MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170271990 · doi:10.1109/ias.1989.96896

Some factors governing the severity of switching surges

2003· article· en· W2170271990 on OpenAlexaff
A. Greenwood, W.W.L. Keerthipala, P.G. McLaren

Bibliographic record

VenueConference Record of the IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicVacuum and Plasma Arcs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurgeElectrical engineeringElectrical impedanceImpedance matchingResistorInductanceOutput impedanceVoltageCapacitorOmegaInterruptPhysicsEngineeringMicrocontroller

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The consequences that the ability of a vacuum switching device to interrupt high-frequency currents can have when it is used to interrupt the starting current of a motor are examined. Experimental tests on a system with a 12 Omega surge impedance cable and a 12 Omega surge impedance source showed that a steep-fronted surge with a risetime of 1 PU per 400 ns can be produced at the motor terminals when the switch closes. Measurements also showed that the rate of rise of the voltage is dependent on the surge impedance of the cable. For example, a similar test with a 50 Omega surge impedance cable and a matching source impedance produces a surge with a risetime of 1 PU per 100 ns. If the bus inductance remains unchanged, the rate of rise of the voltage is approximately proportional to the cable surge impedance as theory predicts. To avoid repeated high-frequency-current zeros, either one or the other end of the cable should have a matched termination. However, matching the source end is almost impossible as the number of lines connected to the incoming busbar is a variable. The motor end can be matched using a resistor in series with a surge capacitor of low reactance at high frequencies.>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference Record of the IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual MeetingSame topicVacuum and Plasma ArcsFrench-language works237,207