Development of novel intermetallic compounds and solid solution systems as hydrogen storage devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the limitations surrounding the exploitation of hydrogen as a fuel is the difficulty in storing it economically and conveniently. At present, hydrogen is typically stored as a compressed gas or as a cryogenic liquid. However, neither method is very appealing. Gaseous storage requires a large volume and/or weight of storage vessels, while liquid hydrogen requires a rather expensive liquification process and some energy as well. Another possibility for storage that is currently being studied and utilized is metal hydrides. The hydrogen reacts with the metals and forms metal hydrides. Storing hydrogen as a metal hydride has many advantages. Firstly, hydrogen can be stored in metal hydrides more efficiently (in terms of volume) than as liquid, or even solid, hydrogen. Secondly, the formation reaction is easily reversible. The formation of the hydride is an exothermic and usually spontaneous reaction, but the hydrogen can easily be recovered by heating the hydride. Therefore, the metal hydride can be classified as a safe method of storing hydrogen since the hydrides are generally stable below their dissociation temperatures. Moreover, the self-cooling effect will slow down and eventually stop any loss of hydrogen if a leak is developed in the storage system. Several metal hydrides have been developed, but none of them satisfies all these requirements. Some of the more common drawbacks of the currently available materials are that (a) hydrogen-metal ratios are too low, (b) metals involved are too costly, (c) the absorption or release of hydrogen is difficult, slow or sensitive to poisoning phenomena and (d) significant hysteresis is exhibited. The available materials for hydrogen storage are briefly reviewed and a more detailed overview is given of two classes of materials that are being developed in the author's laboratory, namely zirconium-based Laves phase intermetallic compound and body-centred cubic solid solutions based on niobium.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".