Soot Size Determination In A Swirl Stratified Premixed Ethylene-Air Flame By A Sampling Probe And Elastic Light Scattering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was performed to measure the size and number density distributions of soot particles produced in turbulent, stratified (high spatial equivalence ratio gradient), swirled (rotating flow) premixed ethylene-air flames at atmospheric pressure. Soot particle size and number density measurements are initially performed using a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS). For this purpose, two-stage sampling and dilution device designed for hot gas analysis was used. The dilution rate of the sampling apparatus was evaluated to ensure a most representative probing. In a second step, the ex-situ measurements were replaced by single-shot measurements recorded with a high cadency planar multi-angle light scattering (2D-MALS) laser diagnostic technique, based on the relationship between aggregate size and light scattering angle. In a third step, results obtained by the SMPS as well as by the optical diagnostic were compared. Because a direct confrontation of the obtained results obtained is not feasible due to difference in nature of both techniques, a two-step post-processing methodology as developed. For this purpose, the median electric mobility diameters measured by SMPS were converted into diameters of gyration by means of a semi-empirical conversion tool. Moreover, a time average data processing was applied to the soot size distributions recorded by 2D-MALS, considering that SMPS measurements performed over a relatively large acquisition time converge to a single value. Results obtained in stratified swirled premixed flames by SMPS exhibit an overall good agreement with the optical measurements. This good similarity between the results provides a remarkably high degree of confidence in the quality of the measurements for both measurement systems investigated. Furthermore, the results suggest that a comparison of soot aggregate size and number density measurements between a sampling probe and a light scattering technique is still possible in turbulent flames at atmospheric pressure. While the current work has focused on the performances of SMPS and the 2D-MALS approach on a one-to-one basis, future work will also address the application of these diagnostics to high-pressure two-phase flames for which measurements are made in confined environments.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".