ArticleACS omega2024
Physical Simulation Experiment on the Rock Breaking Efficiency of Pulse Type Controllable Shock Wave.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given that conducting controllable shock wave tests in actual rock formations underground in coal mines affects coal mine production with the parameters required for equipment design and incurs significant costs, a series of ground tests were conducted separately. First, the impact of energy storage on rock breaking efficiency was analyzed. Then, physical simulation experiments were conducted on the differential efficiency of controllable shock waves on high-strength cement, sandstone, granite, solid granite, and limestone. Results show that (a) for high-strength cement, the energy storage of 50 kJ is driven by pulse power, and the energy converter uses a metal wire with a length of 120 mm and a diameter of 1.6 mm to convert energy. (b) For sandstone, after a single impact on the sample, due to the lack of confining pressure and outer protection, the physical model sample was directly exploded, and the cracking effect was very good. (c) For granite, the experimental results of three energy levels of 50, 70, and 100 kJ have basically verified that the energy storage of the pulse power driving source with an energy of 100 kJ can achieve the result of fracturing material mode. (d) For solid granite, endoscopic exploration was conducted on the drilling holes and adjacent guide holes where impact was implemented. (e) For limestone strata, when the energy storage design of the pulse power drive source is 100 kJ, the existing metal wire electric explosion energy conversion efficiency and three impacts can meet the cutting seam requirements of most coal seam roofs.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.