Review and Hypothesis for the Stress Corrosion Mechanism of Carbon Steel in Alcohols
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of carbon steel in oxygenated ethanol (C2H5OH) or methanol (CH3OH) is reviewed. This kind of cracking is almost certainly not due to hydrogen embrittlement, since a marked reduction in maximum load is seen in slow strain rate testing. The load-extension behavior resembles that seen in environments where an “anodic” cracking mechanism—not necessarily slip-dissolution—is believed to operate. The crack path can be either intergranular or cleavage-like transgranular, depending on the details of the environment. The transgranular fracture mode is particularly significant mechanistically, since it suggests some commonality with other peculiar SCC environments such as anhydrous ammonia (NH3) and carbon monoxide-carbon dioxide-water (CO-CO2-H2O). Alcohols themselves are not known to have any particular aggressive effect on iron, so a reasonable hypothesis is that the alcohol is being oxidized in the cracks to something that causes SCC. Literature on direct-alcohol fuel-cell anodes, alcohol sensors, and free-radical oxidation of alcohols is cited, and critical experiments are suggested. It is proposed that acetic acid (CH3COOH) or formic acid (HCOOH), and carbon monoxide (CO), in varying proportions, are responsible for SCC in alcoholic environments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it