1993
DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(93)89221-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recombination of methyl radicals at high temperatures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
35
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both Du et al [6] and Hwang, Wagner, and Wolff [ 5 ] are at variance with the present work, the former by greater than their published error limits, and the later within their error limits. Hwang, Rabinowitz, and Gardiner [7] are also in agreement. One possible reason for differences in the measured rate coefficients is the variation in the methyl absorption coefficients used in each of these studies.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Both Du et al [6] and Hwang, Wagner, and Wolff [ 5 ] are at variance with the present work, the former by greater than their published error limits, and the later within their error limits. Hwang, Rabinowitz, and Gardiner [7] are also in agreement. One possible reason for differences in the measured rate coefficients is the variation in the methyl absorption coefficients used in each of these studies.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Even though the recombination of CH 3 radicals to C 2 H 6 (R14) is well established over a large temperature and pressure range 76, some uncertainty remains in the temperature dependence of the high‐pressure limit. Shock tube experiments 90–92, supported by theoretical studies 93,94, indicate a slightly negative temperature dependence, whereas other data 95–97, including the preferred expression from Baulch et al 76, advocate a temperature independent high‐pressure limit.…”
Section: Detailed Kinetic Modelmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…h Enhanced third-body efficiencies: Ar = 0.7, H 2 = 2, H 2 O = 6, CH 4 = 3, CO = 1.5, CO 2 = 2, C 2 H 6 = 3. i Enhanced third-body efficiencies: H 2 = 2, H 2 O = 5, CO = 2, CO 2 = 3. dependence of the high-pressure limit. Shock tube experiments [90][91][92], supported by theoretical studies [93,94], indicate a slightly negative temperature dependence, whereas other data [95][96][97], including the preferred expression from Baulch et al [76], advocate a temperature independent high-pressure limit.…”
Section: Hydrocarbon Subsetmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The latter dynamical test employs UB3LYP/6-31G* density functional representations of the potential energy surface for both evaluations. The plethora of experimental data for this prototypical reaction, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] especially near room temperature, makes this an ideal reaction for testing the full theoretical methodology. Meanwhile, comparisons with the large variety of prior theoretical studies 17,18, provide some indication of the appropriateness of their underlying assumptions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%