Accurate equivalent circuits for unloaded piezoelectric resonators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equivalent circuit models for unloaded piezoelectric vibrators are presented. The new circuit model includes terms which take into account the dielectric and piezoelectric loss as well as the mechanical loss found in the standard Van Dyke's model. The new model contains two branches, the motional branch and the static branch, like the Van Dyke's model. However there is no resistance element in the motional branch and the losses (mechanical, dielectric, piezoelectric) associated with the vibrator are represented as imaginary components of the remaining circuit elements (C/sub 0/, C/sub 1/, L/sub 1/). The model produced impedance curves that very closely matched the impedance calculated by using the equation derived from vibration theory and data from lead zirconate titanate and PVDF copolymer samples. The calculation of the circuit parameters C/sub 0/, C/sub 1/, and L/sub 1/ from the complex elastic, dielectric and piezoelectric material constants is straightforward and the model accurately represents the impedance spectra about the fundamental resonance even when the mechanical Q of the resonator is as low as 2. Conversely, If the circuit parameters are known, the material constants including losses can be derived by straightforward calculations without the loss of any information.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it