MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969524601 · doi:10.1115/icef2005-1295

Effect of Hydrogen Content in Hydrogen Natural-Gas Fuel Mixtures on Emissions in a Lean-Burn IC Engine

2005· article· en· W1969524601 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Salanki, James S. Wallace

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNOxHydrogenCombustionLean burnNatural gasHydrocarbonEnvironmental scienceWaste managementHydrogen productionChemistryEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of hydrogen content in hydrogen-natural gas fuel mixtures on the emissions of a lean-burn spark ignition engine has been examined under representative operating conditions, a mid load and a high load. The hydrogen content in the fuel gas mixtures was varied from 0 to 30% with the balance made up of natural gas. The primary effect on emissions was to influence the tradeoff between NOx and hydrocarbon emissions. At the mid-load condition, increasing the hydrogen content from 0 to 15% at constant equivalence ratio reduced the HC emissions by 80% with little change in NOx emissions. Increasing from 15 to 30% hydrogen content reduced the HC emissions a further 50% but increased the NOx emissions by 16%. At the high load condition, the overall result of increasing the hydrogen content was to increase the NOx emissions substantially without significantly reducing the HC emissions. The impact of increasing hydrogen content on engine efficiency is similar to the impact on hydrocarbon emissions. At the mid-load condition, engine efficiency was increased by increasing hydrogen content, but with diminishing returns. An increase from 0 to 5% hydrogen content provides a significant benefit under marginal combustion conditions but further increases in hydrogen content are less effective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207