Density effects of silica aerogel insulation on the performance of a graphite probe calorimeter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose With the introduction of a novel graphite probe calorimeter, called the Aerrow, various thermal insulating materials are being explored to further improve the device. Silica‐based aerogels are proving to be an optimal material due to their low densities, small thermal conductivities, rigidity, and machinability. The aim of this work is to determine how various silica aerogel densities affect the Aerrow’s performance. Methods Performance concerns three areas: heat transfer from the core, the Aerrow’s beam quality dependence, and the effects of an applied magnetic field on its measurement of absorbed dose to water. A numerical heat transfer study was done to determine heat transfer time constants. The EGSnrc radiation transport toolkit was used to determine absorbed dose conversion factors which are used to quantify the Aerrow’s beam quality dependence. Dose conversion factors for Cobalt‐60 and two clinical photon beams (6 and 10 MV) were determined. Magnetic field perturbation factors are used to characterize the Aerrow’s performance under an applied magnetic field. EGSnrc with the magnetic field transport algorithm was used to determine these perturbations for a 1.5 T MR‐linac. Several aerogel densities (0.01–0.55 g ) were examined for each performance area. Results Heat transfer time constants were found to vary from 52 ± 2 to 117.4 ± 0.4 s. The time constants decreased with increasing aerogel density. The Aerrow’s beam quality dependence varied between 0.5% and 1%, decreasing with increasing aerogel density. Beam quality dependence was determined in the range of Co to 10 MV (58.4% ≤ ≤ 73.5%). Under an applied magnetic field, perturbations were smallest when the Aerrow was parallel to the field. Perturbations varied more so when the Aerrow was perpendicular to the magnetic field and increased with increasing aerogel density. In all cases, perturbations were less than 0.6% from unity with a relative uncertainty of 0.1%. Conclusion Silica‐based aerogels demonstrate an improved performance over thermal insulation used in previous iterations of the Aerrow. With it, the Aerrow has shown to be robust in several areas. If heat transfer can be properly corrected for in the dose determination and the parallel orientation is used under a magnetic field, then the high density aerogel is possibly more preferable.
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".