A multi-probe thermophoretic soot sampling system for high-pressure diffusion flames
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
Optical diagnostics and physical probing of the soot processes in high pressure combustion pose challenges that are not faced in atmospheric flames. One of the preferred methods of studying soot in atmospheric flames is in situ thermophoretic sampling followed by transmission electron microscopy imaging and analysis for soot sizing and morphology. The application of this method of sampling to high pressures has been held back by various operational and mechanical problems. In this work, we describe a rotating disk multi-probe thermophoretic soot sampling system, driven by a microstepping stepper motor, fitted into a high-pressure chamber capable of producing sooting laminar diffusion flames up to 100 atm. Innovative aspects of the sampling system design include an easy and precise control of the sampling time down to 2.6 ms, avoidance of the drawbacks of the pneumatic drivers used in conventional thermophoretic sampling systems, and the capability to collect ten consecutive samples in a single experimental run. Proof of principle experiments were performed using this system in a laminar diffusion flame of methane, and primary soot diameter distributions at various pressures up to 10 atm were determined. High-speed images of the flame during thermophoretic sampling were recorded to assess the influence of probe intrusion on the flow field of the flame.
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