Influence of pyrolysis parameters on the formation of an aerosol from ethane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pyrolysis of ethane was performed in tubular reactors at temperatures from 1110 K to 1220 K, at pressures from 40 kPa to 80 kPa and at residence times from 1.4 s to 58 s. The formation of a fog was monitored using laser extinction. The boundaries of the regime of time, temperature and pressure in which a condensed phase was formed were delineated. Five simple analytical models were derived in order to analyze the kinetics of formation of this phase. The parameters in the models were fitted to the experimental data and were compared to the predictions of the kinetic theory. The most successful model involved a steady formation of precursors until a critical pressure was reached. Nucleation then occurred rapidly, followed by a steady growth of the volume of the particles. The temperature dependence of the inverse of the incubation period was determined to be In[(theta/s)(-1))] = -(200 +/- 30) kJ mol(-1)/RT + (20 +/- 4). The rate of particle growth was proportional to the square of the reactant pressure and followed the following Arrhenius expression: In[omega/s(-1)] = -(420 +/- 40) kJ mol(-1)/RT + (39 +/- 4). According to this model the heat of vaporization of the droplets was (210 +/- 50) kJ mol(-1). This was consistent with condensation of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons having molecular weights of about (460 +/- 110) g mol(-1). At longer residence times the attenuation of the laser beam reached a plateau. This was interpreted in terms of a decline in the rate of fog formation or in terms of the removal of droplets by deposition on the reactor surface.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".