Influence of Ester Liquids on Dielectric Strength of Cellulose Kraft Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generally, impregnation of solid insulation is performed to increase the dielectric strength and reduce the dielectric losses of solid insulants. This increase in dielectric strength depends on the oil’s diffusion and dielectric properties. This paper investigates the diffusion behavior of mineral oil and ester fluids (synthetic, natural, and mixed) to understand the influence of oil diffusion on paper breakdown voltage. To better understand this phenomenal influence, cellulose insulation paper of different thicknesses has been considered. Wetting characteristics of various oil-paper insulation systems were investigated with and without thermal stressing. Thermal aging was carried out as per modified ASTM D1934 at 110 °C, 140 °C, 160 °C, and 185 °C respectively for 2 weeks. The wetting characteristics and influence of different oils on paper breakdown voltage were explicitly reported. It is inferred that paper wetting characteristics are attributable to the type of oil, the thickness of paper, and the aging factor of oil-paper insulation. Importantly, the increase in paper dielectric strength and diffusion behavior for ester fluids is found to be superior to that of the mineral insulating oils.
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".