Flash sintering with current rate: A different approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The original flash sintering experiment was carried out by applying an electric field, and switching to current control at the onset of the flash, signaled by a rise in conductivity. Here, we consider experiments where the experiment is controlled from the very start, by injecting current, which is increased at a constant rate. The current rates are varied from 50 mA/min to 5000 mA/min. The experiment is continued until, in all cases, the current density reaches 100 mA/mm 2 . The total duration of the experiment ranged from approximately 7 seconds to 700 seconds. The following comparisons to the earlier voltage‐to‐current experiments are noted: (a) in both instances, the onset of the flash is signaled by an unusual rise in conductivity; however, since the power supply remains in the current control mode, the increase in conductivity is manifested by a drop in the voltage generated across the specimen; (b) the blackbody radiation model is modified to include the energy absorbed in specific heat, in order to determine the time‐dependent change in temperature as the current is increased—this correction is particularly significant at the very high current rates; (c) sintering occurs continuously, reaching full density, in all instances, when the current density reaches ~100 mA/mm 2 ; and (d) these early experiments suggest that the current‐rate experiments yield fine‐grained microstructure across the entire gauge section of the dog‐bone specimen, presumably because the highly transient conditions of voltage‐to‐current flash experiments are sidestepped. The experiments were carried out on 3 mol% yttria‐stabilized zirconia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".