Fineness of Hemp (Cannabis Sativ L.) Fiber Bundle after Post-Decortication Processing Using a Planetary Ball Mill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemp (Cannabis Sativ L.) fiber can be used for biocomposites, textile, and many other applications. However, hemp fibers directly from decortication process are often too coarse for most applications. In this study, post decortication processing of hemp coarse fibers was investigated to mainly improve the fiber fineness. A lab-scale planetary ball mill was used to refine coarse hemp fibers collected from decortication plans. The coarse fibers were ground using the planetary ball mill under different grinding speeds (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 rpm) and grinding durations (2, 5, and 8 min). The refined fibers (longer than 20 mm or 0.79 in.) were characterized by the mass fraction, length, and fineness. The shorter fibers were disposed as chaff after grinding. The results showed that grinding resulted in fiber fraction in the range of 0.69 to 0.96, (i.e. the chaff fraction range being 0.31 to 0.04). Grinding slightly shortened the fiber length, but significantly improved the fiber fineness. In general, higher grinding speed and longer grinding duration produced less, shorter, and finer fiber. To evaluate the performance of the planetary ball mill, reduction of fiber fineness relative to the original fineness was determined from the fiber fineness data before and after grinding, and grinding index was also defined as the ratio of the mass fraction of refined fiber to its fineness. The results of these two parameters indicated that the grinding process was more effective in dealing with a coarser feedstock fiber. The grinding speed of 300 to 600 rpm appeared to be the suitable operational speeds of the mill for post-decortication processing of hemp fiber.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".