Design considerations of 2-D magnetizers for high flux density measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fieldmetric measurement of 2-D core losses requires the use of orthogonal magnetic field H and flux density B sensors that are placed in a region of very high uniformity. It is difficult to achieve uniformity in the entire measurement region, in addition to the variation of B with magnetization directions. Therefore, there is a need to eliminate and/or reduce any contribution of a 2-D magnetizer to this variation, which contributes to systematic errors. Uniformity due to the magnetizer can only be controlled at the design stage. In that regard, four 2-D magnetizers are compared based on the variation of B with changes in magnetization directions. At high flux densities, any non-uniformity in B results in very H values, thus the errors due to the magnetizer are significant. Another effect of high non-uniformity is a reduction of the measurement area. It will be shown that the choice of the magnetizer design (hence the sample shape) significantly affects the variation of B with magnetization direction. In addition, the effect of the yoke depth in mitigating this problem is presented where it reduces this variation by 50%, for certain magnetizers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".