A novel method by microwave cutting ceramics based on thermal crack and trajectory control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herein, microwave thermal crack method is innovatively employed in cutting Al2O3 ceramics. Different from the conventional cutting technology, thermal controlled fracture method is progressive and environmentally friendly, which adopts tensile stress to peel off the brittle material into two parts. The heat source induces tensile stress as thermal stress. Additionally, based on Fourier heat transfer equation and thermo-elasticity, the physical model of microwave thermal crack cutting Al2O3 ceramics is established and calculated. The thickness of the graphite coating, the width of the graphite coating and the prefabricated crack in the process of microwave thermal crack cutting Al2O3 were studied. The effect of graphite coating width on crack trajectory was also investigated by simulation combined with test. From the result, it can be seen that the narrower the width of graphite coating, the weaker the processing ability and the better the trajectory control ability. The microscope is adopted to evaluate the surface and cross section morphologies detailly. This study elaborates briefly the interaction mechanism of microwave thermal crack cutting Al2O3 ceramic surface and provides practical guidance for aerospace industries applications.
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".