MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138030591 · doi:10.1115/mnhmt2009-18186

Development of Electrohydrodynamic Micropumps With Micropillar Electrodes

2009· article· en· W2138030591 on OpenAlexaff
P. Zangeneh Kazemi, P. Ravi Selvaganapathy, C.Y. Ching

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrohydrodynamicsMaterials scienceElectrodeMicrochannelCommon emitterOptoelectronicsPlanarVoltageMicropumpVolumetric flow rateMicrofluidicsNanotechnologyElectrical engineeringMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207