A Numerical Study on the Effect of CO Addition on Flame Temperature and NO Formation in Counterflow CH4/Air Diffusion Flames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical study was carried out to understand the effect of carbon monoxide enrichment on flame temperature and NO formation in counterflow methane/air diffusion flames. Detailed chemistry and complex thermal and transport properties were employed. The results indicate that when carbon monoxide is added to the fuel, both flame temperature and NO formation rate are changed due to the variations in adiabatic flame temperature, fuel Lewis number and chemical reaction. The combination effects of three factors result in the different characteristics of flame temperature and NO formation at various strain rates, when carbon monoxide is added. At a low strain rate, the addition of carbon monoxide causes a monotonic decrease in flame temperature and peak NO concentration. However, NO emission index first slightly increases, and then decreases. When the value of strain rate is moderate, the addition of carbon monoxide has negligible effect on flame temperature and leads to a slight increase in both peak NO concentration and NO emission index, until the fraction of carbon monoxide reaches about 0.7. Then with a further increase in the fraction of added carbon monoxide, all three quantities quickly decrease. When strain rate is increased to a value close to the strain extinction limit of pure methane/air diffusion flame, the addition of carbon monoxide causes increase in flame temperature and NO formation rate, until a critical carbon monoxide fraction is reached. After the critical fraction, the further addition of carbon monoxide leads to decrease in both flame temperature and NO formation rate. The paper also analyzed the variation in the mechanism of NO formation, when carbon monoxide is added.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".