MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New Plasma Source with Accelerator for Creating a Dust Flow of a Lunar Dust Simulant

2025· article· en· W4411567830 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey Horodetsky, Jacob I. Kleiman, V. Issoupov, V. Verba

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsIntegrity Testing Laboratory (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmaAstrobiologyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a framework of a program on interaction of lunar dust simulants with materials, we developed a new plasma source integrated into the lunar environment simulator and used in charging the dust simulants deposited onto various space materials. The designed source includes an electrically insulated dust container located at the bottom of the chamber, allowing to ground it or apply an electrical potential. Above the container a mesh electrode is placed, isolated electrically from the dust container. Magnets, installed in the system, allow forming and focusing of plasma. Samples used for testing are fixed on a holder located above the plasma dust source. It is also electrically insulated, and can be either grounded or supplied with an electrical potential. The plasma, ignited in the vacuum chamber, interacts with the dust in the container, charging it. The charged dust particles begin moving towards the sample holder, raised to a much higher potential. By selecting the electrical potentials applied to the sample holder or to the plasma source mesh, or to both, the dust particles will accelerate in the space between the dust container and the sample holder. This paper describes the idea, design and testing of this plasma source. It also describes the original studies of charging the dust simulator obtained both by this plasma source and by the VUV and tribological methods, carried out in the same vacuum chamber using the same measuring devices. A comparison of these original data was also made. A prototype of this source has been tested under various conditions, and its operation and possible advantages over other designs of dust distribution sources are presented and discussed in this paper.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207