Simulation of sun tracking system for point focus fresnel collector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents simulation of a sun tracking system that was developed for a Point Focus Fresnel Collector (PFFC) installed at King Saud University. The tracker is dual axis with a concentration ratio of 160 and a small acceptance angle of 2 degrees, hence a precise tracking control is required. Two control schemes were developed and tested, the open loop and closed loop. A sun position algorithm was used for open loop control whereas a sun sensor was used for closed loop control. The control system were simulated using Matlab/Simulink. It was found that open loop tracking is simpler to implement and consumes less power but is also less accurate and tracking error accumulates over time. On the other hand, closed loop control is more complicated to implement, consumes more power is much more accurate than open loop control. So, it is recommended to use the closed loop controller for PFFC system. The individual components of the control system were modelled using generic Simulink models. The complete model was operated in both open loop and closed loop configurations. The results of the models were analysed to estimate the operating limits of the tracker.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".