MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of shape and roughness on the maximum induction charge for small particles

2008· article· en· W2109939862 on OpenAlexaff
Deying Yu, G.S.P. Castle, Kazimierz Adamiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric fieldParticle (ecology)Surface finishSurface roughnessMechanicsMaterials scienceElectrical conductorField (mathematics)Charge (physics)Work (physics)Finite element methodSurface chargeCoatingPhysicsComposite materialMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable analytical and numerical work has already been done on the charging characteristics of spherical and cylindrical particles. However, the majority of industrial processes involve irregular particles with rough surfaces. In this paper, the relationships between the magnitude of the induction charge and electric field on conductive particles in a uniform electric field as a function of the particle shape and roughness have been investigated. The COMSOL program based on the Finite Element Method was used in the numerical modelling. The results show that in evaluating the value of induction charge for a fixed applied electric field, as particle shape changes care must be taken to ensure that surface fields do not exceed breakdown. With this limitation it is shown that, for a given volume, a smooth sphere will gain more induction charge than either a fibrous or flake shaped particle. However for particles with rough surfaces for some levels of roughness it is possible to obtain a higher charge than an equivalent smooth sphere. These results suggest that the degree of surface roughness may be important in certain coating applications.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207