Life Assessment of PM, Gaseous Emissions, and Oil Usage in Modern Marine Outboard Engines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, outboard engine technology has advanced significantly. With these new technologies comes a substantial improvement in emissions compared to traditional carbureted two-stroke engines. Some two-stroke gasoline direct injection (GDI) marine outboard engines are now capable of meeting California Air Resources Board 2008 Ultra-Low emissions standards. With improvement of gaseous emissions, studies are now being conducted to assess particulate matter (PM) emissions from all new technology marine outboard engines which include both four-stroke and two-stroke designs. Methods are currently being developed to determine the best way to measure PM from outboard engines. This study assesses gaseous and PM emissions, mutagenic activity of PM and oil consumption of two different technologies over the useful life of the engines. Water testing was performed on both engines to identify percentage of oil and grease present in a tank after running the engine according to the International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA) cycle. One of the most significant differences between lubricating oil usage from two-stroke and four-stroke engines is accountability of oil in terms of where it goes and who is responsible for it. Results are presented and a better understanding of effects of engine lubricating oil usage from both an environmental and legal standpoint is discussed. Final PM and gaseous emissions results averaged over the useful life of both engine technologies are very similar. The two-stroke GDI engine used 25% less oil over the 300 hour test program.
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 | 0.001 | 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".