An Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Spark Ignition Engine Operation on H2, CO, CH4, and Their Mixtures
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 knock and combustion characteristics of CO, H2, CH4, and their mixtures were determined experimentally in a variable compression ratio spark ignition (SI) cooperative fuel research (CFR) engine. The significant effects of gaseous fuel mixtures containing H2 in enhancing the combustion and oxidation process of CH4 were examined. The unique combustion characteristics of CO in dry air and its distinct performance in mixtures with H-containing fuels were investigated. The addition of a simulated synthesis gas (2H2+CO) to CH4 was found to enhance the combustion process of the resulting mixture and lowers its knock resistance. The effectiveness of such an addition is slightly weaker than that of a comparable H2 addition but much stronger than that with CO addition only. A predictive model with detailed kinetic chemistry was used successfully to simulate SI engine operation fuelled with CH4, H2, CO, and their mixtures. The predicted engine performance and knock limits of CH4, H2, CO, and their mixtures agree well with experimental data with the exception around pure CO operation in dry air with the presence of small amounts of CH4 or H2. A remedial approach to improve the prediction of the knock limits of fuel mixtures containing mainly CO with a small amount of H-containing fuels such as H2 and CH4 was proposed and discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it