MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068949762 · doi:10.5402/2012/167192

Performance Evaluation of an Induction Machine with Auxiliary Winding for Wind Turbine Power

2012· article· en· W2068949762 on OpenAlexafffund
Riadh Habash, Qianjun Tang, Pierre Guillemette, Nazish Irfan

Bibliographic record

VenueISRN Renewable Energy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Centres of ExcellenceOntario Power AuthorityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsInrush currentInduction generatorOverheating (electricity)HarmonicsStatorTurbineWind powerPower (physics)Control theory (sociology)EngineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringTransformerVoltageMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to reinforce with theoretical and experimental evaluation the effectiveness of employing an induction generator to enhance the performance of a small wind energy converter (SWEC). With this generator, the SWEC works more efficiently and therefore can produce more energy in a unit turbine area. To verify the SWEC performance, a model has been proposed, simulated, built, and experimentally tested over a range of operating conditions. The results demonstrate a significant increase in output power with an induction generator that employs an auxiliary winding, which is only magnetically coupled to the stator main winding. It is also shown that the operating performance of the induction machine with the novel proposed technique is significantly enhanced in terms of suppressed signal distortion and harmonics, severity of resistive losses and overheating, power factor, and preventing high inrush current at starting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISRN Renewable EnergySame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207