MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897560397 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b08498

Supersonic Microwave Plasma: Potential and Limitations for Energy-Efficient CO<sub>2</sub> Conversion

2018· article· en· W2897560397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Vermeiren, Annemie Bogaerts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlasma Applications and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMicrowaveSupersonic speedPlasmaMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer sciencePhysicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supersonic flows provide a high thermodynamic nonequilibrium, which is crucial for energy-efficient conversion of CO 2 in microwave plasmas and are therefore of great interest. However, the effect of the flow on the chemical reactions is poorly understood. In this work, we present a combined flow and plasma chemical kinetics model of a microwave CO 2 plasma in a Laval nozzle setup. The effects of the flow field on the different dissociation and recombination mechanisms, the vibrational distribution, and the vibrational transfer mechanism are discussed. In addition, the effect of experimental parameters, like position of power deposition, outlet pressure, and specific energy input, on the CO 2 conversion and energy efficiency is examined. The short residence time of the gas in the plasma region, the shockwave, and the maximum critical heat, and thus power, that can be added to the flow to avoid thermal choking are the main obstacles to reaching high energy efficiencies.

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicPlasma Applications and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207