MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129089228 · doi:10.1109/ppic.2012.6293007

Using magnetic flux monitoring to detect synchronous machine rotor winding shorts

2012· article· en· W2129089228 on OpenAlexaff
G.C. Stone, M. Šašić, J. Stein, Chris Stinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatorRotor (electric)EngineeringSynchronous motorElectromagnetic coilSynchronizingElectrical engineeringVibrationMagnetic fluxAutomotive engineeringControl theory (sociology)Computer sciencePhysicsAcousticsMagnetic fieldTopology (electrical circuits)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rotor windings of synchronous motors and generators are usually very reliable. However, the turn insulation in such machines will eventually degrade and puncture due to thermal aging, load cycling and/or contamination. Although turn shorts do not directly lead to machine failure, they can lead to high bearing vibration, may damage synchronizing systems within brushless motors and may limit output. Off-line tests are available to detect rotor winding shorted turns, however they may be unreliable since the rotor is not spinning for the test and if only a few shorts are present, the shorts may disappear once the rotor is spinning (or vice versa). With funding from the US Electric Power Research Institute, a new type of on-line magnetic flux test has been developed that is suitable for salient pole machines, and in particular the salient pole rotors in 4 (or more) pole hydrogenerators and synchronous compressor motors that are widely used for air separation. The test requires retrofitting a small magnetic flux probe to the stator core and instrumentation to interpret the small voltage signals that are measured from the probe.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207