The Influence of Ethanol Blending in Diesel fuel on the Spray and Spray Combustion Characteristics
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
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The influence of ethanol blending in Diesel fuel on the spray and spray combustion characteristics was investigated by performing experiments in an optically accessible high-pressure / high-temperature spray chamber under non-evaporating, evaporating and combusting conditions. Three fuels were investigated<b>:</b> (1) Diesel - a European Diesel based on the EN590 standard; (2) E10 - a blend of Diesel containing 10% ethanol and 2% emulsion additive; and (3) E20 - a blend of Diesel containing 20% ethanol and 2% emulsion additive. A constant gas density of 24.3 kg/m<sup>3</sup> was maintained under non-evaporating (30 °C, 21.1 bar), evaporating (350 °C, 43.4 bar), low combustion temperature (550 °C, 57.3 bar) and high combustion temperature (600 °C, 60 bar) conditions. A single-hole injector with a nozzle diameter of 0.14 mm was used and injection pressure was held constant at 1350 bar. Various optical methods were used to characterize the non-combusting and combusting sprays.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Despite the differences in the fuels' compositions, they did not differ significantly with respect to their liquid phase spray penetrations or cone angles under non-evaporating or evaporating conditions. However, under combusting conditions, reducing the ambient temperature increased the ignition delay and delayed the onset of soot formation for all fuels. Under equivalent combustion conditions, E10 and E20 had longer ignition and soot formation delays than Diesel. As the ethanol content of the fuel was increased from 0% to 20%, the lift-off length increased and the detectable soot luminescence decreased.</div></div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it