Multiple physical field coupling simulation of high current lithium electrolyzer in industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The electric field, thermal field, and velocity field in a 60 kA diaphragmless lithium electrolyzer are studied by multiple physical field coupling simulations. The current density distribution, the balance of heat generation, heat dissipation, and the flow field distribution of the lithium electrolyzer are discussed. The velocity distribution is solved by the Euler–Euler two‐phase flow model, and the turbulent flow of electrolyte is solved by the k–ε method. The results show that in an electric‐heat field, there is a constant ratio of current loss, and the current density distribution is not uniform. The electrolyte temperature is evenly distributed, wherein thermal radiation plays a dominant role. In addition, it is found that the velocity distribution of the end‐side interpolar space and the inside interpolar space is different. The influence of electrode distance in the range of 30~60 mm on the flow field is investigated, and the dominance of the electrode distance effect and the eddy current effect is analyzed. The optimal range of electrode distance is 40~50 mm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".