The negative and positive electrorheological behavior and vibration damping characteristics of colemanite and polyindene/colemanite conducting composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the electrorheological (ER) properties of colemanite and polyindene (94.8% PIn)/colemanite (5.2%) conducting composite were investigated by dispersion in silicone oil (SO). The zeta (ζ)-potentials and antisedimentation ratios of the materials were determined. Some parameters which affect the ER properties of all the dispersions such as the volume fraction, electric field strength ( E ), shear rate, frequency and temperature were investigated. The rather unusual behavior known as the negative ER effect was observed for colemanite/SO above E = 1.5 kV mm −1 and for PIn/colemanite/SO under all values of the electric field strength even at high volume fraction. This negative ER response was converted to a positive one by the addition of non-ionic surfactant. Furthermore, glycerol was used as a polar promoter and observed to enhance the ER activity of the colemanite/SO system. Creep-recovery tests were applied to all the dispersions studied to investigate their behavior under sustained shear stress. Finally, 28% and 30% vibration damping capacities were achieved using an automobile shock absorber for the glycerol/colemanite/SO and non-ionic surfactant/PIn/colemanite/SO systems under the E = 0.17 kV mm −1 condition, respectively.
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".