MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408130002 · doi:10.54097/fdfv1k20

Electromagnetic Induction Sensor Design for Metal Oil Wear Particle Detection

2025· article· en· W4408130002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhi Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Journal of Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle (ecology)Electromagnetic inductionMaterials scienceAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceAcousticsEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the mechanical equipment is working, the internal units interact with each other to produce different degrees of wear, wear will produce wear particles, the generated wear particles will flow around with the lubricating oil, if not timely detection and maintenance, it will aggravate the wear process, thus affecting the service life of the entire mechanical system. In this paper, a new high-precision three-coil electromagnetic induction sensor for metal oil wear in mechanical equipment is proposed, and Laval nozzle is innovarily applied to the oil inlet of the sensor. Firstly, based on the principle of electromagnetic induction, the physical characteristics of metal particles and their influence on magnetic field are analyzed, and the working principle and key parameters of the sensor are determined. Secondly, the overall structure of the sensor is designed, and the packaging and protection design are carried out according to the working condition. Finally, the coil schematic was established in Maxwell and boundary conditions and initial conditions consistent with the actual working conditions were set up for simulation verification under different types of wear particles at 1m/s. The results showed that the sensor's signal response was obvious under different particle sizes, which verified the rationality of the sensor design.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Journal of Science and TechnologySame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207