Experimental Investigation on the Performance of a Formic Acid Electrolyte-Direct Methanol Fuel Cell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a new methanol fuel cell that utilizes a liquid formic acid electrolyte, named the formic acid electrolyte-direct methanol fuel cell (FAE-DMFC) is experimentally investigated. This fuel cell type has the capability of recycling/washing away methanol, without the need of methanol-electrolyte separation. Three fuel cell configurations were examined: a flowing electrolyte and two circulating electrolyte configurations. From these three configurations, the flowing electrolyte and the circulating electrolyte, with the electrolyte outlet routed to the anode inlet, provided the most stable power output, where minimal decay in performance and less than 3% and 5.6% variation in power output were observed in the respective configurations. The flowing electrolyte configuration also yielded the greatest power output by as much as 34%. Furthermore, for the flowing electrolyte configuration, several key operating conditions were experimentally tested to determine the optimal operating points. It was found that an inlet concentration of 2.2 M methanol and 6.5 M formic acid, as along with a cell temperature of 52.8 °C provided the best performance. Since this fuel cell has a low optimal operating temperature, this fuel cell has potential applications for handheld portable devices.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".