2-D Modeling of HTS Coils With $T$-$A$ Formulation: How to Handle Different Coupling Scenarios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical models based on the finite-element method are popular tools for investigating the macroscopic electromagnetic behavior of high-temperature superconductor (HTS) applications. This article explains how to use the <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$T$</tex-math></inline-formula> - <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$A$</tex-math></inline-formula> formulation in COMSOL Multiphysics for modeling HTS coils in 2-D with different coupling scenarios between the turns. First we consider a racetrack coil wound from one piece of superconducting tape. Then, we consider a coil obtained by winding a cable composed of different HTS tapes. In the latter case, the tape turns are either electrically connected along their entire length or just at the two ends of the coil: in the model, these two different types of electrical connection are implemented with the help of the electrical circuit module. The current density distributions and the ac losses of the coils in the different coupling scenarios are compared and discussed. The limits of applicability of the presented approach are pointed out. The model is developed for the straight section of racetrack coils, but can be easily adapted to axisymmetric geometries.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it