Talk:Dielectric barrier discharge

Merge discussion
The article Drive dielectric barrier discharge (besides its title making no sense) consists of four sentences in two paragraphs plus a bullet list, and all but the last paragraph (two sentences) are giving information that is in, or should be in, this article in the first place. There are a grand total of two sentences there concerning the apparent article topic, which is driving DBD devices. That is not enough to merit an article, particularly when a section entitled "Driving dielectric barrier discharge devices" would be completely appropriate here. We don't have articles on driving much more mainstream devices, e.g. "driving LEDs" or "driving relays" or "driving SCRs"; that information is in the articles on the respective devices. Similarly, the contents of Drive dielectric barrier discharge should be merged here and the other article deleted. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Certainly, though, if a redirect is left behind, its title needs to be fixed. Jeh (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely - my observations were similar, but I wanted to preserve the additional (albeit minor) information if possible, and found a few (maybe) useful refs for inclusion into what shopuld be the main article.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine - nothing about a merge precludes preserving the additional information. Jeh (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merged, with lots of copyediting.  What about the cleanup tag that's been there for 2 3/4 years? Is this clean enough to untag now (though it really hasn't been changed much since Feb. 2008)? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks "clean enough," yes, certainly no worse than a lot of other untagged articles. Or: It's not the greatest wikiprose, but there are a lot of other articles that should be "cleaned up" first. (Some of them are even cleanup-tagged.) I'm going to remove the tag here. Oh, and thanks for doing the merge. Jeh (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Silent"?
The lede says "Originally called silent (inaudible) discharge". I've seen the demonstration at the Deutsches Museum depicted in the picture here (two HV electrodes separated by a large glass plate; that plate btw is approximately a meter on a side) and let me tell you, it is anything but silent. The claim of "silent" here needs further explanation, or else it is wrong, or the picture is misapplied, or needs further explanation as to how it applies to this phenomenon. Jeh (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the (non-enclosed) glass plate image is to provide the visual effect of discharge across the dielectric. In this case air. Having been within a few inches (and somtimes in direct contact with), EHT DC discharges of early 1950s projection set CRT connections, I can confirm it is loud. (Thunderstorm?), I think the "silent" may refer to the "unattended operation", or does it really imply "inaudible"?. If it is unatteneded operation, where does the "driver" technology stem from, as in "computer graphic driver software". It needs further reading of the patent application to clarify the statement.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the patent detail (which is in the public domain), it appears to refer to a DC controlled layer device, not unlike an Avalanche diode or Zener diode. The theory is that it is of high impedance until the control (trigger) signal is applied. For further information please rad the patent reference where ever it ends up.Francis E Williams (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the wording of "silent (inaudible)" precludes the "unattended" interpretation. Mind you, it's a terrific picture (far better than the one I was able to take), I'm just not sure how applicable it is to the article here. "Not sure" being the operative phrase, I am not insisting on anything... I just think that anyone who has seen a similar demo will be confused as to how such a decidedly non-silent event relates to the topic here. Jeh (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where reading some sources pays off. From what I've read so far, if you can hear it, you're hearing sparks, not a DBD. The whole point is to prevent sparks and DC flow. It is more like a corona discharge than a spark, although the geometry is quite different. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Diagram needed
A very simple diagram is common in the sources I've been reading - it's basically a parallel plate capacitor with a block of some dielectric (glass, polymer,etc.) at one plate and the DBD taknig place in the air space between the dielectric and the ground plate. I won't get to it this weekend but perhaps someone has time and a reference to guide production of such a diagram? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Surge arrester tubes are not dielectric barrier discharge devices.  A DBD is energized by high frequency ac and is expected to continually produce a plasma, a corona-like discharge, useful for some process. A surge arrester tube is intended to limit transient voltages lasting microseconds by forming an arc. Different devices, different modes of operation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please credit me with a little remaining intelligence, the image was added to show the viewer what one design variation looks like. The analogy of tools that are totally different does not apply. The image of a transient discharge device is a fair visual representation of what is being described. Just because it doesn`t have milk written on the bottle, doesn`t mean it isn`t a bottle of milk. The latest new diagram was prepared from the standard drawings(s) for a typical device construction. I hope this now complies with your requirements. There are others that appear to allow the escape of the ozone produced. They are not what is being described in this section of the article.Francis E Williams (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That illustration is much closer to what everyone else draws when they want to explain a DBD. One of the linked .pdf papers has some photos of man-sized devices used for water treatment. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I`ve seen that one with the guys loading the tubes, it shows the parallel electrodes in a glass? tube version of the device. I may be tempted to draw this one in Inkscape and add it to the article. It is a shame that there are no pictures in the public domain of an actual small scale device. They have to be out there somewhere, but so far, I can`t find one.Francis E Williams (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Aerodynamic Control
There's a significant interest on using plasma barrier discharge as aerodynamic control actuator on open literature, so why it isn't added to the article? I also think the article should be properly named to "Plasma Barrier Discharge" to reflect proper connection to the plasma article unless I'm mistaken on the scope of the current article. --110.159.239.149 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Be Bold. Cite it and write it. The people who wrote the references cited in the article seem to like "Dielectric barrier discharge", does any source identify these terms as synonymous? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dielectric barrier discharge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719030536/http://www.gaef.de/EAC2009/EAC2009abstracts/T06%20Electrical%20effects/T062A04.pdf to http://www.gaef.de/EAC2009/EAC2009abstracts/T06%20Electrical%20effects/T062A04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

DBD Equivalent Circuit
Is the equivalent circuit shown in Figure 1 actually correct? I believe that Cp should be in parallel to Rp, not in series. Real current (that is to say, non-displacement current) passes across the gap in a discharge. I don't believe this is accurately modeled by a series capacitance. At the same time, a parallel capacitance is always present but is not included in this equivalent circuit.

The review article found here:

https://www3.nd.edu/~sst/teaching/AME60637/reading/2003_PCPP_Kogelschatz_dbd_review.pdf

supports this interpretation and provides a different equivalent circuit (Figure 4 in the reference). I will modify the circuit diagram and text description in the near-future unless any objections are posted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:4100:3F51:75A2:128E:25BD:396A (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Partial discharge
Should we look to merge Dielectric barrier discharge and Partial discharge or is there some distinguishing characteristic that separates the two? ~Kvng (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I wouldn't like to see these merged; dielectric barrier discharge is done on purpose, and usually partial discharge is an undesirable effect. I wonder how sources treat these two topics? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)