Reliability and Safety of the Gasified Mine Air Heating Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighteen years operation experience of gas air heaters RG2000 for Ural mines is considered. Earlier published scientific research, and the accumulated actual data on the safe operation of gas air heating points for mine ventilation are analyzed. Special safety principles are formulated that are used when placing gas equipment near the air supply shafts of the mine. The data obtained over the long years of operation of an innovative technical air heating system were studied related to most important parameters including compliance with the sanitary and hygienic requirements for the mine ventilation air. The results are presented concerning the monitoring of the supply air, which confirm its stable and safe quality. It is noted that the Canadian mining occupational safety and health regulations allow to use direct gas-fired air heaters. The spread of this technology in our country is possible only if the strict Russian sanitary and hygienic requirements for air pollution at the production sites are met. For example, Russian regulations in the field of maximum permissible concentration of the nitrogen oxides are 3–10 times lower than the foreign ones. In this regard, the supply air heaters with direct gas heating cannot be used in Russia for ventilation of the underground workings. The results of a successful solution to the problem of heating mine air using an innovative technology of low-temperature flare impact combustion of a homogeneous methane-air mixture are presented in the article. This approach allows 10-40 times to reduce the ingress of harmful substances into the air supplied to the mine, which fully meets the current hygienic requirements and regulations at the mining enterprises of Russia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".