Investigation of Potential Fuels for Hybrid Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell-Based Aircraft Propulsion Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative fuels and innovative powering systems are recognized as essential for clean and sustainable aviation practices, performance improvements and emission reductions. This paper proposes a new hybrid turbofan and molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) system consisting of a steam reformer, a water gas shift reactor, and a catalytic burner. Five potential fuels are employed, including ethanol, methane, hydrogen, dimethyl ether, and methanol with different mass fractions to constitute five fuel blends. Thermodynamic analyses are conducted to study the proposed hybrid MCFC-turbofan performance, and the results are compared with a kerosene-based turbofan. It is found that a traditional turbofan performance can produce 42 MW with 59% energetic efficiency and 71% exergetic efficiency, whereas the hybrid MCFC turbofan can produce 40 MW by mixing all the five alternative fuels, but with higher performance of 65% and 80% energetic and exergetic efficiencies, respectively. Also, the CO 2 emissions are substantially reduced by 75%. The fuel blends provide better performance and much lower CO 2 emissions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".