Comparison between silicone rubber containing micro- and nano-size silica fillers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the influence of nano-size silica filler is compared with micro-size filler in silicone rubber using the ASTM 2303 inclined plane tracking and erosion test. Silicone rubber samples filled with 5 /spl mu/m mean size ground silica are compared with silicone rubber filled with 12 nm average size fumed silica. Both the low frequency components of leakage current and eroded volume are used to evaluate the performance of the two types of composites. While the fundamental component of leakage current does not correlate with the erosion, the third harmonic component of the leakage current shows good correlation to the erosion, in terms of volume, and for both composites. Based on the results of the eroded volume, it is observed that 10% by weight of nano-size filler in the silicone rubber gives a performance that is similar to that obtained with 50% by weight of micro-size filler. The paper discusses the merits of nano-size filler in silicone composites.
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) | 0.001 | 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".