MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070458366 · doi:10.1002/fuce.200400087

Modeling Methanol Crossover by Diffusion and Electro‐Osmosis in a Flowing Electrolyte Direct Methanol Fuel Cell

2005· article· en· W2070458366 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Kjeang, John Goldak, Mohammad R. Golriz, Jun Gu, David James, Karl Kordesch

Bibliographic record

VenueFuel Cells · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsFuelCell Energy (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteDirect methanol fuel cellCathodeAnodeMethanolDiffusionChemistryChemical engineeringMethanol fuelMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsChromatographyElectrodeOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A CFD model is created to analyze methanol transport in a flowing electrolyte direct methanol fuel cell (FE‐DMFC) by solving the 3D advection‐diffusion equation, with consideration of electro‐osmosis. The average methanol flux at the anode and cathode surfaces is simulated and compared to equivalent direct methanol fuel cells. Methanol crossover is defined as methanol flux at the cathode surface, and the results reveal that methanol crossover can be drastically reduced by the flowing electrolyte. The performance of the FE‐DMFC at peak power current density is evaluated, and diffusion is shown to be the dominant contribution, although electro‐osmosis increases with current density. The power consumption of the electrolyte pump is shown to be negligible compared to the cell power output. This indicates that thin electrolyte channels with high flow rates could further improve the efficiency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuel CellsSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207