Comparison of high-speed switched reluctance machines with conventional and toroidal windings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents designs of 50,000 rpm 6/4 switched reluctance motors (SRM's) with a focus of the comparative study on conventional and toroidal windings. There are four different machines compared in this paper, while the first is a conventional SRM, and the other three are toroidal winding machines. The first toroidal SRM (TSRM1) employs the conventional asymmetric convert and the same switching sequence as conventional SRM (CSRM). Therefore, an equivalent magnetic performance is observed. The second toroidal SRM (TSRM2) introduces a 12-switch converter topology. With a proper coil connection and switching sequence, all the coils are active and contribute to the flux and torque generation at the same time. The analysis shows that for the same amount of copper losses, TSRM2 yields a 50% higher output torque and power at rated speed than CSRM, while TSRM1 only generates half the torque of CSRM. The third toroidal SRM is a resized TSRM2, which is presented with the same envelope dimension of CSRM (same volumetric comparison). The comparison shows it's competitive to CSRM, especially as toroidal-winding can achieve higher filling factor during the manufacture process of winding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".