Soret Diffusion and Non‐Ideal Dufour Conduction in Macroporous Catalysts with Exothermic Chemical Reaction at Large Intrapellet Damköhler Numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The adiabatic temperature rise in catalytic pellets is predicted from a modified version of the Prater equation. Onsager reciprocal relations for coupled heat and mass transfer are violated in an analysis of thermal diffusion in macroporous catalysts with exothermic chemical reaction when Dufour conduction (i.e., the diffusion‐thermo effect) is neglected. In this contribution, Dufour conduction is analyzed for both ideal and non‐ideal pseudo‐binary gas mixtures that simulate the production of methanol from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. In the diffusion‐controlled regime at large intrapellet Damköhler numbers where intermolecular collisions provide the dominant resistance to mass transfer within the catalytic pores, temperatures in the catalytic core could be much greater than predictions based on the original Prater equation when the Prater number exceeds 0.30. The molecular flux of thermal energy includes Fourier's law, the interdiffusional flux, and Dufour conduction. Diffusional mass flux includes Fick's law and the Soret effect. All physicochemical properties of the reactive gas mixture exhibit temperature dependence. There is essentially no difference between maximum intrapellet temperature predictions that include or neglect ideal Dufour conduction when external catalytic surface temperatures range from 300‐400 K and thermal diffusion enhances the flux of “smaller” reactants toward the centre of the catalyst. For “large‐molecule reactants” that participate in exothermic reactions, thermal diffusion opposes Fick's law and Dufour conduction opposes Fourier's law. Under these conditions, it is demonstrated that core temperatures are overestimated by neglecting both off‐diagonal coupling mechanisms (i.e., Soret diffusion and Dufour conduction). Prater numbers greater than unity and unrealistically high gas pressures are required to distinguish between maximum intrapellet temperatures for ideal and real gas simulations, where the latter consider two‐body interactions for Lennard‐Jones molecules in the virial equation of state.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".