Comparative Analysis of Heat Release and Flame Quenching in Fuel Jet and Premixed Flames Across Multiple Fuels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper compares and contrasts heat release and flame quenching in both jet and premixed flames.Atmospheric jet flame heat release rates of a variety of fuels at blow-off are first discussed.It also reports burning data on less reactive fuels in a small 3 mm diameter pipe.Further analysis of an atmospheric methane jet flame reveals it to require a significantly greater volume for a given heat release rate than a stoichiometric premixed atmospheric methane-air flame.It is also shown that H2 and C2H2 exhibit high reactivity in both types of flame, and the heavier hydrocarbons exhibit low reactivity.A generalised, dimensionless, correlation of atmospheric flame blow-off data, covering many fuels, is the source of data for the derivation of practical values of heat release rates, at different such velocities on the 3 mm diameter pipe.This mathematical modelling and the experiments explore the differences between fuel jet and premixed combustion, and enable volumetric heat release rates to be evaluated and compared.The greater control that is possible with premixed flames makes for more compact combustion.It was found that the volumetric heat release rate of a methane atmospheric jet flame was 8.2 MW/m 3 , whilst an optimal design of a more compact premixed burner design resulted in a significantly higher value of 416 MW/m 3 .There are, nevertheless, strong underlying similarities in flame structures between jet and premixed flames, revealed through the propagation parameters, Ub* and K, and the quenching parameters, Db/k and dk/k.A Quench Diagram shows quench lines for different fuels, below which flame quenching occurs, and above which flames can propagate.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".