Improving the sound absorbing efficiency of closed-cell foams using shock waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Producing closed-cell foams is generally cheaper and simpler than open-cell foams. However, the acoustic efficiency of closed-cell foam materials is poor because it is very difficult for the acoustic waves to penetrate the material. A method to remove the membranes closing the cell pores (known as reticulations) and thus to improve the acoustic behavior of closed-cell foam material is presented. The method is based on the propagation of shock waves inside the foam aggregate where both the shock wave generator and the foam are in air at room conditions. Various shock treatments have been carried out on a polyurethane foams, and the following conclusions were drawn: (1) the reticulation rate increases and thus the airflow resistivity decreases while increasing the amplitude of the shock treatment; (2) the softness of the foam increases; (3) the process is reliable and repeatable; (4) obtained acoustic performance is comparable to classical thermal reticulation; and (5) the process can be used to control the reticulation rate along the thickness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".