MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979371292 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2019.8861586

PI Controller Tuning & Stability study of the Flyback Converter with an Energy Regenerative Snubber

2019· article· en· W2979371292 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Alganidi, Amit Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced DC-DC Converters
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnubberControl theory (sociology)Flyback converterController (irrigation)Flyback transformerStability (learning theory)PID controllerComputer scienceControl engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringBoost converterVoltageCapacitorTemperature controlControl (management)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flyback converters are widely used for low power applications due to their simplicity. However, flyback converters require some sort of snubber circuit to clamp the voltage across the switch. An energy regenerative snubber, which has been developed recently, is one of the simplest snubbers. This paper will focus on how to tune a PI controller for an energy regenerative snubber. The stability of the converter will be studied as well. The feasibility of the converter is confirmed by simulation results obtained from PSIM, a commercially available power electronic simulation software package.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced DC-DC ConvertersFrench-language works237,207