Mathematical Modeling of Pulsed Electron Beam Induced Heating and Sublimation in Graphite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A one-dimensional heat conduction model is presented to describe the heating and sublimation of a graphite target upon interaction with a polyenergetic electron beam. The beam delivers intense electron pulses of ∼100 ns in width with energies up to 15 keV and an electric current of ∼400 A. The electron beam efficiency and Knudsen layer just above the target surface during ablation are taken into account in the model. The effect of the distance between the electron beam tube output and target surface on ablation is assessed as well. The temperature distribution, surface receding velocity, ablation depth, and ablated mass per unit area are numerically simulated. For an efficiency factor of 0.6, the results indicate that the target surface can reach up to 7500 K at around two-thirds of the pulse duration. The onset of surface vaporization occurs within 30 ns from the pulse start. Under the same process conditions, the calculated ablated mass is about 3.8 μg/mm 2 . The estimated ablated mass per unit area is in good agreement with experimental data for an efficiency factor of 0.6. Available theoretical data on beam energy efficiency are in good accordance with the results of the current model corresponding to an efficiency of 0.6.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".