A Simplified Approach to Modeling the Rate of Formation of Gas Hydrates Formed from Mixtures of Gases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were conducted in a semibatch stirred tank reactor, equipped with an in situ particle size analyzer, to study the rate of formation of hydrates from mixtures of carbon dioxide and methane. Two gas mixtures of CO 2 (1) + CH 4 (2), one with x 1 = 0.4 and the other with x 1 = 0.6, were used in the current study. The experimental temperature ranged from 274 to 276 K and the experimental pressure ranged from 20 to 27 bar absolute. The range of temperatures was bounded by the freezing point of water and the temperature at which the CO 2 vapor pressure curve intersects the methane hydrate curve. Initially, the results were analyzed using the kinetic model of Englezos et al. ( Chem. Eng. Sci. 1987, 42, 2659−2666). After a careful re-examination of the model of Englezos et al., it was realized that the mathematical model for gas hydrate formation from gas mixtures could be simplified by directly incorporating the hydrate phase stoichiometry. The new approach has the added advantage that the intrinsic rate constant of gas hydrate formation is required for only a single component. Thus, a new approach was proposed to model the kinetics of gas hydrate formation from a mixture of gases, and the results from these predictions were compared to the results obtained using the model of Englezos et al. The root-mean squares of the relative errors between the experimental results and the predictions of the new model and the model of Englezos et al. were found to be 2.70% and 4.29%, respectively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".