Pore network simulation for diffusion through a porous membrane: A comparison between Knudsen and Oscillator models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low density permeations of some gases (He, H 2 , N 2 , CH 4 , CO 2 and CF 4 ) through micro‐ and mesocarboneous pores were investigated using Knudsen and Oscillator models. Lennard‐Jones model in single layer pores was used to simulate the gas–solid interactions in the Oscillator model. The effects of the pore radius as well as the molecular size and the temperature on the pore diffusivity and the activation energy were studied. The Monte Carlo simulation was then performed to calculate the permeability of these gases in three‐dimensional cubic networks of different connectivities (2.5–6) and different pore size distributions ( r a = 2.74 and 6.95 nm). It was shown that for networks with larger pores there is a minor difference between the two models, while a large discrepancy exists in networks with fine pores. Both models tend to have the same permeability as the coordination number decreases. To investigate the accuracy of the models, the simulation results were compared with the experimental selectivities of some pure gases in two different membranes extracted from the literature. It was shown that the Oscillator model can better predict the experimental data in the membranes of smaller pores (i.e. r a = 2.74 nm). However, both models were comparable in membranes of larger pores ( r a = 6.95 nm). The capability of the models to predict the activation energy of the diffusion was also studied.
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".