Influence of ultrasonic agitation on Co-γ-Al₂O₃ nano-electrocomposite coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporation of a cationic surfactant, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (CTAC), and use of ultrasonic agitation during electroplating of Co-γ-Al₂O₃ composite coatings resulted in high particle inclusion percentrage with embedded alumina clusters being 2.5 to 3.0 times smaller than those obtained with conventional plating or when ultrasonic agitation was used only before plating. Alumina particles with high zeta potentials were obtained when CTAC was added to the plating bath and resulted in particles inclusion percentages 10 to 20 times higher than when a surfactant-free electrolyte was used. Ultrasonic agitation during electrodeposition acted as an effective alumina cluster refiner. Although ultrasonic agitation resulted in better particle dispersion for the Co-γ-Al₂O₃ system, no real improvement in terms of hardness was observed compared to the same system plated without ultrasounds. Nonetheless, the positive dual effect of cationic surfactant addition and ultrasonic agitation was clearly demonstrated and can be applied to other types of electrocomposite both compositions and therefore to other types of coating applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".