MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738223484 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.7b00275

Rapid and Low-Energy Fabrication of Symmetrical Solid Oxide Cells by Microwave Methods

2017· article· en· W2738223484 on OpenAlexafffund
Beatriz Molero-Sánchez, Emilio Morán, Viola Birss

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadAlberta InnovatesCarbon Management CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsMaterials scienceFabricationOxideAnodeCathodeElectrolysisCeramicElectrodeCatalysisChemical engineeringSinteringSolid oxide fuel cellNanotechnologyMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Solid oxide fuel cells are highly efficient, low-emission, and fuel-flexible energy conversion devices that can also run in reverse as solid oxide electrolysis cells, converting CO2 and/or H2O to useful fuels and pure O2. Our team has recently developed a highly promising mixed conducting oxide catalyst (La0.3Ca0.7Fe0.7Cr0.3O3−δ) that can be used at both the anode and cathode in either the fuel cell or electrolysis mode in a lower-cost symmetrical cell. However, there is still a need to improve material processing and cell manufacturing methods in this field. Here, we report, for the first time, fabrication of a symmetrical solid oxide cell, based on our very promising catalysts, using rapid, low-cost, low-energy, and green microwave (MW) processing techniques. These cells were fabricated with MW-sintered powders and were then MW-sintered without the use of any MW susceptors inside the electrode layers or any additional presintering steps. The catalyst layers show very stable nanostructures and do not delaminate, and the cells exhibit reaction rates that are similar to those obtained using normal ceramic processing methods. Importantly, the powder preparation and cell sintering steps, carried out using MW methods, require only ca. 1/3 and 1/9 of the time/energy, respectively, versus those required in traditional furnace methods, thus translating to significant cost savings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel CellsFrench-language works237,207