An investigation of fuel composition and flow‐rate effects in a H<sub>2</sub>S fuelled sofc: Experiments and thermodynamic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrogen sulphide (H2S)‐fuelled solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) can potentially generate useful electrical energy while disposing of H2S, a toxic by‐product of the fossil fuel industry, on site. Experimental results from H2S fuelled SOFCs exhibit characteristics, for example, an unusual dependence of cell performance on fuel composition and flow‐rate, which are poorly explained in the literature. In this work we: (a) present results for experiments where the composition and flow‐rates were varied for both the fuel and oxidant streams to analyse their effect on fuel cell performance, and (b) develop and use a thermodynamic analysis to help understand these experimental results. Through this work, we shed further light on two basic questions unanswered so far, (1) Why does the flow‐rate of the fuel affect the open circuit potential of the fuel cell? (2) Which of the chemical species present in the fuel is oxidised on the anode? Our experiments and analysis suggest that H2S, and not H2 produced from H2S dissociation, is preferentially electro‐oxidised on the anode in our experiments. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".