Factors influencing the minimum arc sustaining electric field and associated current for a high-pressure-vortex-water-wall-arc lamp
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsed high pressure arc lamps are often operated with a small sustaining current during the interpulse period in order to minimize the arc expansion time, to increase the lamps' operating lifetime and to enable operation at higher repetition frequencies. It is common to select a sustaining current level associated with an arc voltage which lies between the maximum DC source voltage and the minimum sustaining voltage. This paper shows that the radius of the arc tube, the amount of convection and radiation and the assumptions regarding the nature of the radiation model strongly influence the current value associated with the minimum sustaining voltage. Pressure and boundary temperature have only a slight effect on the current associated with the minimum sustaining voltage but affect the minimum sustaining voltage. Heat conduction plays the primary role in tubes with a small radius while optically thin radiation plays the primary role in tubes with a large radius. The simulation results were obtained using Patankar's control volume algorithm along with boundary conditions. The extended Ellenbass-Heller equation in cylindrical coordinates was solved. The numerical results for the electric field as a function of current are somewhat smaller than the experimentally derived results. Convection appears to be the reason for this difference.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it