Rational design strategy for optimization of clamping pressure to minimize contact resistance between electrode and current collector while preserving porosity of electrodes in water electrolyzers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The compressive clamping pressure at the interface of gas‐diffusion‐layer (GDL) and current collector decreases the contact resistance between them though it reduces the porosity and surface roughness of electrocatalysts, which would in turn decrease the efficiency of an electrolyzer. We explore these issues of trade‐off between porosity versus contact resistance and provide a design heuristic for optimum clamping pressure. The present work provides an estimate of the optimal value of clamping pressure for an alkaline water electrolyzer having membrane electrode assembly (MEA), taking account of the variation in porosity of catalyst layers and contact resistance obtained via half‐cell studies performed at different pressures. Towards this, we define the performance‐index (Φ) which is the ratio of Faradaic current density and resistances resulting from contact‐interfaces in electrolyzers and we suggest that the maxima in Φ corresponds to optimum clamping pressure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".