MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149768067 · doi:10.1109/pesc.2005.1581620

An Intelligent Maximum Power Point Tracker Using Peak Current Control

2006· article· en· W2149768067 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Savio D'Souza, Luiz A. C. Lopes, Xuejun Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum power point trackingControl theory (sociology)Photovoltaic systemMaximum power principlePerturbation (astronomy)Transient responseTransient (computer programming)Computer scienceSteady state (chemistry)Power (physics)EngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perturbation and observation (P&O) maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms are commonly used in photovoltaic (PV) systems due to their easy implementation and ability to track the maximum power point (MPP) of the solar array under widely varying atmospheric conditions viz. solar irradiation, panel temperature etc. P&O algorithm based on peak current control and the use of instantaneous sampled values to calculate the next perturbation direction have the potential for faster transients and smaller oscillations around the MPP. The use of fixed variation of the reference current results in a compromise sub-optimum solution. This paper discusses a fuzzy logic based P&O MPPT with peak current control with variable variation of the reference current for improved transient as well as steady-state performance. Simulation results show a 15 % gain in the transient response and decrease of the power loss in the steady state. Besides, both the P&O scheme with fixed variation for the reference current and the intelligent MPPT algorithm were able to identify the global MPP in a partially shaded PV module, however the performance of the intelligent MPPT algorithm was better

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations123
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207