Examination of the Flame Blowout Characteristics of a Jet Diffusion Flames Burner in Co- and Cross-Flowing Air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The blowout limit of a jet diffusion flame was shown experimentally to improve significantly through the introduction of an auxiliary fuel in the surrounding air. A small experimental burner was devised so that the auxiliary fuel could be introduced and controlled independently of the main jet fuel, through a number of small pilot jets uniformly distributed around the main central fuel jet. This burner arrangement eliminated the likelihood of a flame flashing back into the surrounding atmosphere and some fuel escaping combustion. The burner was tested with methane as the fuel both for the main jet and the auxiliary side jets. Tests were made for both co-flow and cross-flow air streams of uniform velocity. It is shown that the arrangement adopted for auxiliary fuel introduction produced improvements in the flame blowout limits of the burner under both types of surrounding flow conditions. For the conditions considered, the blowout limits were of higher values in cross flow than for the corresponding co-flowing air streams.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".