4.7 Review

Combustion of hydrogen-air in catalytic micro-combustors made of different material

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 34, 期 8, 页码 3535-3545

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.01.032

关键词

Micro-combustor; Catalyst; Hydrogen; Material; Thermal conductivity

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [50606030]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20060335124]
  3. Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to University [B08026]
  4. National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars [50525620]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Micro-combustors have low stability, thus catalyst is applied to improve it. In this experiment, the performances of catalytic micro- combustors made of different materials (quartz glass, alumina ceramic, copper) are compared. Asbestine threads are used as the catalyst supports of Pt, and installed in the combustors. According to the experimental results, the combustors have high stability, they keep working until the extreme equivalence ratio close to 0. The stability limits of homogeneous reaction in the quartz glass and alumina ceramic combustor range from 0.0907 to 8.69 and 0.158 to 7.31 on average, respectively. But the two combustors exhibit obvious hot spots, which are 1058 and 728 K at 0.2 L/min, respectively. Whereas the copper combustor has low and uniform temperature distribution on its surface. Moreover, the heat loss in the quartz glass combustor is 4.13 W higher than in the copper one at 0.2 L/min, which is opposite to the conventional situation that heat loss increases with the wall thermal conductivity. Computational fluid dynamic simulation reveals that the reaction modes inside the combustors differ. The higher wall thermal conductivity makes the heterogeneous reaction dominate, thus induces the temperature distribution and heat loss aforementioned. (C) 2009 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据