Temperature, pressure, and compositional effects on anomalous or "self" preservation of gas hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported on a thermal regime where pure, polycrystalline methane hydrate is preserved metastably in bulk at up to 75 K above its nominal temperature stability limit of 193 K at 0.1 MPa, following rapid release of the sample pore pressure. Large fractions (>50 vol.% ) of methane hydrate can be preserved for 23 weeks by this method, reflecting the greatly suppressed rates of dissociation that characterize this "anomalous preservation" regime. This behavior contrasts that exhibited by methane hydrate at both colder (193240 K) and warmer (272290 K) isothermal test conditions, where dissociation rates increase monotonically with increasing temperature. Here, we report on recent experiments that further investigate the effects of temperature, pressure, and composition on anomalous preservation behavior. All tests conducted on sI methane hydrate yielded self-consistent results that confirm the highly temperature-sensitive but reproducible nature of anomalous preservation behavior. Temperature-stepping experiments conducted between 250 and 268 K corroborate the relative rates measured previously in isothermal preservation tests, and elevated pore-pressure tests showed that, as expected, dissociation rates are further reduced with increasing pressure. Surprisingly, sII methaneethane hydrate was found to exhibit no comparable preservation effect when rapidly depressurized at 268 K, even though it is thermodynamically stable at higher temperatures and lower pressures than sI methane hydrate. These results, coupled with SEM imaging of quenched sample material from a variety of dissociation tests, strongly support our earlier arguments that ice-"shielding" effects provided by partial dissociation along hydrate grain surfaces do not serve as the primary mechanism for anomalous preservation. The underlying physical-chemistry mechanism(s) of anomalous preservation remains elusive, but appears to be based more on textural or morphological changes within the hydrate material itself, rather than on compositional zoning or ice-rind development. PACS Nos.: 82.30Lp, 81.40Gh, 81.40Vw, 68.37Hk, 83.80Nb
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".