Flammability limits of hydrogen-diluent mixtures in air
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flammability limits of hydrogen-diluent fuel mixtures in air for upward and downward flame propagation at ambient pressure were determined experimentally. A wide range of diluent concentrations were examined, up to 95% by volume in the fuel mixture. The diluents employed were helium, argon, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The effects of changes of the initial mixture temperature on the flammability limits were determined for fuel mixtures containing 50% diluent by volume. It was observed that helium was more effective than argon at narrowing the flammable range of hydrogen mixtures. The value of the lean flammability limit was increased to a greater extent by the addition of helium than carbon dioxide despite the low heat capacity of helium. Values of the flammability limits predicted using the constant adiabatic flame temperature concept are in generally good agreement with the experimentally obtained values. The agreement between the two sets of values was better for the rich flammability limits than the corresponding lean flammability limits and was particularly poor for lean mixtures involving high concentrations of helium.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".