A modular balancing bridge for series connected Li-ion batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The operation of a non-dissipative cascaded modular balancing bridge (MBB) is described for automatically balancing series connected lithium ion batteries. Automatic voltage balancing is achieved using coupled inductors; modularization and voltage balancing is achieved across N cells using cascaded transformers with coupling windings. The elementary modular bridge consists of four windings placed on a single core with an asymmetrical half-bridge. Two of these windings are used to automatically balance voltages across two battery cells, while the remaining two windings magnetically cascade one bridge with its neighboring bridges to automatically balance the voltage across N battery cells. This configuration allows for the voltage balancing of N battery cells using N identical transformers, and N/2 asymmetric bridges. The voltage balancing action of the resultant magnetically coupled cascaded asymmetric bridges can be broken into two categories: intra-bridge voltage balancing (within a single pair of battery cells), using the switching action of one asymmetrical bridge and inter-bridge voltage balancing (between pairs of battery cells). The parameters of the balancing bridge that affect the average balancing current is described and related to a physical size using commercially available transformers. The practical limitations of the battery cell voltage balancing methods are described, and a four-cell experimental prototype is used to verify simulated results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".