Catalysis Mechanism and Application of Carbon Gasification Reaction-A Comparison of Two Heterogeneous Catalysis Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a brief summary article of research. The results of the three times experiments are reviewed. two heterogeneous catalysis mechanisms are introduced, namely: Chemical Reaction Mode Cyclic Catalysis Mechanism-CRM and Electron Cyclic Donate-Accept Catalysis Mechanism-ECDAM or Electron Orbital Deformation-Recovery Cyclic Catalysis Mechanism -EODRM. Some difficulties encountered by CRM are listed. The author clearly points out that the CRM is not credible. This false theory has misled us for more than 100 years. About ECDAM, the article also gives a brief description. The main point of ECDAM is that the catalysis phenomenon are physical rather than chemical phenomenon. The catalysts do not participate in chemical reactions. It's just contact, electron cyclic donate-accept or electron orbital deformation-recovery cycle. The theory contains three viewpoints: 1. There is a boundary between the catalyst and the poison. 2. The active of the catalyst or the degree of toxicity of the poison is closely related to the electronegative value of the catalyst or poison. 3. The active of catalyst is closely related to the chemical state of the catalyst The selectivity of catalyst is also related to electronegative or energy level According to ECDAM, the author considers that there are several problems worth studying in production and scientific research. such as: alumina is a poison in the Fe ammonia synthesis catalyst. The Cordierite (2MgO·2Al2O3·5SiO2) ceramic honeycomb support is also a poison in automotive exhaust purification catalyst. The Cordierite ceramic honeycomb is retardant in wall flow filter for diesel vehicles. Activated carbon is a poison in the Ruthenium catalyst for ammonia synthesis. Alumina and activated carbon all are a poison to noble metal catalysts, and so on.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".