Experimental Investigation into the Dissociation Behavior of CH<sub>4</sub>–C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>–C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>8</sub> Hydrates in Sandy Sediments by Depressurization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissociation kinetics of gas hydrate formed from binary CH 4 –C 3 H 8 and ternary CH 4 –C 2 H 6 –C 3 H 8 gas mixtures were studied by a gas-collection-analysis method at constant back-pressure and different temperatures. During hydrate dissociation, the gas produced was first collected by sample bags consecutively and then analyzed by gas chromatography. It was found that the gas production of the mixed hydrates was quite different from that of methane hydrate. Interestingly, the molar composition of C 3 H 8 in the gas mixture produced changed little as hydrate dissociation proceeded. The retainment of C 3 H 8 in hydrates was confirmed with the calculation results of composition of hydrates remained during gas production. The preferential of CH 4 and C 2 H 6 over C 3 H 8 molecules released from hydrate decomposition was attributed to the difference in guest-to-cavity size ratios. The heterogeneous dissociation of the multiple guests complicates the gas production process as the remaining hydrate rich in C 3 H 8 may act as a barrier to gas diffusion. The self-preservation model for CH 4 hydrate dissociation below ice point was applied to describe the heterogeneous dissociation of the mixed hydrates, suggesting that the dissociation kinetics of the mixed hydrates containing C 3 H 8 above ice point was similar to that of CH 4 hydrate below ice point. These results are of interest for the gas recovery from hydrates, and for natural gas storage and transportation in the hydrate state.
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 | 0.000 | 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".