MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038568552 · doi:10.1021/ja064389n

Insights into the Distribution of Water in a Self-Humidifying H<sub>2</sub>/O<sub>2</sub>Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Using<sup>1</sup>H NMR Microscopy

2006· article· en· W2038568552 on OpenAlexaff
Kirk W. Feindel, Steven H. Bergens, Roderick E. Wasylishen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProton exchange membrane fuel cellChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CathodeProtonMembraneProton NMRMicroscopyFlow (mathematics)ChromatographyPhysical chemistryMechanicsOpticsNuclear physicsPhysicsStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton ((1)H) NMR microscopy is used to investigate in-situ the distribution of water throughout a self-humidifying proton-exchange membrane fuel cell, PEMFC, operating at ambient temperature and pressure on dry H(2)(g) and O(2)(g). The results provide the first experimental images of the in-plane distribution of water within the PEM of a membrane electrode assembly in an operating fuel cell. The effect of gas flow configuration on the distribution of water in the PEM and cathode flow field is investigated, revealing that the counter-flow configurations yield a more uniform distribution of water throughout the PEM. The maximum power output from the PEMFC, while operating under conditions of constant external load, occurs when H(2)O(l) is first visible in the (1)H NMR image of the cathode flow field, and subsequently declines as this H(2)O(l) continues to accumulate. The (1)H NMR microscopy experiments are in qualitative agreement with predictions from several theoretical modeling studies (e.g., Pasaogullari, U.; Wang, C. Y. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2005, 152, A380-A390), suggesting that combined theoretical and experimental approaches will constitute a powerful tool for PEMFC design, diagnosis, and optimization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207