Analysis of Breakdown Voltage of Low Pour Point Synthetic Ester Insulating Liquids Under Lightning Impulse Voltage of Both Polarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the lightning impulse breakdown (LIBV) behavior of two low pour point synthetic ester liquids is presented in comparison to a typical synthetic ester (TSE) at both positive and negative polarities. Traditional mineral insulating oil has also been considered for reference purposes. A detailed breakdown behavior analysis of the four test liquids under a nonuniform field (medium gap, point-plane electrode system) and quasi-uniform field (smaller gap, U-plane electrode system) is envisaged. The LIBV measurements based on the source voltage waveforms and light activity during the discharge process are presented. The Weibull breakdown failure rates and streamer velocity during the breakdown of different liquids for all the cases (± polarities and both electrode configurations) are reported in support of the discussions. In the case of nonuniform fields, the lightning breakdown voltage of the low pour point liquids is found to be higher than TSE s and is comparable to mineral oil (MO) under both polarities. While in the case of quasi-uniform field, the lightning breakdown voltage of the low pour point liquids is found to be lower than MO and comparable to the TSE under both polarities. These findings add to limited knowledge on the application of esters in cold countries and allow insulation designers to estimate the behavior of the low pour point synthetic ester liquids under lightning conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".