Development of Electrohydrodynamic Micropumps With Micropillar Electrodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) micropumps with three-dimensional 50μm × 50μm micropillar electrodes were fabricated and tested in this study. Two basic electrode configurations were investigated: (i) micropillar emitter and collector electrodes (symmetric) and (ii) micropillar emitter and planar collector electrodes (asymmetric). The micropumps were fabricated using chromium/gold planar electrodes with 3-D Nickel micro-pillars on a glass substrate that was integrated within a 100 μm high PDMS microchannel. The effect of the spanwise micropillar spacing spacing on the pump performance was determined. The pumps were tested using HFE-7100 as the working fluid for the maximum pressure generation under a no flow condition. The micropumps with the asymmetric electrode design generated a significantly higher pressure head and flow rate than the corresponding micropumps with symmetric electrode configuration for the same applied voltage, with lower power consumption. A decrease in the spanwise spacing of the micropillar electrodes increased the pump performance for the symmetric configuration, while the performance decreased for the asymmetric configuration.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".