K<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub>-Catalyzed CO<sub>2</sub> Gasification of Ash-Free Coal: Kinetic Study
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 kinetics of K 2 CO 3 -catalyzed CO 2 gasification of ash-free coal was investigated with a thermogravimetric analyzer and compared to raw coal and uncatalyzed ash-free coal. At 750 °C, the gasification of ash-free coal dry mixed with 20 wt % K 2 CO 3 was approximately 3 and 60 times faster than the raw coal and ash-free coal without catalyst, respectively. Increasing the amount of catalyst from 20 to 45 wt % increased the gasification rate 3-fold. The gasification rate of ash-free coal containing potassium catalyst strongly depended upon the pretreatment (i.e., heating gas atmosphere and heating time) because it directly affected the degree of catalyst reduction. The catalytic gasification behavior could only be predicted with the extended random pore model, whereas the random pore model and integrated model were essentially equal for fitting the gasification rate for raw and ash-free coal. The activation energy for the catalyzed ash-free coal gasification was approximately 100 kJ mol –1 larger than for raw coal and the uncatalyzed ash-free coal. This increase might be due to the energy required for the potassium (i.e., catalyst) transfer to a new carbon site or caused by the pyrolysis process, because the formed char might have different properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it