Aging of transformer insulating materials under selective conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In today's economic climate, it is important to know the condition, by means of suitable diagnostic tests, of the oil impregnated paper usable as primary insulation in equipment such as transformers, switchgear, bushings, cables, and their accessories. The aim of this paper is regarded as a main task to study the parameters that mostly influence the ageing process of oil/paper insulation used in transformers with preset moisture levels. A comparison is made between the performances of cellulose and Aramid papers. It is shown that Aramid paper is much less sensitive to water than cellulose paper. However, the addition of air (oxygen), via acid formation and oxidation in the oil, has a direct influence on the increase of the loss factor for both papers. The catalysts, that represent the metallic components in the transformer, accelerate the ageing process of the cellulose papers, while no influence on the ageing process of Aramid was observed. Oil ageing without a solid partner is insignificantly influenced by water, but accelerated by air‐oxygen, via the moisture and acid formation, and oxidation processes. A direct influence on the increase of the loss factor and the decrease of electric strength particularly at low temperatures is to be noted. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.000 | 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".