Carbons Suitable for Medium Pressure (6.9 MPa) Methane Storage
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 storage and delivery of natural gas using adsorbent carbon monoliths at 3.4 MPa is only about 75% that of natural gas compressed to 21 MPa on an equal volume basis. One possible way to increase ambient temperature adsorbed natural gas (ANG) storage is to simply increase the storage pressure. However, this will only be beneficial if there is unfilled micropore capacity within the carbon adsorbent. Carbons that have been optimized for storage at 3.4 MPa may not have sufficient micropore capacity to give increased storage at 6.9 MPa. In the present work, carbons have been prepared which are considered to be more useful for storage at 6.9 MPa than at 3.4 MPa due to their having an increased micropore volume fraction per monolith or storage volume. Although the pore wall separation of these carbons may not be ideal for maximum adsorbate density, these carbons showed that more than 180 v/v can be delivered from 6.9 MPa. This value approaches that of delivery from compressed natural gas (CNG) and exceeds it if the rectangular external envelope is considered as the realistic volume of the storage vessel. The results obtained clearly show the diminishing returns for methane adsorption storage with pressure increase. An increase of only about 30% in storage capacity was achieved from a doubling of the storage pressure from 3.4 MPa to 6.9 MPa.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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