MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finite Element Analysis of a Combined White Beam Filter and Visual Screen Using CVD Diamond for the BXDS Beamline

2018· article· en· W2945904101 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Smith, Martin Adam, Gordon Barkway

Bibliographic record

VenueJACOW · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsChicken Farmers of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamlineFinite element methodOpticsDiamondBeam (structure)Filter (signal processing)Materials scienceWhite (mutation)EngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsMetallurgyComputer visionStructural engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A white beam filter and visual screen are required for the undulator beamline at the Brockhouse X-Ray Diffraction and Scattering Sector. Reusing a water-cooled copper paddle with a 0.1 mm thick chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamond foil, a combined filter and screen design is presented. The Canadian Light Source previously experienced failure of CVD diamond filters when exposed to high flux density white beam. Finite element analysis (FEA) was done to determine if the CVD diamond will fracture under the undulator heat load. Conservative failure criteria are selected for CVD diamond based on available literature for the following failure mechanisms: high temperature, thermal fatigue, and temperature induced stress. Four designs are analyzed using FEA models simulating effects of clamping pressure and heat load on the CVD diamond. The simulations are verified by optimizing the model mesh, comparing results against hand calculations, and comparing theoretical absorbed heat load to simulated values. Details of the modeling method are reviewed and results for the different designs evaluated. Suggestions for future testing of CVD diamond in a synchrotron setting will be discussed.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACOWSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207