Study on ignition delay of multi‐component syngas using shock tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ignition delays of four typical syngas mixtures were investigated using both experimental and simulated methods. The shock tube experiments were conducted behind the reflected shock waves at temperature ranges from 870 to 1 350 K, pressures of 0.2, 1.0 and 2.0 MPa. Six available kinetic models were evaluated by comparing them to the new ignition delay data obtained. NUIG C3 model was in good agreement with the experimental results. The effect of the pressure on ignition delay of all four syngas mixtures was similar to that of hydrogen. The promoting and inhibiting ignition were experimentally observed at high and moderate temperatures, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were conducted at different temperatures and pressures to identify the dominant elementary reactions in the ignition process of the syngas. The results indicated that the ignition delay was generally most sensitive to the chain branching reaction H + O2 = O + OH at both high and low temperatures. Decomposition reaction H2O (+M) = H + OH (+M) was of importance for the syngas with relative inert gas CO2 and N2 at a high temperature. The reaction CO + OH = CO2 + H involving CO kinetic dominated the ignition at a high temperature for the syngas with a high CO level. The inhibiting effect of pressure was attributed to the decrease of sensitivity of the reactions H + O2 = O + OH and O + H2 = H + OH and the increase of sensitivity of the reaction H + O2 (+M) = HO2 (+M) at a moderate‐low temperature.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".