MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236294618 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.06.02.004

Effect of Blended Fuels on Specific Fuel Consumption at Varying Engine Loads Using CVCRM Engine Test Rig

2013· article· en· W4236294618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D Prajapati, Gurpreet Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuel efficiencyThrust specific fuel consumptionRenewable fuelsEnvironmental scienceGasolineFuel oilEngine efficiencyVegetable oilRenewable energyWaste managementAutomotive engineeringPetrol engineFossil fuelEngineeringInternal combustion engineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetable oils are liquid fuels from renewable sources; they do not over-burden the environment with emissions. Vegetable oils have potential for making marginal land productive by their property of nitrogen fixation in the soil. Their production requires lesser energy input in production. They have higher energy content than other energy crops like alcohol. Vegetable oils can be successfully used in CI engine, through engine modifications and fuel modifications because vegetable oil in its raw form cannot be used in engines. Specific fuel consumption (SFC) have been computed for various blends of soyabean and mustered oils with petrol at different engine loads in computerized variable compression ratio multi-fuel (CVCRM) engine test rig. It is concluded that out of the two mustard oil blends, 20-PRM shows the lowest specific fuel consumption at the engine loads of 2.5 Kg and 5.0 Kg, where as 15-PRM shows the lowest specific fuel consumption (SCF) at the engine loads of 7.5 Kg. The experiments also show that the lowest specific fuel consumption occurs at the engine load of 7.5 Kg with using the blend of 15-PRM out of all the engine loads considered in the study.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicBiodiesel Production and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207