Bubble size and rise velocity, gas holdup, and frother concentration in flotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It was revealed from the literature that although Sauter mean bubble diameter, d 32 , remained virtually unchanged after critical coalescence concentration (CCC), gas holdup kept rising without reaching a maximum plateau. In addition, for a given d 32 , different gas holdups were obtained for different types of frothers, contrary to conventional belief regarding bubbly columns. A brief analysis was given in this Note, by considering the effect of different hydrodynamic environment surrounding a bubble in a swarm from a single bubble alone on dynamic frother adsorption. Based on the balance between hydrodynamic drag and surface tension gradient force acting on a bubble, it was speculated that frother adsorption density or compactness in the dynamic adsorption layer on a bubble would be lower in swarms than in single bubble systems of the same size. This could allow further frother adsorption after CCC and CMV (concentration at minimum/terminal velocity for single bubbles). Consequently gas holdup might continue to rise. Moreover, the overlap of adsorption layers between adjacent bubbles caused stronger molecular interactions among frothers of longer hydrocarbon chains, or larger molecular weights with different head groups, and interfered bulk free water flow through the channels of rising bubbles, leading to their stronger drag to slow bubbles thereby higher gas holdups for a given bubble size. It appeared that bubble surfaces in real flotation systems may not be totally immobilized.
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".