MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110831711 · doi:10.1115/icef2020-3011

Effect of Discharge Energy Distribution on Flame Kernel Development

2020· article· en· W3110831711 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Zhu, Xiao Yu, Linyan Wang, Ming Zheng, Liguang Li, Mengzhu Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnition systemCombustionMaterials scienceKernel (algebra)Volume (thermodynamics)Minimum ignition energyMechanicsEnergy (signal processing)Automotive engineeringNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringComputer scienceThermodynamicsChemistryEngineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The early flame kernel initiation and development are essential to a successful combustion process, especially under lean burn/EGR diluted conditions. Multiple ignition sites strategy has shown promise to secure the flame kernel initiation under extreme engine operating conditions. Two factors are considered to contribute to the enhanced ignition capability, i.e. the higher ignition energy and the multiple initial flame kernels. However, the mechanism why the multiple ignition sites help combustion is less understood. In this work, the impacts of the ignition energy distribution strategy on the flame inception process are investigated in a constant volume combustion chamber. A multi-coil ignition system, along with a sparkplug with three high-voltage electrodes, is used to adjust the discharge energy from 10 mJ to 240 mJ, as well as the energy deposition strategies. Experimental results have shown that the distributed energy strategy with sufficient discharge energy can establish a bigger initial flame kernel, leading to faster flame growth rates, as compared to the concentrated energy strategy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207