Roughness indicator, physical

In summary, the MI is an indicator of the average molecular weight (MW) of a plastic and is also a rough indicator of processability. Low MW materials have high Mis and are easy to process. High MW materials have low Mis and are more difficult to process, as they have more resistance to flow, but they are processable. End-use physical properties... 

The overheating effect is believed to play a dominant role in explaining the physical mechanism of the microbubble formation, and three main reasons could be underpinned First, it was observed that a small amount of the glycerin injected into the gap would eventually disappear after a few hours at the positive EEF intensity of 1 MV/cm. Second, no remarkable difference in the chemical composition between the glycerin before and after the EEF was applied could be found in the experiment, which indicated physical effects might predominate. Besides, a rough estimation of the temperature rise in the contact region due to the electro-thermal effect will be conducted as follows. 

Physical test properties on some cured rubber stocks prepared from lithium-catalyzed butadiene polymers are listed in Tables V and VI with appropriate controls. The results are only roughly indicative of the potential properties of rubbers made from lithium-catalyzed butadiene polymers because of the limited quantity of polymer available. The tensile data in Table VI indicate that compounded stocks from the lithium polymers are about equal or slightly inferior to the emulsion and sodium polymer controls in regard to these properties however, a hot tensile (lOO C.) on a cured compound from lithium polybutadiene was 325 pounds per square inch compared to 200 to 250 for an emulsion polybutadiene control. The internal friction of cured stocks from the lithium-catalyzed butadiene polymers is similar in magnitude to the emulsion or sodium polymer controls at 50 C. but higher at 100 °C. All lithium polymers, even those with low Mooney viscosities, gave cured compounds with high values of dynamic modulus. 

It was found that to within experimental error, all of the observed discrepancies could be explained by two factors. The first factor is that the model did not exactly describe the physical situation in the experiment the wave tank had a single cylinder, whereas the calculation is for a series of cylinders. The second factor was the surprising result that the roughly 5% reflected wave from the wave tank significantly affected the experimental results due to modifications in the dynamic pressure fluctuations. In this instance a detailed examination of the model and experimental results has indicated that an experimental effect thought to be small could in fact cause noticeable deviations in the data measured. 

As indicated above, for purely physical absorption, the mass-transfer coefficients depend on the hydrodynamics and the physical properties of the phases. The literature contains measured values of mass-transfer coefficients and correlations (see discussion on agitated tanks and bubble columns below). Tables 19-7 and 19-8 present experimental information on apparent mass-transfer coefficients for absorption of select gases. On this basis, a tower for absorption of S02 with NaOH is smaller than that with pure water by a factor of roughly 0.317/7.0 = 0.045. Table 19-9 lists the main factors that are needed for... 

---