Molecular dynamics study of structure H clathrate hydrates of methane and large guest molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methane storage in structure H (sH) clathrate hydrates is attractive due to the relatively higher stability of sH as compared to structure I methane hydrate. The additional stability is gained without losing a significant amount of gas storage density as happens in the case of structure II (sII) methane clathrate. Our previous work has showed that the selection of a specific large molecule guest substance (LMGS) as the sH hydrate former is critical in obtaining the optimum conditions for crystallization kinetics, hydrate stability, and methane content. In this work, molecular dynamics simulations are employed to provide further insight regarding the dependence of methane occupancy on the type of the LMGS and pressure. Moreover, the preference of methane molecules to occupy the small (5(12)) or medium (4(3)5(6)6(3)) cages and the minimum cage occupancy required to maintain sH clathrate mechanical stability are examined. We found that thermodynamically, methane occupancy depends on pressure but not on the nature of the LMGS. The experimentally observed differences in methane occupancy for different LMGS may be attributed to the differences in crystallization kinetics and/or the nonequilibrium conditions during the formation. It is also predicted that full methane occupancies in both small and medium clathrate cages are preferred at higher pressures but these cages are not fully occupied at lower pressures. It was found that both small and medium cages are equally favored for occupancy by methane guests and at the same methane content, the system suffers a free energy penalty if only one type of cage is occupied. The simulations confirm the instability of the hydrate when the small and medium cages are empty. Hydrate decomposition was observed when less than 40% of the small and medium cages are occupied.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".