A Comparative Study of YSZ Suspensions and Coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for suspensions that are used in thermal spray processes is expanding from research labs using the lab-prepared suspensions toward actual coating production in different industrial sectors. Industrial applications dictate the reduced production time and effort, which may in turn justify the development of the market for ready-to-use commercial suspensions. To this end, some of the powder suppliers have already taken steps forward by introducing, to the market, suspensions of some of the most used materials, such as yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), alumina, and titania. However, there is a need to compare the suspension characteristics over time and the resultant coatings when using these suspensions when compared with the freshly prepared homemade suspensions. In this work, such a comparison is done using YSZ suspensions of the sub-micron to a few micron powders. In addition, some changes in the suspensions’ formula were performed as a tool to vary the coatings’ microstructures in a more predictable way, without any variation of the spray parameters. The coatings were generated while using both radial and axial injection of the suspensions into Oerlikon-Metco 3MB and Mettech Axial III plasma spray torches, respectively. A clear effect of suspension viscosity on the coating microstructure was observed using the 3MB torch with a radial injection of suspension (i.e., cross flow atomization). However, the viscosity role was not dominant when using the Axial III torch with an axial feed injection system (i.e., coaxial flow atomization).
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".