Electrostatic charging and its impact on powder flowability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is recognized that electrostatic charging can affect the flowability of powders. Tribocharging is generally associated with the exchange of electrons during friction between dissimilar materials. While charging is usually more important for nonconductive materials, it has been observed that electrostatic (i.e., coulombic) forces can also affect the flow of metallic powders. Tribocharging may be associated with powder handling but may also arise during the characterization and processing of the powders. Interparticle interactions are affected by charge distribution (i.e., the attraction coming from particles having different polarities) that is difficult to measure experimentally. Powder flowability and rheology have recently been used to demonstrate the effect of coulombic forces on particle interaction and flowability. This paper presents an evaluation of the effect of tribocharging on the rheology of different metallic powders (Inconel 718, Al-Mg, Ti-6Al-4V, SS-316L, and glass). Results show that charging is dependent of the nature of the materials in contact. In some cases, the effect of charging can be significant and affect the rheology of the powders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".