Constant Current Electrophoretic Infiltration Deposition of Fiber‐Reinforced Ceramic Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modified electrophoretic infiltration deposition (EPID) under constant current conditions is used to fabricate non‐conductive‐fiber‐reinforced composites from an ethanol suspension. Particles are infiltrated through a fiber preform by an electric field and are deposited on the front of the electrode and “backfill” through the fiber preform. A uniform morphology is achieved at the optimum deposition rate. The constant current EPID process is modeled as capillary infiltration electrophoresis. Particles “stream” the fiber preform due to the repulsive interaction between the fiber filaments and the particles as both have the same‐sign surface charge. Electro‐osmotic flow makes no contribution to deposit yield as the net flow across a closed capillary cross section is zero. Hamaker's law is extended to electrophoretic infiltration; however, the total deposit yield is controlled by particle electrophoresis outside the capillaries due to the much lower electric field in the suspension. The deposit thickness increases linearly with time under optimum current conditions. Too high a deposition rate promotes air entrapment in the depositing green body.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".