Erosion resistance of electrospun silicone rubber nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an examination of the erosion resistance of two-part room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone rubber (SiR) nanocomposites. The SiR composites were filled with 7 nm size fumed silica and 1.5 μm size micro-silica. Separate samples were prepared using conventional mechanical mixing and an electrospinning technique, and their erosion resistances were compared. The electrospinning technique allows for a higher volume fraction of nanofiller and micro-filler in the composites as compared to the conventional samples. The erosion resistances were tested using both an infrared-laser-based source and the ASTM D2303 standard inclined plane tracking and erosion method (IPT). The experimental results for the eroded mass, tracking voltage, and tracking time show that the erosion resistances of electrospun samples are much greater than those of conventional samples. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images and variable tracking patterns of the conventional samples after the IPT tests suggest an improvement in the dispersion of the fillers within the electrospun samples compared to the conventional samples. Power analysis during the IPT tests also shows that more power is required to track and erode electrospun samples before sample failure occurs than is needed for conventional samples, which suggests improved bonding between the fillers and the silicone rubber matrix. These findings also are supported by the results of thermo-gravimetric analysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".