MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047088495 · doi:10.1139/cjc-2020-0227

Effect of static liquid Galinstan on common metals and non-metals at temperatures up to 200 °C

2020· article· en· W3047088495 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Philip Geddis, Lijun Wu, Andrew M. McDonald, Steven Chen, Bruce Clements

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsMetallurgyBrassCorrosionMaterials scienceCopperBase metalAusteniteLiquid metalWelding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquid metal Galinstan (GaInSn) is corrosive in nature against other solid metals as its base component is gallium. This study experimentally investigated the compatibility of GaInSn with eight common metals at temperatures up to 200 °C for 2000 h, including aluminum, copper, brass, ferritic and austenitic stainless steels (E-brite, SS304L, SS316L), and nickel-chromium alloys (Inconel and Hastelloy). This assessment aims to assist in design and material selection of a liquid metal magnetohydrodynamics system that houses Galinstan for power generation by low temperature natural heat sources or industrial waste heat. Design and fabrication of this renewable power system required assurance of material compatibility with common construction and instrumentation materials. The most severe corrosion effects of GaInSn on the metal alloys were observed on aluminum, copper, and brass, which confirms the results of previously conducted studies. No obvious corrosion on stainless steel or nickel–chromium alloys were observed by this study, which reveals that stainless steel has a good resistance to attack by GaInSn up to 200 °C. Six non-metals were also evaluated, including acronitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acrylic, nitrile rubber (Buna N), nylon, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and Teflon, which were deemed to be compatible with GaInSn up to the temperatures tested.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207