Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Drop Size Effects

J.A. Nicholls, Drop-Size Effects in Spray Detonation , 12th Symp Combstn (1969)... [Pg.838]

Tests should be conducted at short cycle times (i.e., compared to those used in the plant) in the laboratory vessel. Dispersion times of 1 minute or less, on the low end, are reasonable for the laboratory vessel. But tests should be conducted over a range of dispersion times in order to determine how drop size (or drop size effects) change with dispersion time all the way up to the dispersion time required to achieve the long-term equilibrium drop size. [Pg.325]

The nozzles used in the containment spray system should be of a design that minimizes the possibility of clogging while producing drop sizes effective for iodine absorption. [Pg.401]

Lin et al. [70, 71] have modeled the effect of surface roughness on the dependence of contact angles on drop size. Using two geometric models, concentric rings of cones and concentric conical crevices, they find that the effects of roughness may obscure the influence of line tension on the drop size variation of contact angle. Conversely, the presence of line tension may account for some of the drop size dependence of measured hysteresis. [Pg.359]

Drop breakage occurs when surrounding fluid stresses exceed the surface resistance of drops. Drops are first elongated as a result of pressure fluctuations and then spHt into small drops with a possibiUty of additional smaller fragments (Fig. 19). Two types of fluid stresses cause dispersions, viscous shear and turbulence. In considering viscous shear effects, it is assumed that the drop size is smaller than the Kohnogoroff microscale, Tj. [Pg.430]

Liquid viscosity generally produces adverse effects on drop size. It increases the initial film thickness and hinders the growth of unstable waves. [Pg.333]

Both effects can produce coarser atomization. However, the influence of Hquid viscosity on atomization appears to diminish for high Reynolds or Weber numbers. Liquid surface tension appears to be the only parameter independent of the mode of atomization. Mean droplet size increases with increasing surface tension in twin-fluid atomizers (34). is proportional to CJ, where the exponent n varies between 0.25 and 0.5. At high values of Weber number, however, drop size is nearly proportional to surface tension. [Pg.333]

Effect of Physical Properties on Drop Size Because of the extreme variety of available geometries, no attempt to encompass this variable is made here. The suggested predictive route starts with air-water droplet size data from the manulac turer at the chosen flow rate. This drop size is then corrected by Eq. (14-195) for different viscosity and surface tension ... [Pg.1409]

Effect of Pressure Drop and Nozzle Size For a nozzle with a developed pattern, the average drop size can be estimated to fall with rising AP (pressure drop) by Eq. (14-196) ... [Pg.1410]

Information on the coefficients is relatively undeveloped. They are evidently strongly influenced by rate of drop coalescence and breakup, presence of surface-active agents, interfacial turbulence (Marangoni effect), drop-size distribution, and the like, none of which can be effectively evaluated at this time. [Pg.1466]

Most of the investigators have assumed the effective drop size of the spray to be the Sauter (surface-mean) diameter and have used the empirical equation of Nuldyama and Tanasawa [Trons. Soc. Mech. Eng., Japan, 5, 63 (1939)] to estimate the Sauter diameter ... [Pg.1591]

The prediction of drop sizes in liquid-liquid systems is difficult. Most of the studies have used very pure fluids as two of the immiscible liquids, and in industrial practice there almost always are other chemicals that are surface-active to some degree and make the pre-dic tion of absolute drop sizes veiy difficult. In addition, techniques to measure drop sizes in experimental studies have all types of experimental and interpretation variations and difficulties so that many of the equations and correlations in the literature give contradictoiy results under similar conditions. Experimental difficulties include dispersion and coalescence effects, difficulty of measuring ac tual drop size, the effect of visual or photographic studies on where in the tank you can make these obseiwations, and the difficulty of using probes that measure bubble size or bubble area by hght or other sample transmission techniques which are veiy sensitive to the concentration of the dispersed phase and often are used in veiy dilute solutions. [Pg.1636]

Comparison of Eq. (184) with Eq. (183) shows the effect of size distribution for the case of fast chemical reaction with simultaneous diffusion. This serves to emphasize the error that may arise when one applies uniform-drop-size assumptions to drop populations. Quantitatively the error is small, because 1 — is small in comparison with the second term in the brackets [i.e., kL (kD)112). Consequently, Eq. (184) and Eq. (183) actually give about the same result. In general, the total average mass-transfer rate in the disperser has been evaluated in this model as a function of the following parameters ... [Pg.369]

When plotted as a function of drop size (Fig. 9), the contact angle was found to decrease with increasing drop height. A different analysis of these data was performed in the original paper. In that case the maximum slope near the drop edge was used, as well as a direct inversion of the droplet shape. The data could be fit to an empirical 1/z function. In the present analysis we use the method of the effective contact angles defined earlier, together with Eq. (18). For the Flamaker constant A, we calculated a value of approximately -2 X 10 ° J. However, the best fit to Eq. (18) is for a pure exponential decay of the form ... [Pg.258]

As was demonstrated in the preceding sections, structure-sensitivity phenomena are mostly confined to particle size regimes smaller than 3-4 nm. A process of industrial relevance was investigated by de Jong et al. [127] in their study on cobalt particle size effects in the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. Earlier works noted distinct drop in activity for Co particles smaller than lOnm and ascribed this phenomenon to either a partial oxide or carbide formation which should be enhanced for particles in this size regime [128-139]. In order to avoid similar effects, de Jong used... [Pg.175]


See other pages where Drop Size Effects is mentioned: [Pg.514]    [Pg.514]    [Pg.272]    [Pg.272]    [Pg.317]    [Pg.326]    [Pg.107]    [Pg.134]    [Pg.23]    [Pg.24]    [Pg.90]    [Pg.514]    [Pg.514]    [Pg.272]    [Pg.272]    [Pg.317]    [Pg.326]    [Pg.107]    [Pg.134]    [Pg.23]    [Pg.24]    [Pg.90]    [Pg.410]    [Pg.430]    [Pg.525]    [Pg.64]    [Pg.1348]    [Pg.1437]    [Pg.1481]    [Pg.1591]    [Pg.160]    [Pg.482]    [Pg.92]    [Pg.498]    [Pg.837]    [Pg.267]    [Pg.345]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.16 ]




SEARCH



Drop effect

Drop size

Dropping effect

© 2024 chempedia.info