MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740819966

The effect of CO addition on extinction limits and NOx formation in lean counterflow CH4/air premixed flames

2005· article· en· W2740819966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongsheng Guo, Gregory J. Smallwood

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlammability limitNOxPremixed flameStoichiometryEquivalence ratioExtinction (optical mineralogy)ChemistryDiffusion flameCombustionLaminar flame speedAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyOrganic chemistryCombustor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of CO addition on flame extinction and NOX formation in counterflow lean premixed CH4/air flames was investigated by numerical simulation. Detailed chemistry and complex thermal and transport properties were employed. The results revel that the addition of certain amount of CO can increases the stretch extinction limits and reduces the radiation extinction limits. As a result, the lean flammability limit of CH4/air premixed flame is extended to the leaner side by the addition of CO. The formation of NO in a flame is increased with the addition of certain amount of CO at a constant equivalence ratio. For an ultra-lean flame, the increase in the formation of NO is mainly because of the increase in the contribution from the NNH intermediate route, while this increase is mainly due to the rise in the contribution from the thermal route for a near stoichiometric flame. With the fraction of added CO being gradually increased, the formation of NO2 in a flame first decreases, and then increases at a given equivalence ratio. The addition of certain amount of CO reduces the formation N2O in an ultra-lean flame, while affects little on the formation of N2O in a near stoichiometric 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207