Optical Studies of Spray Development and Combustion Characterization of Oxygenated and Fischer-Tropsch Fuels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical studies of combusting diesel sprays were done on three different alternative liquid fuels and compared to Swedish environmental class 1 diesel fuel (MK1). The alternative fuels were Rapeseed Oil Methyl Ester (RME), Palm Oil Methyl Ester (PME) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuel. The studies were carried out in the Chalmers High Pressure High Temperature spray rig under conditions similar to those prevailing in a direct-injected diesel engine prior to injection. High speed shadowgraphs were acquired to measure the penetration of the continuous liquid phase, droplets and ligaments, and vapor penetration. Flame temperatures and relative soot concentrations were measured by emission based, line-of-sight, optical methods. A comparison between previous engine tests and spray rig experiments was conducted in order to provide a deeper explanation of the combustion phenomena in the engine tests. Results pertaining to spray behavior show that high viscosity fuels have wider spray cone angles, smaller discharge coefficients (Cd) and shorter vapor penetration than low viscosity fuels. Continuous liquid phase penetration is related to differences in surface tension, viscosity and density; while the penetration of droplets and ligaments is related to volatility, their penetration is short for highly volatile fuels and long for low-volatility fuels. Engine tests show that particle matter (PM) emissions are generally lower when these alternative fuels are used, but the use of RME leads to increased NOx emissions correlating with elevated flame temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".