Small Wind Turbine Performance Evaluation Using Tower- and Nacelle-Mounted Anemometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methods of evaluating the power performance of a small wind turbine (SWT) have been assessed. The current industry standard for wind turbine performance verification, IEC-61400-12-1, involves erecting a meteorological reference mast on site. This is often not practical for SWT owners and as a result turbine performance is often left unverified. A Bergey XL 1 SWT collocated with a meteorological mast was used to assess vertical extrapolation and nacelle anemometry as alternative methods for SWT performance verification. Findings indicate that vertical extrapolation with best practice methods can be a viable option if the use of a reference mast is not feasible. Nacelle anemometry showed mixed results but was less accurate at high wind speeds and can only be considered an option if the appropriate correction models are known in advance. A third component of the study involved three-dimensional sonic anemometry to determine the optimal location for a single cup anemometer mounted on the turbine tower (so as to balance being as high as possible while remaining out of the influence of the rotating blades). This information would increase the accuracy of vertical extrapolation and would also be useful to SWT owners who wish to use only one anemometer for performance evaluation. A region of non-horizontal flow was identified and will be quantified in further studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".