Investigation of liquid fuel combustion in a cross-flow burner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rotary swirl burner was employed for liquid fuel spray combustion in a cross-flow stream of air. The effect of fuel spray orientation on mixing dynamics with the swirled air was investigated for different nozzle angles, including -45°, 0°, and 45°, respectively, with a variable portion of the air (from 0 to 100 per cent) allowed to flow aligned with the spray without swirl. The effect of swirl on CO and NO x emissions was found to be dominated by the competitive influences of improved mixing and increased kinetic rates. For cross injector alignment with air, NO x emissions were reduced by increasing the co-current air flowdue to the improved premixing effect, while for inclined alignment its emissions exhibited a reduction by supplying enough air to the spray lee side. High swirl intensity (swirl number up to 12) and co-current/cross-flow combination produce a reduction in the unburned hydrocarbons. The enhancement in flame radiation output with swirl was pronounced by an increase to 1.9 times the output without swirl. Inserting a porous medium at the burner exit, increased the enhancement to 4.18 times and promoted droplet evaporation. Enlarging the re-circulation zone beneath the fuel injector to a certain extent improved mixing and combustion efficiency.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".