Immittance Model of Anodic Dissolution of Ferromagnetic Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transition elements of d -group (Fe, Co, Ni) and f -group (Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm), which are ferromagnetic elements, show a spontaneous magnetization. Under their anodic dissolution the magnetization of domains changes. The immitance of the simple model of the anodic dissolution of polycrystalline ferromagnetic materials in a constant magnetic field is presented. Moreover, the expressions describing the impedance and admittance of this model are developed. When alternating current flows through a ferromagnetic material with a magnetization different from zero, there must be appearance of Emf of electromagnetic self-induction E [1]: E = - dΨ/dt (1) where Ψ is magnetic flux-linkage and t is time. The magnetic flux-linkage can be determined from the following equation [2]: Ψ = -μ o ∫(H·M)dv/I (2) where I is the current in ferromagnetic; H is intensity of the external magnetic field; M is magnetization of the ferromagnetic; μ o is magnetic constant. The integration is carried out over the whole volume of the ferromagnetic material v. From equation (2) it can be seen that in constant external magnetic field, H = const , the magnetic flux-linkage is a function of current and magnetization only: Ψ = Ψ(I,M) (3) Then in the linear approximation, for the complete differential Ψ , we obtain: d Ψ = (∂ Ψ/ ∂ I) M dI+ (∂ Ψ/ ∂ M) I dM (4) After substituting expression (4) to equation (1) we get: E = - dΨ/dt= (∂ Ψ/ ∂ I) M dI/dt+ (∂ Ψ/ ∂ M) I dM/dt (5) By definition, (∂ Ψ/ ∂ I) M is nothing else but inductance of ferromagnetic L [1]: L = d Ψ/ d I (6) The ferromagnetic magnetization is the sum of magnetic moments of the atoms. Therefore, change in the magnetization of a ferromagnetic, associated with the transition of metal ions into electrolyte solution under anodic polarization equals to: dM = kM B N A dn (7) where M B = eh/(4πm e ) is Bohr magneton [1]; kM B
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".