Adsorption characteristics of coal in constant-pressure tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adsorption characteristics of coal have traditionally been studied using crushed coal specimens. When adsorption tests are run on a crushed coal specimen, adsorption kinematics are not involved and therefore the equilibrium of gases is attained rapidly. In this study, the kinematics of CO 2 adsorption have been examined on intact coal and crushed coal specimens using experimental methods where pressure rather than volume of the adsorbing gas was kept constant. To understand the adsorption characteristics of the intact specimen, adsorption isotherms for the crushed coal specimen are required from similar test conditions. The crushed coal adsorption isotherms measured in this study are very similar in shape. However, they indicate a slightly larger capacity than those measured in other studies even for coals of similar rank. The average difference between the total adsorption capacity of crushed coal and the intact coal is about 7 mL of adsorbed CO 2 per gram of coal at 4000 kPa. Although the difference in adsorption capacities of intact and crushed coal is small, it is important to understand the impact of adsorption kinematics to reach the final adsorption on the intact coal specimen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".