The terminology of 'mixing'

english and international literature:

• macrofluid = segregated fluid
• microfluid = totally molecular dispersed fluid
• micromixing = mixing that produces a microfluid
• macromixing = mixing that produces a segregated = a macrofluid

this seems to be logical, but there is one disadvantage: the mixing behaviour produced macroscopically in the reaction vessel is not named with one general term, it is only listed in 'subdivisions' rather with adjectives like 'totally back-mixed' - without a qualifying name, neither for 'the whole' nor for the 'subdivisions'. Furthermore the terms 'micromixing' and 'macromixing' make the reader believe that the existence of microfluids and macrofluids needs the permanent procedure of micromixing or macromixing to maintain them 'alive', - and that is by far more the rare case. Currently segregation and molecular dispersion are permanent states of the fluid.

therefore we prefer the following classification:

• 'Mikrovermischung' (take micro-mixing as a coarse translation) is the general term for the property of the fluid. ( the translation of the german word would be 'micro-mixing', - but that is not the exact meaning, better would be 'state of fluid mixture or perhaps micro-mixedness' )
• states of the 'Mikrovermischung' are: totally molecular dispersed and totally segregated
  
  
• Whereas 'Makrovermischung' (take macro-mixing as a coarse translation, but taking the term contacting pattern would perhaps be a good solution) is the general term for all macroscopic mixing effects in the reaction vessel that we could see with the 'bare eye'.
• There are two extremes of the basic macro-mixing pattern: totally and totally not back-mixed

with this classification we have two 'drawers' containing the two extremes of totally and totally not, a very logical and consistent arrangement.

When being a bit more generous, you see that only the term 'macro-mixing' is used within this course in a contradictory manner compared to international literature. Perhaps we should really talk better about contacting pattern, when speaking English!

Why the whole 'mess'? Surely not with the intention to confuse the students. But why should we overtake all methods and terms from everywhere, when we are of the opinion that our terms are 'better'. An advantage of our language is that we often 'produce' more precise nouns (names for classification). On the other hand we can not cause problems for our students when trying to use international literature, therefore the 'excessive' explanation.

take your browser back for previous text or:

to main test page