MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990263130 · doi:10.23919/epe.2019.8915404

Comparison of methods for compensation capacitor calculation in a three-phase wireless power transfer system

2019· article· en· W2990263130 on OpenAlexaff
S. Nie, Mehanathan Pathmanathan, Netan Yakop, Peter W. Lehn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Power Transfer Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacitorWireless power transferMaximum power transfer theoremTransmitterPower factorElectrical engineeringCompensation (psychology)AC powerVoltageBattery (electricity)Computer sciencePower (physics)Filter capacitorElectronic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsElectromagnetic coil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new approach to calculate the compensation capacitors values for high power three-phase wireless power transfer systems, suitable for deployment in wireless EV chargers. The proposed approach increases the power factor of transmitter phases, and thus reduces the DC bus voltage requirement significantly for systems with non-decoupled transmitter coils. The proposed approach derives the compensation capacitor values as a function of rated transmitter currents. The paper applies the transmitter currents from perfect alignment and extreme misalignment into the proposed approach to derive two sets of compensation capacitors. One set of capacitors provides unity power factors for each phase at perfect alignment while the other set of capacitors provides unity power factor for the phase delivering highest power for all misalignments. Simulation verification is performed at 3.3 kW output power and 300 V battery voltage showing that the proposed method can reduce the DC bus voltage requirement to below 800 V for all misalignments. Experimental results are obtained at 1000 W output power and 150 V battery voltage verifying the proposed approach.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWireless Power Transfer SystemsFrench-language works237,207