The evaluation of hydrogen production of a multistage cooling system's performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present research, a new cycle of scramjet open recuperator cooling to produce power and hydrogen is presented. In which, the power generation subsection uses the waste heat in the scramjet cooling process as a cycle heat source and produces electric power. In this research, some of the power generated in the cycle is used to power a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) electrolyzer that produces hydrogen. An analysis of the energy and exergy has been conducted to assess the system's performance. With a fuel mass flow rate of 0.45 kg/s, the cooling capacity of the system is 10.2 MW, net power production is 4.1 MW, and 45.1 kg/h of hydrogen is produced. The exergy analysis revealed that the PEM electrolyzer had the highest exergy loss at over 48%, followed by the first cooling path at over 32%. The energy and exergy efficiency of the system are 14.2% and 19.2%, respectively. The parametric study indicated that increasing the mass flow rate leads to higher power production and cooling capacity. Additionally, at a constant fuel mass flow rate, power production increases with higher pressure behind the pump.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".