Chapter 3
sample immediately after emulsion preparation. Afterwards, all the samples were
shaken by hand during 1 minute.
In sample 1, unlike the layered mixture, T2 distribution of emulsion has only
one peak. Hence water content and drop size distribution of the emulsion cannot
be obtained from CMPG measurement.
In sample 2, T2 distribution of emulsion contains a larger peak for the W∕O
emulsion and a smaller peak for the separated bulk water. This is consistent with
the observation in the experiment that free water forms at the bottom of the
sample due to the emulsion coalescence.
In sample 3 and sample 4, T2 distributions Ofemulsion contain two separate
peaks. These are different from the two samples with solids. This difference may
be due to the effect of the solids.
In sample 3, T2 values of oil peak and water peak are smaller than those of
bulk fluids. This implies the effect of surface relaxivity on the T2 distribution.
In sample 4, T2 distribution of oil peak is very close to that of bulk oil, which
suggests the compete separation of the oil and water. This is consistent with the
experiment at observation. T2 distribution of water peak is smaller than that of bulk
water. In sample 4, the water layer is yellowish, which suggests that the water is
doped. Therebythe T2 distribution of water peak is smaller.
66
More intriguing information
1. Spectral calibration of exponential Lévy Models [1]2. Cross border cooperation –promoter of tourism development
3. ENERGY-RELATED INPUT DEMAND BY CROP PRODUCERS
4. Linkages between research, scholarship and teaching in universities in China
5. The name is absent
6. Gerontocracy in Motion? – European Cross-Country Evidence on the Labor Market Consequences of Population Ageing
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The changing face of Chicago: demographic trends in the 1990s