MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994508567 · doi:10.1063/1.1851393

The governing electrodynamic equations of electromagnetic acoustic transducers

2005· article· en· W1994508567 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Jafari, A. Konrad, Anthony N. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic acoustic transducerFinite element methodPhysicsAcousticsMaxwell's equationsElectromagnetic fieldMagnetic fieldElectromagnetic coilDisplacement (psychology)Acoustic radiation forceMechanicsCartesian coordinate systemTransducerClassical mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsGeometryUltrasonic sensor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the governing electrodynamic equations of electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs) and extends them to the derivation of the magnetic- and acoustic-field equations in terms of the magnetic vector potential (MVP) and the acoustic wave particle displacement vector (PDV), respectively. It also provides formulations for calculating forces and current densities in the case of two-dimensional (2D) models of EMAT configurations in Cartesian coordinates. Existing methods solve the governing electrodynamic equations for field quantities to analyze EMATs. However, they ignore skin and proximity effects and rely on simple 2D configurations for EMAT coils. Taking into account skin and proximity effects in complex 2D EMAT coil configurations requires the application of the finite element method (FEM). The FEM can be applied to solve the equations stated in terms of the MVP and PDV in the modeling of EMATs. These formulations and expressions facilitate the development and presentation of the FEM for the modeling and analysis of EMATs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207