MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545518902 · doi:10.1109/ias.2001.955979

Brush DC motors with concentrated windings and soft magnetic composites armatures

2002· article· en· W2545518902 on OpenAlexaff
J. Cros, P. Viarouge, A. Halila

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrushArmature (electrical engineering)Electromagnetic coilDC motorCommutationMaterials scienceShunt generatorUniversal motorMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringComposite materialElectric motorEngineeringAC motorVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The armatures of conventional brush DC motors are using windings with interlocked coils elements. With this kind of distributed winding, the axial length of the end-windings is usually very important and their copper volume is large. In this paper, the authors present new structures of brush DC motor armature using a concentrated winding with a plurality of simple coils wound around the same tooth. The copper volume is about 60% lower than in the classical winding armature and the current commutation remains efficient. This kind of structure is well adapted to the use of soft magnetic composite materials for the realization of the magnetic circuit and can be used over a wide power range. The design method and a synthesis of these machines with concentrated winding armatures are presented. A prototype of concentrated winding brush DC motor is compared to a conventional motor used in a typical automotive application. The performance of the new structure in terms of torque to copper volume ratio is much higher than in the case of the classical structure.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.153
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207