Criteria and propagation processes of electrode-initiated and electrodeless-initiated discharge in SF6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences between the gas gap discharge and surface flashover have not been clarified because of the complexity of the flashover inception process at the solid–gas interface. In this paper, epoxy resin insulators with an adjustable inserted electrode for electric field regulation were employed to investigate the inception and propagation of electrodeless-initiated discharge (ELID) under the standard lightning impulse in SF6, and the differences from the breakdown process of an equal-sized gas gap (electrode-surface-initiated discharge, ESID) are discussed. Both a photomultiplier tube and a high-speed framing camera were used to observe the luminous strength and configuration of the initiation and propagation processes of the discharge. The results show that various luminous pre-signals can be detected before breakdown, indicating different physical processes during discharge. In ESID, the discharge begins with several streamer bursts followed by a step-by-step stem leader propagation and then breaks through the whole gas gap, with a submicrosecond time delay, whereas, in ELID, the streamer bursts are much weaker than those in ESID, and they turn into a bidirectionally propagated leader that breaks through the residual insulation faster, with a much shorter breakdown time delay, which is ≤300 ns. The criterion of streamer inception is also analyzed via the Raether–Meek criterion (K value), which is found to be higher in ELID (545 ± 20) than that in ESID (375 ± 25), which implies a higher requirement of an electric field for streamer inception and discharge initiation from the dielectric surface than that from the electrode surface.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".