Visualization of poly(ether imide) and polycarbonate blending in an internal mixer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The blending process of poly(ether imide)/polycarbonate (PEI/PC) was studied by visualization of blending in an internal mixer at 340°C. Distinct pellet deforming, softening, aggregation, stretching, bending, sheeting, and dispersing were seen during the blending process. By ramping the temperature of the barrel of the internal mixer, the process of pellet softening and deforming, and the phase‐inversion phenomenon were studied by examining the visualization results and the torque readings. It was found that a peak in torque occurred at the phase‐inversion point. It was also found that the blends are semitransparent at higher PEI composition (>80 wt %). SEM and TEM micrographs and DSC data verified the visualization result that PEI/PC blends are partially miscible at higher PEI compositions. The number‐average particle size was determined for the PEI/PC blends and it was found that the experimental results in the dilute solution limit for both PC drops and PEI drops did not match with the particle size predicted by Taylor's theory. The particle sizes at 15 wt % concentration were of the same order of magnitude as those calculated using Wu's correlation. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 92: 1165–1175, 2004
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".