Understanding decomposition and encapsulation energies of structure I and II clathrate hydrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When compressed with water or ice under high pressure and low temperature conditions, some gases form solid gas hydrate inclusion compounds which have higher melting points than ice under those pressures. In this work, we study the balance of the guest-water and water-water interaction energies that lead to the formation of the clathrate hydrate phases. In particular, molecular dynamics simulations with accurate water potentials are used to study the energetics of the formation of structure I (sI) and II (sII) clathrate hydrates of methane, ethane, and propane. The dissociation enthalpy of the clathrate hydrate phases, the encapsulation enthalpy of methane, ethane, and propane guests in the corresponding phases, and the average bonding enthalpy of water molecules are calculated and compared with accurate calorimetric measurements and previous classical and quantum mechanical calculations, when available. The encapsulation energies of methane, ethane, and propane guests stabilize the small and large sI and sII hydrate cages, with the larger molecules giving larger encapsulation energies. The average water-water interactions are weakened in the sI and sII phases compared to ice. The relative magnitudes of the van der Waals potential energy in ice and the hydrate phases are similar, but in the ice phase, the electrostatic interactions are stronger. The stabilizing guest-water "hydrophobic" interactions compensate for the weaker water-water interactions and stabilize the hydrate phases. A number of common assumptions regarding the guest-cage water interactions are used in the van der Waals-Platteeuw statistical mechanical theory to predict the clathrate hydrate phase stability under different pressure-temperature conditions. The present calculations show that some of these assumptions may not accurately reflect the physical nature of the interactions between guest molecules and the lattice waters.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".