Pressure swing permeation: Novel process for gas separation by membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel process for gas separation, called pressure swing permeation, was investigated to elevate the relatively low permeate pressure by pressurization with high‐pressure feed gas, thereby reducing or eliminating additional permeate compression costs where a pressurized permeate is required. This process uses two or more membrane modules and operates in a cyclic fashion, with each module repeatedly undergoing the sequential steps of feed admission and permeation, residual removal, permeate reception, permeate pressurization, and product withdrawal. The unsteady‐state permeation associated with pressure swing permeation was studied parametrically, and a bench‐scale unit compromising two hollow‐fiber membrane modules in parallel was tested for H 2 /N 2 separation to demonstrate the effectiveness of the process. The permeate product at a pressure as high as the feed pressure can be produced without using a compressor. This is impossible with traditional steady‐state processes where a pressure differential across the membrane must be maintained. The pressure swing permeation is analogous to pressure swing adsorption and has the potential to be synergistically integrated with the pressure swing adsorption process for enhanced separation of gases.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".