The IEEE Standard 1459, the CPC Power Theory, and Geometric Algebra in Circuits With Nonsinusoidal Sources and Linear Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alternative circuit analysis technique and its associated power theory is compared to the IEEE Standard 1459 and the current's physical components power theory. The comparison shows that elimination of the fundamental reactive power quantityQ1as defined by the Standard does not ensure supply current reduction. In contrast elimination of the reactive current as defined by the CPC power theory ensures supply current reduction. However, the balance principle of the reactive power cannot be applied to the CPC power theory as the definition of the reactive power is not a signed quantity. The alternative method which uses geometric algebra instead of complex numbers, multivectors in place of phasors and the EuclidianN-dimensional space instead of the frequency domain succeeds in defining a decomposition that accounts for the total nonactive power, and also satisfies conservation. The alternative circuit analysis technique allows viewing the flow of currents and energy/powers in the circuits under examination. Additionally, the paper provides 4 reasons why the present definition of apparent power defined as the product of the magnitude of current and voltage is unsuitable for nonsinusoidal circuits in theGNdomain.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".