MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190120875 · doi:10.1109/tps.2021.3098759

Minimizing Late Currents in Pulsed Power Gas Laser Systems

2021· article· en· W3190120875 on OpenAlexaff
Harpreet Singh Grover, F.P. Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Plasma Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnubberCoaxialCapacitorElectrical engineeringElectronic circuitPulsed powerThyristorInductanceMaterials sciencePhysicsTopology (electrical circuits)OptoelectronicsVoltageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the key challenges in the design of gas lasers powered by pulsed power circuits pertains to reducing the flow of current through the electrodes during the filamentary discharge phase. This phase occurs after the lasing period (“volume glow”) is terminated due to discharge instabilities and the current flow during this period is referred to as late currents. Late currents contribute to electrode erosion. The ejected electrode material contaminates the gas, and lowering the service life of the laser. Snubber circuits are an economic solution to reducing late currents in pulsed power circuits that do not employ a magnetic switch. In a simple snubber, which is connected directly across the main storage/drive capacitor$C_{0}$, it was found that the stray series inductances of both$C_{0}$and the high voltage snubber diodes significantly reduced the magnitude of current flowing through the snubber. A new coaxial capacitor and snubber assembly was proposed to improve the effectiveness of the snubber in reducing the late currents. The design exploited the high degree of mutual coupling between the concentric coaxial cylinders to reduce the total inductance in the snubber loop. Experimental results showed an almost 40% reduction in the total charge that flows through the discharge in the late currents stage. Although the improvement was significant, it is expected that improvements to the construction quality of the prototype could potentially lower the late currents even further.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Plasma ScienceSame topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207