Comparison of Three Evaporation Models Combined to the Distillation Curve Model for Multicomponent Fuel Droplet Evaporation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present a validation of the distillation curve (DC) model with experimental results. Along this validation, three different droplet heating and vaporization models are also compared to see how well they are able to predict the droplet change of diameter. As the DC model requires knowing the distillation curve of complex fuel, it is proposed to use a simplified distillation curve based only on the boiling range temperatures which is more easily known than the exact distillation curve of a given fuel. The simulation results with kerosene fuel show that models 1 and 2 show exactly the same droplet lifetime and temperature profiles under quiescent hot environment. However, the behavior is different when forced convection is present. The simplified DC model capture the general behavior of multicomponent fuel evaporation process. Finally, an experiment was conducted with a suspended droplet of gasoline and all three models show different temperature and diameter profiles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it