Impacts of multiple pilot diesel injections on the premixed combustion of ethanol fuel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engine experiments were carried out to study the impact of multiple pilot injections of a diesel fuel on dual-fuel combustion with a premixed ethanol fuel, using compression ignition. Because of the contrasting volatility and the reactivity characteristics of the two fuels, the appropropriate scheduling of pilot diesel injections in a high-pressure direct-injection process is found to be effective for improving the clean and efficient combustion of ethanol which is premixed with air using a low-pressure port injection. The timing and duration of each of the multiple pilot injections were investigated, in conjunction with the use of exhaust gas recirculation and intake air boosting to accommodate the variations in the engine load. For correct fuel and air management, an early pilot injection of fuel acted effectively as the reactivity improver to the background ethanol, whereas a late pilot injection acted deterministically to initiate combustion. The experimental results further revealed a set of pilot injection strategies which resulted in an increased ethanol ratio, thereby reducing the emission reductions while retaining a moderate pressure rise rate during combustion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".