Flame kernel development with radiofrequency oscillating plasma ignition
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
Abstract In this paper a radiofrequency oscillating plasma discharge is investigated under various initial pressures up to 5 atm in a constant-volume combustion chamber. The oscillating plasma is suppressed by elevated pressure, both in length and branch number. The ignition performance under elevated background pressure is investigated, and the results are compared with spark events with a similar ignition energy. Under ambient conditions, the oscillating plasma discharge generates multiple streamers that are much longer than a spark gap, resulting in a much bigger initial flame kernel. Under elevated background pressures, fewer streamers with much smaller sizes are observed, thus the advantage of an oscillating plasma discharge over a spark discharge is compromised. Prolonged duration of an oscillating plasma discharge consistently demonstrates a positive impact on flame propagation speed, but neither prolonged duration nor enhanced discharge current has a noticeable impact on flame kernel growth for the spark ignition cases. Both oscillating plasma and spark are used to treat non-combustible propane–air mixtures under background pressures from 1 to 5 atm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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