MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110524494 · doi:10.5539/mas.v7n3p56

Experimental Research on Hydrogen and Hydrocarbon Fuel Ignition for Scramjet at Ma=4

2013· article· en· W2110524494 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wanzhou Zhang, LE Jia-ling, Shunhua Yang, Deng Weixing, Zhou Hua-bo

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnition systemHydrogenCombustorScramjetMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringCombustionNozzleThermodynamicsChemistryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ignition experiments of Hydrogen and Ethylene were performed on direct-connected pulse combustion facility. Air stagnation temperatures were 900 K and stagnation pressures were 0.8 MPa, the entrance Mach number was approximate 2.0 provided by a two-dimension nozzle. The experimental results indicate that: (1) Hydrogen self-ignition won’t occur at stagnation 935 K when it is injected upstream the cavity in this combustor model. But with low input power igniter, hydrogen can be ignited reliably. (2) Ethylene cannot be ignited with igniter only even at high igniter power. Under the assistant of both igniter and pilot Hydrogen, Ethylene can be ignited reliably and maintain stable combustion after the igniter and pilot hydrogen completely turned off. (3) The lowest equivalence ratio of pilot hydrogen for successful ethylene ignition is 0.05 below that ignition will fail. (4) When pilot hydrogen and igniters were both employed for ignition, the function of igniter is to ignite the hydrogen and the input power of igniter has no influence on ignition performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207