MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980574764 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450830410

Heat Removal from Reverse Flow Reactors Used in Methane Combustion

2005· article· en· W1980574764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Balaji, S. Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverheating (electricity)MethaneCombustionWaste managementCatalytic combustionProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The idea of using Reverse Flow Reactors (RFR) for methane reduction in exhausts has been well elucidated in the past. However, there are intricacies in such operations to maintain the ignited state of the reactor along with maintaining low outlet concentrations of methane. This is especially true under rich feed conditions where combustion reactions liberate more heat leading to possible catalyst deactivation. Under favourable conditions, it is possible to continuously extract heat from the RFR system‐this is a viable way of maintaining acceptable thermal conditions in the reactor and consequently retaining catalyst activity. This paper elaborates upon the optimal amount of heat that can be removed from the system without losing the sustainability while preventing overheating of the catalyst bed. A simple event based control strategy is implemented for switching the inlet and outlet ports (flow reversal). Issues relating to the operation of reverse flow reactors with side feeding and the possibility of extraction of useful heat from such systems are also discussed. Methane combustion reaction and a continuous two dimensional heterogeneous model of the reactor have been employed in this study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207