Experimental and kinetic study of shock initiated ignition in homogeneous methane–hydrogen–air mixtures at engine‐relevant conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ignition delay time of two stoichiometric methane/hydrogen/air mixtures has been measured in a shock tube facility at pressures from 16 to 40 atm and temperatures from 1000 to 1300 K. Overall, the observed reduction in ignition delay with some methane replaced by hydrogen is relatively small given the large concentration of hydrogen involved in the current study. With a high hydrogen mole fraction (35% of the total fuel), a reduction of the ignition‐promoting effect was observed with reduced temperature. A detailed chemical kinetic mechanism was used to simulate ignitions of test mixtures behind reflected shocks. An analysis of the mechanism indicates that at higher temperatures, the rapid decomposition of hydrogen molecules leads to a quick formation of H radical pools, which promote the chain branching through H + O 2 ⇌ O + OH. At lower temperatures, the branching efficiency of hydrogen is low; a weak effect of hydrogen on methane ignition could be result from the reaction between H 2 and methylperoxy CH 3 O 2 , which contributes extra H radicals to the reaction system. The effects of hydrogen also decrease with increasing pressure; this is related to the negative pressure dependence of hydrogen at the second ignition limit. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Chem Kinet 38: 221–233, 2006
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".