MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317982392 · doi:10.2514/6.2011-5652

The Adverse Effects of Not Including Capacity Addition During LiIon Taper Charging in EPS Sizing for LEO Missions

2011· article· en· W2317982392 on OpenAlexaff
P.G. Bailey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the design of the Electrical Power System, the batteries are used during the eclipse cycle where there is no sunlight, to provide energy to a certain depth-of-discharge (DOD), and are charged during the times that the spacecraft is in the sun. For high orbits, such as Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), there is ample time to charge both Nickel Hydrogen (NiH) and Lithium Ion (LiIon) battery cells from the maximum allowed DOD back to a full condition. For Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites with high energy use profiles, charging current restrictions may limit the amount of current available for charging per orbit, and full recharging may not occur until after a certain number or many complete orbits. This paper discusses the advantages and limitations of allowing or disallowing the including of the capacity addition during the taper charging portion of the recharging cycle for LiIon battery cells. Taper charging is defined to begin when the maximum specified charging voltage is reached, and may continue until the cell is fully charged. Some researchers have suggested that the capacity addition during taper charging might not be allowed in order to offset other capacity losses that may occur, such as during cell rebalancing.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207