4.7 Article

An uniform DBD plasma excited by bipolar nanosecond pulse using wire-cylinder electrode configuration in atmospheric air

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2013.10.004

关键词

Uniform wire-cylinder dielectric barrier discharge; Nanosecond pulse; Optical and electrical measurement; Atmospheric pressure air

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundations of China [51207017, 51177008, 50977006]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT13LK15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a bipolar nanosecond pulsed power supply with 15 ns rising time is employed to generate an uniform dielectric barrier discharge using the wire-cylinder electrode configuration in atmospheric air. The images, waveforms of pulse voltage and discharge current, and the optical emission spectra of the discharges are recorded. The rotational and vibrational temperatures of plasma are determined by comparing the simulated spectra with the experimental spectra. The effects of pulse peak voltage, pulse repetition rate and quartz tube diameter on the emission intensities of N-2 (C-3 Pi(u) -> B-3 Pi(g), 0-0) and N-2(+) (B-2 Sigma(+)(u) -> X-2 Sigma(+)(g), 0-0) and the rotational and vibrational temperatures have been investigated. It is found that the uniform plasma with low gas temperature can be obtained, and the emission intensities of N-2 (C-3 Pi(u) -> B-3 Pi(g), 0-0) and N-2(+) (B-2 Sigma(+)(u) -> X-2 Sigma(+)(g), 0-0) rise with increasing the pulse peak voltage and pulse repetition rate, while decrease as the increase of quartz tube diameter. In addition, under the condition of 28 kV pulse peak voltage, 150 Hz pulse repetition rate and 7 mm quartz tube diameter, the plasma gas temperature is determined to be 330 K. The results also indicate that the plasma gas temperature keep almost constant when increasing the pulse peak voltage and pulse repetition rate but increase with the increase of the quartz tube diameter. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据