paraffin wax deposition and fouling

failure. however, desosit weights on plastic coated surfaces
was attributed to there being insufficient viscous drag to cause
and deposit weight did not vary with roughness. This behaviour
wax showed no tendency to fail on either rough or smooth surfaces
sur.’accc in small pieces The deposits of the microcrystalline
Ccu0JI dd not L;Loua but lalica as be fore rid fitx:d irum tc
0 .i 2fl Z5&1L PICCCS rOu;.enee. surfaces the cra;:alhj ne •;c
been discussed in sections 2.5.. and on site effects of
The worn of a:son and essen
extensea :cer:cns c: ;:ae.
wnua cconcaican..y sc.ve sne rara: :in aepcsntuon pro e..em :or
many additives in she fields hunt concluded that none was available
of de-osits, thus irihibi-ing saraffiri deoosition :.iter trying
ac..stVes offerea sac ‘Dsssieini;y 0: resucflg ;ne conesave streng:a
networn o: oara::n crystals.. nun; states snat caemaca_
oresence of asshasic substances prevented the formation of a rigid
aaseraas are generai_y consac.ered to act as nnnnoors to crysta_—
lization. Shesard has given exoerimental evidence that the
‘Zr)
se.son ann tewart’ states tnaz coourea peEroeum
3C)
235 .L.idi gives
therefore, to surface roughness.
a&:esive bond should be proportional to the surface area and,
all surface irregularities and achieving maxisum contact, the
of coarietely wetting a deoosition surface and hence penetrating
on a surface. They oo:n:ed out, nowever, that a solution capacle
wax corstoslslon ae;erared whesr.er or not a given deposit remaines.
observed between surface roughness and deposit weight arid that she
Patton and Casad concluded that no correlation could be
plastic coatings.
for sne same temoeratures because of the Insulation effects of the
were at least D rer cent less than those obtained on bare steel
— 22 -
F —
—
1
rara_::n aeoostzsori