Mechanical and Thermal Dehydrogenation of Lithium Alanate (LiAlH4) and Lithium Amide (LiNH2) Hydride Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen storage properties of the (nLiAlH4 + LiNH2) hydride composite where n = 1, 3, 11.5 and 30, synthesized by high energy ball milling have been investigated. The composite with the molar ratio n = 1 releases large quantities of H2 (up to ~5 wt.%) during ball milling up to 100–150 min. The quantity of released H2 rapidly decreases for the molar ratio n = 3 and is not observed for n = 11.5 and 30. The XRD studies indicate that the H2 release is a result of a solid state decomposition of LiAlH4 into (1/3)Li3AlH6 + (2/3)Al + H2 and subsequently decomposition of (1/3)Li3AlH6 into LiH + (1/3)Al + 0.5H2. Apparently, LiAlH4 is profoundly destabilized during ball milling by the presence of a large quantity of LiNH2 (37.7 wt.%) in the n = 1 composite. The rate of dehydrogenation at 100–170 °C (at 1 bar H2) is adversely affected by insufficient microstructural refinement, as observed for the n = 1 composite, which was milled for only 2 min to avoid H2 discharge during milling. XRD studies show that isothermal dehydrogenation of (nLiAlH4 + LiNH2) occurs by the same LiAlH4 decomposition reactions as those found during ball milling. The ball milled n = 1 composite stored under Ar at 80 °C slowly discharges large quantities of H2 approaching 3.5 wt.% after 8 days of storage.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".