount of data to be processed and processing time. Image processing is an easy-to-implement tool, is applicable to different programming languages, is flexible, and provides a quick response that allows the calculation of the mixing efficiency using a process of filtering of images and quantifying the intensity of the color, which is associated with the percentage of mixing. The results showed high similarity between the two methods, with a difference ranging between 0 and 6% in all the evaluated points.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".