Premixed ammonia-methane-air combustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the effects of ammonia as a fuel additive, both the adiabatic burning velocities and combustion emissions were determined for premixed methane-air and ammonia-methane-air flat flames. The experimental results of this work were compared to chemical kinetic (CHEMKIN III) and thermodynamic (STANJAN) simulations as well as literature values. The literature provided limited information on emissions from ammonia-methane-air flames. There was also a lack of information regarding the burning velocities of these mixtures. A flat flame burner was built on the basis of the design of the perforated plate burner of van Maaren et al. [1993]. This burner facilitated the direct measurement of the adiabatic burning velocity based on the measurement of the unburned gas velocity. Using a 5-gas analyzer and a chimney, NO, NO 2, CO, CO2 and O2 emissions from various mixtures of ammonia-methane-air were determined. The burning velocity data for methane-air mixtures was found to be in good agreement with the literature and chemical kinetic simulations. For additions of 1% to 4% ammonia in the fuel, both the experimental observations and kinetic simulations revealed premixed ammonia-methane-air flames yield lower burning velocities than pure methane-air flames and result in a significant increase in NO emissions. In agreement with Wendt et al. [1974], the formation of NO in these flames appeared to be independent of thermodynamic equilibrium.Dept. of Environmental Engineering. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2000 .M356. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0741. Advisers: P. Henshaw; D. Ting. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2001.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".