Understanding the Formation of Different Surface Structures of Hydrophobic Ceramic Coatings Deposited in the SPAPS Process and SPVPS Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surface structures are of vital importance for the wetting behaviors of hydrophobic coatings. In this work, rare earth oxide coatings with different surface structures were deposited via the solution precursor atmospheric plasma spray (SPAPS) process and solution precursor vacuum plasma spray (SPVPS) process, respectively. The SPAPS coatings showed hierarchical cauliflower-like surface structures composed of micron-sized clusters and nanometer-sized particles, while the SPVPS coatings showed relatively flat topographies with small and short bumps. The formation of different surface structures in the SPAPS and SPVPS processes was investigated by modelling the movement of in-flight particles in the vicinity of the substrate. The properties of plasma jets and the characteristics of in-flight particles in the two processes were correlated. The effects of diverted plasma gas flow on the trajectories of particles impinging on the substrate and the resultant surface structures were elaborated, revealing different shadowing effects in the SPAPS and SPVPS processes. The SPAPS coatings were superhydrophobic due to the presence of hierarchical surface structures, which showed larger water contact angles and smaller roll-off angles than the SPVPS coatings. The correlations between the surface structures and wetting behaviors of different coatings were investigated.
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".