Design Considerations of 2-D Magnetizers for High Flux Density Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 2-D magnetizer introduces variation in the flux density (B) across the sample under rotational magnetization. This variation requires additional energy requirements that limits the attainable aspect ratios, flux density levels and stresses the supply. A numerical methodology that accounts for the flux leakage and the eddy currents is proposed to analyze uniformity and variation in B in four 2-D magnetizers. The analysis was done beyond the knee of the magnetization curve. Numerical results will show that round magnetizers can mitigate the variation of the square magnetizer by over 92%, by making the MMF more sinusoidal and equalizing the reluctance along the airgap. In addition, deeper yokes minimized the variation by about 50% in the square and the Halbach testers. The results of this analysis was a design that mitigates the variation in B by a combination of sinusoidally distributed windings, and a deep yoke. The proposed magnetizer achieved very high flux densities over a relatively wide frequency range, which were 2.04 and 1.69 T at 60 Hz and 1 kHz, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".