Pulsed UV lamp performance and comparison with UV mercury lamps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsed lamps based on electric discharges in xenon are of interest for water treatment because they are free of mercury, have instant-on capability, and may provide enhanced effects due to the high irradiance of pulses or spectral differences. This study provides quantitative comparisons of standard mercury UV lamps with both a commercial flashlamp and a pulsed surface discharge lamp. Unlike mercury lamps, the UV performance of pulsed lamps is a function of operating parameters. In this study the measured UV efficiency of a flashlamp, with a specified practical lifetime, increased as the pulse length decreased, from 4.4% at 796 μs to 9.0% at 71 μs. The surface discharge lamp, which overcomes limitations of flashlamps, had a measured UV efficiency of 17% at 12 μs. In comparison, standard commercial low pressure and medium pressure mercury lamps evaluated in this study had UV efficiencies of 34.6% and 12.2%, respectively. Key words: pulsed UV, water treatment, flashlamp, surface discharge, mercury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".