Feasibility study of the direct mechano-chemical synthesis of nanostructured magnesium tetrahydroaluminate (alanate) [Mg(AlH<sub>4</sub>)<sub>2</sub>] complex hydride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work reports a feasibility study of the direct mechano-chemical synthesis by controlled reactive mechanical alloying (CRMA) in a magneto-ball mill of the nanostructured magnesium tetrahydroaluminate (magnesium alanate) Mg(AlH(4))(2) complex hydride. Three stoichiometric Mg-2Al mixtures, (a) elemental Mg and Al powders, (b) elemental Al powder and commercial AZ91 alloy (Mg-Al-Zn alloy) and (c) powder of as-cast Mg-2Al alloy, have been used. No successful synthesis of Mg(AlH(4))(2) has been achieved. The only nanocrystalline hydride formed up to 270 h of CRMA is beta-MgH(2), and it does not react with Al and H(2) to form Mg(AlH(4))(2). It has been found that there is strong competition between formation of Al(Mg) solid solution and the beta-MgH(2) hydride occurring to a various extent up to approximately 10 h of CRMA in all three Mg-2Al mixtures. It is hypothesized that the presence of Al(Mg) solid solution inhibits the reaction of beta-MgH(2), Al and H(2) to form Mg(AlH(4))(2). Furthermore, despite the fact that after prolonged milling the Al(Mg) solution eventually decomposes into secondary Al(s) (derived from solid solution), the latter retains its physico-chemical characteristics of the former solid solution which still inhibits the reaction to form Mg(AlH(4))(2). Experimental evidence from DSC measurements shows increasing ranges of the melting enthalpy with increasing amounts of Al(Mg) solid solution and consequently the secondary Al(s) for all the three Mg-2Al mixtures. This strongly supports the hypothesis about the different nature of Al(Mg) and the secondary Al(s) as compared to the primary elemental Al powder.
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".