MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612567453 · doi:10.3390/app7050503

On the Visualization of Gas Metal Arc Welding Plasma and the Relationship Between Arc Length and Voltage

2017· article· en· W2612567453 on OpenAlexaff
Emanuel B. F. Dos Santos, Letícia Kuroiwa, Amanda de Souza Ferreira, Rob Pistor, A.P. Gerlich

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasma arc weldingGas metal arc weldingArc (geometry)WeldingMaterials scienceElectrodeArc blowArc lengthElectric arcCarbon arc weldingVoltagePlasmaSubmerged arc weldingCurrent (fluid)Arc weldingMetallurgyElectrical engineeringChemistryMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the camera settings for high-speed imaging of the arc, metal transfer, and weld pool in gas metal arc welding (GMAW) are investigated. The results show that by only changing camera exposure times and the selection of narrow bandpass filters, images that reveal features of the arc such as the iron vapor-dominated region, metal transfer and weld pool behavior can be produced without the need for external light sources. Using the images acquired, the arc length was measured and the relationship between arc length and arc voltage is discussed. The results show that for low values of current, the measured welding voltage increases with increasing arc length; however, for high current values, the arc voltage increases even though the measured arc length becomes shorter. It is suggested that the increase in arc voltage for high values of welding current is due to the increased evaporation of the wire electrode which decreases the plasma temperature and consequently the arc plasma electrical conductivity.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207