Proven Anti-Wetting Properties of Molybdenum Tested for High-Temperature Corrosion-Resistance with Potential Application in the Aluminum Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of Mo in contact with molten Al was modelled by classical molecular dynamics (CMD) simulation of a pure Mo solid in contact with molten Al at 1200 K using the Materials Studio®. Results showed that no reaction or cross diffusion of atoms occurs at the Mo(s)–Al(l) interface, and that molten Al atoms exhibit an epitaxial alignment with the exposed solid Mo crystal morphology. Furthermore, the two phases {Mo(s) and Al(l)} are predicted to interact with weak van der Waals forces and give interfacial energy of about 203 mJ/m2. Surface energy measurements by the sessile drop experiment using the van Oss–Chaudhury–Good (VCG) theory established a Mo(s)–Al(l) interface energy equivalent to 54 mJ/m2, which supports the weak van der Waals interaction. The corrosion resistance of a high purity (99.97%) Mo block was then tested in a molten alloy of 5% Mg mixed in Al (Al-5 wt.%Mg) at 1123 K for 96 h, using the ALCAN’s standard “immersion” test, and the results are presented. No Mo was found to be dissolved in the molten Al-Mg alloy. However, a 20% mass loss in the Mo block was due to intergranular corrosion scissoring the Mo block in the ALCAN test, but not as a result of the reaction of pure Mo with the molten Al-Mg alloy. It was observed that the Al-Mg alloy did not stick to the Mo block.
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".