MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294704437 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2007p0266

Comparison of Molecular and Argon Gases for Plasma Spraying

2007· article· en· W4294704437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgonPlasma torchPlasmaMaterials scienceThermal conductivityTorchAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Particle (ecology)ChemistryMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal spray torches commonly use argon for plasma generation. Low thermal properties of argon, however, limit the thermal efficiency of the torches. Use of molecular gases, which must dissociate before ionization, requires larger energy input resulting in enthalpy increase of the plasma. In this paper, the effect of various gas compositions (Ar, Ar+H2, and CO2+CH4) on the torch voltage-current characteristics, power and thermal efficiency were studied. At the same time, in-flight YSZ particle conditions were compared. The higher thermal conductivity and efficiency of CH4+CO2 gas mixture produce more favorable sprayed particle conditions, in particular temperature. At a 50mm spray distance, YSZ particle temperatures were 2470°C and 2896°C for Ar+H2 and CH4+CO2, respectively. Typical arc voltage for the torch operating in CO2+CH4 was 130-180V compared to 45-60 V for Ar+H2. Thermal efficiency was also 20-40% higher.

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.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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