4.4 Article

Near-wall measurements of the bubble- and Lorentz-force-driven convection at gas-evolving electrodes

期刊

EXPERIMENTS IN FLUIDS
卷 56, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00348-015-2029-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG [CI 185]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical energy storage systems, e.g., in the form of hydrogen or methanol, have a great potential for the establishment of volatile renewable energy sources due to the large energy density. The efficiency of hydrogen production through water electrolysis is, however, limited by gas bubbles evolving at the electrode's surface and can be enhanced by an accelerated bubble detachment. In order to characterize the complex multi-phase flow near the electrode, simultaneous measurements of the fluid velocities and the size and trajectories of hydrogen bubbles were performed in a water electrolyzer. The liquid phase velocity was measured by PIV/PTV, while shadowgraphy was used to determine the bubble trajectories. Special measurement and evaluation techniques had to be applied as the measurement uncertainty is strongly affected by the high void fraction close to the wall. In particular, the application of an advanced PTV scheme allowed for more precise fluid velocity measurements closer to electrode. Based on these data, stability characteristics of the near-wall flow were evaluated and compared to that of a wall jet. PTV was used as well to investigate the effect of Lorentz forces on the near-wall fluid velocities. The results show a significantly increased wall parallel liquid phase velocity with increasing Lorentz forces. It is presumed that this enhances the detachment of hydrogen bubbles from the electrode surface and, consequently, decreases the fractional bubble coverage and improves the efficiency. In addition, the effect of large rising bubbles with path oscillations on the near-wall flow was investigated. These bubbles can have a strong impact on the mass transfer near the electrode and thus affect the performance of the process.

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

4.4
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