Fragmentation and film growth in supersonic nanoaggregate aerosol deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aerosol deposition with gas phase‐synthesized chain‐like nanoaggregates can yield dense coatings from the impaction of particles on a substrate; however, dense coating formation is not well understood. Here, we study coating consolidation at the single nanoaggregate level. Flame spray pyrolysis‐made tin oxide nanoaggregates are mobility (size) filtered, accelerated through a de Laval nozzle, and impacted on alumina substrates. TEM images obtained from low velocity collection and supersonic deposition are compared via quantitative image analysis, which reveals that upon supersonic impact nanoaggregates fragment into smaller aggregates. This suggests that fragmentation is a key step in producing coatings denser than the depositing nanoaggregates themselves. We supplement experiments with detailed particle trajectory calculations, which show that the impact energies per atom during nanoaggregate deposition are below 0.2 eV/molecule. These results suggest that fragmentation can only occur at locations where nanoaggregates bonded by van der Waals and capillary interactions.
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".