Evaluation of ash‐free coal for chemical looping combustion ‐ part I: Thermogravimetric single cycle study and the reaction mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, performance of ash‐free coal (AFC) was evaluated for chemical looping combustion (CLC) using CuO as an oxygen carrier during reduction and oxidation processes in a thermogravimetric (TG) analyzer. TG experiments with CuO/AFC mixture with different ratios (10:1–50:1) at various temperatures ranging from 450 to 900 °C were performed and the results were analyzed in greater detail for the best suitable ratio (R30). The CLC reaction mechanism includes release of volatile matter until 450 °C and auto‐ decomposition of CuO at 790 °C. CuO reduction induced by volatile matter from AFC occurred at temperatures below 450 °C. Char combustion induced by oxygen release from CuO occurred at about 800 °C as auto‐decomposition of CuO occurs at 790 °C. A slight loss in mass, observed between 450 °C and 790 °C, is attributed to solid‐solid interaction of char and CuO powder. Advanced analytical techniques such as XRD, SEM, and ultimate analyses were employed to characterize the oxygen carrier and to understand the possible interaction of the oxygen carrier with volatile matter and char. Overall, AFC as the solid fuel showed a promising oxidation/reduction performance and has great potential to be used in the CLC process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".