Fabrication of Synergy Coefficients and Discharge Voltages: Report on 'Comparative Analysis of Statistical Characteristics of Partial Discharge in SF6/N2 Mixtures vs. Pure SF6'

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report flags serious data integrity problems in a 2025 paper published in High Voltage Engineering (DOI: 10.13336/j.1003-6520.hve.20240420) by Liu Yujie and colleagues at Xi'an Jiaotong University. The authors' own synergy-coefficient formula (Eq. 1) is applied to the numerical values reported in Table 1; the back-calculation yields negative discharge inception voltages for pure SF6 under two configurations, an internal inconsistency that is mathematically impossible. A third conflict appears between Table 1 and Section 2.3.2, where the inferred SF6 breakdown voltage (~27.9 kV) contradicts the authors' own phase ranges (26–48 kV). In addition, 'Dalton's law of partial pressures' is misspelled as 'Dolton's law', a basic-physics slip. Taken together, the synergy-coefficient numbers appear to be fabricated rather than measured, supporting the verdict of confirmed (实锤) academic fraud. Confidence is high because the contradictions arise from the paper's own formula and text, but independent verification of the raw experiments is still required to assign authorship intent.

Verdict

🔴 Confirmed (实锤). The synergy-coefficient values in Table 1, when inserted into the authors' own Eq. 1, produce physically impossible (negative) SF6 inception voltages, indicating that the reported λ values are internally inconsistent and likely fabricated.

Key findings

Internal mathematical contradiction: Eq. 1 back-calculated with Table 1 values yields negative SF6 inception voltages for both surface (PDIV) and floating-electrode (PDIV) tests.
Cross-section contradiction: the SF6 breakdown voltage implied by Table 1 (~27.9 kV) is incompatible with the phase ranges (26–48 kV) described in Section 2.3.2 for floating-electrode breakdown.
Basic-physics error: 'Dolton 分压定律' should be 'Dalton 分压定律' (Dalton's law of partial pressures).
Pressure ratio term equals 1 at 0.4 MPa, so the contradiction cannot be attributed to a unit or scaling error.

Evidence highlights

Equation (1) used by the authors: λ = (U_{SF6/N2} − U_{N2}) / (U_{SF6} − U_{N2}) × P_{SF6} / P_{SF6/N2}. With P_{SF6}/P_{SF6/N2} = 1 (same 0.4 MPa), the formula reduces to λ = (U_{SF6/N2} − U_{N2}) / (U_{SF6} − U_{N2}).
Surface PDIV: λ = 0.714, U_{SF6/N2}/U_{SF6} = 50%, U_{N2} = 1.2 kV → 0.714 = (0.5 U_{SF6} − 1.2) / (U_{SF6} − 1.2) → U_{SF6} = −1.603 kV.
Floating-electrode PDIV: λ = 0.580, U_{SF6/N2}/U_{SF6} = 48%, U_{N2} = 2.4 kV → 0.580 = (0.48 U_{SF6} − 2.4) / (U_{SF6} − 2.4) → U_{SF6} = −10.08 kV.
Floating-electrode BDV: λ = 0.338, U_{SF6/N2}/U_{SF6} = 69.4%, U_{N2} = 15 kV → U_{SF6} ≈ 27.89 kV, contradicting Section 2.3.2 phase ranges 26–32 kV, 32–40 kV, 40–48 kV.
DOI: 10.13336/j.1003-6520.hve.20240420.

Notes

The contradictions are derived solely from the paper's own published formula, Table 1, and narrative text; no external data was required.
Definitive attribution of intent (fabrication vs. clerical error) requires the authors' raw experimental records and the journal's investigation.
The misspelling of Dalton's law is a secondary indicator often associated with cut-and-paste compilation or low-quality AI-generated text; by itself it is not proof of fraud but reinforces the pattern of carelessness.