Experimental Comparison of Performances of Grid Connected Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental comparative study of performances in terms of efficiency on two possible grid connected small wind turbine systems. One of the systems is based on Permanent Magnet Generator (PMG) and the other system is based on Wound Rotor Induction Generator (WRIG). The Power Conditioning System (PCS) for grid connection of the PMG-based system requires a rectifier, boost converter and a grid-tie inverter, while the WRIG-based system employs a rectifier, a switch and an external resistance in the rotor side with the stator directly connected to the grid. Experimental test benches for both systems are implemented using Wind Turbine Emulator (WTE) and Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) control strategy. The procedure for calculate the PCS losses, energy capture and energy loss is presented. The expected efficiency of the systems is investigated for wind distributions at eight sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is shown that a WRIG-based system could provide 5% higher efficiency in contrast to a PMG-based system and could be an optimum alternative in the small wind energy domain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".