Thermal, electrical, and mechanical properties of talc‐ and glass microsphere‐Reinforced Cycloaliphatic epoxy composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cycloaliphatic epoxy (CE) is used in high voltage and temperature applications because of its high glass transition temperature and resistance to ultraviolet, ozone, and hydrothermal aging mechanisms. Fillers can be used to increase the tensile modulus and thermal conductivity (TC) without a corresponding increase in electrical conductivity (1/electrical resistivity [ER]), which would be detrimental in a high voltage environment. In this study, two fillers were examined in a CE system: talc and glass microspheres (MS). Up to 20 wt% talc/CE and up to 40 wt% glass MS/CE composites were fabricated and tested for ER, TC, and tensile properties. As desired, all composites remained electrically resistive. Composite TC increased with increasing filler content from 0.15 W/m‐K for the neat epoxy to 0.25 W/m‐K for 20 wt% talc and for 40 wt% glass MS. This TC increase could be helpful to dissipate heat in high voltage and temperature applications. Tensile modulus increased from 2.7 GPa for the neat epoxy to 3.6 GPa for 20 wt% talc/CE and to 5.2 GPa for 40 wt% glass MS/CE composites. Increasing the tensile modulus is useful in the newly developed Polymer Core Composite Conductors that are used to transmit power. POLY COMPOS., 39:E1581–E1588, 2018. © 2017 Society of Plastic Engineers
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".