MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2060858149 · doi:10.1115/2000-gt-0551

A Prototype for the First Commercial Pressurized Fuel Cell System

2000· article· en· W2060858149 on OpenAlexaff
Sy A. Ali, Robert R. Moritz

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Combustion and Fuels; Oil and Gas Applications; Cycle Innovations · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsFord Motor Company (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationMolten carbonate fuel cellElectricity generationProcess engineeringElectricitySolid oxide fuel cellEnergy storageElectric power systemEngineeringManufacturing engineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High temperature fuel cell stacks of commercially significant power (>100 kW) have emerged during the last 10 years. Five US programs, two Molten Carbonate and three Solid Oxide were recently awarded feasibility study funding from US Department of Energy (DOE) to define products which could achieve at least 70% efficiency to electricity. The Department of Energy believes that these pressurized fuel cell systems will become an important part of the future power generation soruces. In support of these views, Rolls-Royce has joined fuel cell manufacturers to develop pressurized fuel cell plants which can be marketed successfully to end users. In selecting technology which should be supported, RR-Allison considered the following critical issues: technology with US business focus; technology with potential for near term commercialization; and technology which would lead into second generation fuel cell system development over long term. The Rolls-Royce plan is to join the DOE initiative through the pressurized Molten Carbonate program which has been funded as “Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) Product Design and Improvement.” The paper outlines the functional and commercial issues to be evaluated during the proof of concept tests of the first pressurized MCFC power generation package. The key factors to be evaluated during the test program in current order of priority are: • operational stability • power output and system availability • cost reduction potential • system simplification for commercial power generation application • enhanced reliability • power quality • grid interconnection

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Coal, Biomass and Alternative Fuels; Combustion and Fuels; Oil and Gas Applications; Cycle Innovations→Same topicFuel Cells and Related Materials→French-language works237,207→