Stabilization of Methane Hydrate by Pressurization with He or N<sub>2</sub> Gas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of methane hydrate was investigated after it was pressurized with helium or nitrogen gas in a test system by monitoring the gas compositions. The results obtained indicate that even when the partial pressure of methane gas in such a system is lower than the equilibrium pressure at a certain temperature, the dissociation rate of methane hydrate is greatly depressed by pressurization with helium or nitrogen gas. This phenomenon is only observed when the total pressure of methane and helium (or nitrogen) gas in the system is greater than the equilibrium pressure required to stabilize methane hydrate with just methane gas. The following model has been proposed to explain the observed phenomenon: (1) Gas bubbles develop at the hydrate surface during hydrate dissociation, and there is a pressure balance between the methane gas inside the gas bubbles and the external pressurizing gas (methane and helium or nitrogen), as transmitted through the water film; as a result the methane gas in the gas bubbles stabilizes the hydrate surface covered with bubbles when the total gas pressure is greater than the equilibrium pressure of the methane hydrate at that temperature; this situation persists until the gas in the bubbles becomes sufficiently dilute in methane or until the surface becomes bubble-free. (2) In case of direct contact of methane hydrate with water, the water surrounding the hydrate is supersaturated with methane released upon hydrate dissociation; consequently, methane hydrate is stabilized when the hydrostatic pressure is above the equilibrium pressure of methane hydrate at a certain temperature, again until the dissolved gas at the surface becomes sufficiently dilute in methane. In essence, the phenomenon is due to the presence of a nonequilibrium state where there is a chemical potential gradient from the solid hydrate particles to the bulk solution that exists as long as solid hydrate remains.
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".