MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294630604 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2003p0847

Coating Formation by Impact of Molten Metal Droplets with Uniform Size and Velocity

2003· article· en· W4294630604 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Dhiman, S. Chandra

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSubstrate (aquarium)Composite materialDrop (telecommunication)CoatingAdhesionSurface roughness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The adhesion of splats formed by impact of molten metal droplets was studied experimentally. Tin droplets (550 µm diameter) were produced using a drop-on-demand generator. To achieve high impact velocities the stainless steel coupons used as substrates were mounted on the rim of a rotating flywheel and heated using cartridge heaters. To hit a falling droplet with the substrate and photograph its impact, a timing circuit was used to synchronize three events with the position of the substrate: ejection of a droplet, triggering of the camera and a flash to provide illumination. The impact velocity was varied from 10 – 40 m/s whereas the substrate average roughness (2.0 µm) and the droplet diameter (~550 µm) were kept constant. We measured the adhesion strength of splats by a simple pull test. A wire was attached to the upper surface of each splat using epoxy and the force required to separate the splat from the substrate was recorded. A significant increase in adhesion strength was observed as the impact velocity was increased. Coatings were produced by depositing many droplets sequentially. Substrate temperature and impact velocitiy were the main parameters varied. SEM images of cross-sections through coatings showed that increasing impact velocity and substrate temperature produced better adhesion between the coating and substrate.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicFluid Dynamics and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207