Dynamic modeling and analysis of single-stage boost inverters under normal and abnormal conditions

Inverters play key roles in connecting sustainable energy (SE) sources to the local loads and the ac grid. Although there has been a rapid expansion in the use of renewable sources in recent years, fundamental research, on the design of inverters that are specialized for use in these systems, is still needed. Recent advances in power electronics have led to proposing new topologies and switching patterns for single-stage power conversion, which are appropriate for SE sources and energy storage devices. The current source inverter (CSI) topology, along with a newly proposed switching pattern, is capable of converting the low dc voltage to the line ac in only one stage. Simple implementation and high reliability, together with the potential advantages of higher efficiency and lower cost, turns the so-called, single-stage boost inverter (SSBI), into a viable competitor to the existing SE-based power conversion technologies.^ The dynamic model is one of the most essential requirements for performance analysis and control design of any engineering system. Thus, in order to have satisfactory operation, it is necessary to derive a dynamic model for the SSBI system. However, because of the switching behavior and nonlinear elements involved, analysis of the SSBI is a complicated task.^ This research applies the state-space averaging technique to the SSBI to develop the state-space-averaged model of the SSBI under stand-alone and grid-connected modes of operation. Then, a small-signal model is derived by means of the perturbation and linearization method. An experimental hardware set-up, including a laboratory-scaled prototype SSBI, is built and the validity of the obtained models is verified through simulation and experiments. Finally, an eigenvalue sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the stability and dynamic behavior of the SSBI system over a typical range of operation. ^

The development and analysis of a field project model curriculum and its impact on achievement and attitude toward science and the environment with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students

This study was an evaluation of a Field Project Model Curriculum and its impact on achievement, attitude toward science, attitude toward the environment, self-concept, and academic self-concept with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students. One hundred eight students were pretested and posttested on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, PHCSC (1985); the Self-Concept as a Learner Scale, SCAL (1978); the Marine Science Test, MST (1987); the Science Attitude Inventory, SAI (1970); and the Environmental Attitude Scale, EAS (1972). Using a stratified random design, three groups of students were randomly assigned according to sex and stanine level, to three treatment groups. Group one received the field project method, group two received the field study method, and group three received the field trip method. All three groups followed the marine biology course content as specified by Florida Student Performance Objectives and Frameworks. The intervention occurred for ten months with each group participating in outside-of-classroom activities on a trimonthly basis. Analysis of covariance procedures were used to determine treatment effects. F-ratios, p-levels and t-tests at p $<$.0062 (.05/8) indicated that a significant difference existed among the three treatment groups. Findings indicated that groups one and two were significantly different from group three with group one displaying significantly higher results than group two. There were no significant differences between males and females in performance on the five dependent variables. The tenets underlying environmental education are congruent with the recommendations toward the reform of science education. These include a value analysis approach, inquiry methods, and critical thinking strategies that are applied to environmental issues. ^

Using extreme value theory to value stock market returns

Extreme stock price movements are of great concern to both investors and the entire economy. For investors, a single negative return, or a combination of several smaller returns, can possible wipe out so much capital that the firm or portfolio becomes illiquid or insolvent. If enough investors experience this loss, it could shock the entire economy. An example of such a case is the stock market crash of 1987. Furthermore, there has been a lot of recent interest regarding the increasing volatility of stock prices. ^ This study presents an analysis of extreme stock price movements. The data utilized was the daily returns for the Standard and Poor's 500 index from January 3, 1978 to May 31, 2001. Research questions were analyzed using the statistical models provided by extreme value theory. One of the difficulties in examining stock price data is that there is no consensus regarding the correct shape of the distribution function generating the data. An advantage with extreme value theory is that no detailed knowledge of this distribution function is required to apply the asymptotic theory. We focus on the tail of the distribution. ^ Extreme value theory allows us to estimate a tail index, which we use to derive bounds on the returns for very low probabilities on an excess. Such information is useful in evaluating the volatility of stock prices. There are three possible limit laws for the maximum: Gumbel (thick-tailed), Fréchet (thin-tailed) or Weibull (no tail). Results indicated that extreme returns during the time period studied follow a Fréchet distribution. Thus, this study finds that extreme value analysis is a valuable tool for examining stock price movements and can be more efficient than the usual variance in measuring risk. ^

Menu Analysis: Review and Evaluation

In the article - Menu Analysis: Review and Evaluation - by Lendal H. Kotschevar, Distinguished Professor School of Hospitality Management, Florida International University, Kotschevar’s initial statement reads: “Various methods are used to evaluate menus. Some have quite different approaches and give different information. Even those using quite similar methods vary in the information they give. The author attempts to describe the most frequently used methods and to indicate their value. A correlation calculation is made to see how well certain of these methods agree in the information they give.” There is more than one way to look at the word menu. The culinary selections decided upon by the head chef or owner of a restaurant, which ultimately define the type of restaurant is one way. The physical outline of the food, which a patron actually holds in his or her hand, is another. These descriptions are most common to the word, menu. The author primarily concentrates on the latter description, and uses the act of counting the number of items sold on a menu to measure the popularity of any particular item. This, along with a formula, allows Kotschevar to arrive at a specific value per item. Menu analysis would appear a difficult subject to broach. How does a person approach a menu analysis, how do you qualify and quantify a menu; it seems such a subjective exercise. The author offers methods and outlines on approaching menu analysis from empirical perspectives. “Menus are often examined visually through the evaluation of various factors. It is a subjective method but has the advantage of allowing scrutiny of a wide range of factors which other methods do not,” says Distinguished Professor, Kotschevar. “The method is also highly flexible. Factors can be given a score value and scores summed to give a total for a menu. This allows comparison between menus. If the one making the evaluations knows menu values, it is a good method of judgment,” he further offers. The author wants you to know that assigning values is fundamental to a pragmatic menu analysis; it is how the reviewer keeps score, so to speak. Value merit provides reliable criteria from which to gauge a particular menu item. In the final analysis, menu evaluation provides the mechanism for either keeping or rejecting selected items on a menu. Kotschevar provides at least three different matrix evaluation methods; they are defined as the Miller method, the Smith and Kasavana method, and the Pavesic method. He offers illustrated examples of each via a table format. These are helpful tools since trying to explain the theories behind the tables would be difficult at best. Kotschevar also references examples of analysis methods which aren’t matrix based. The Hayes and Huffman - Goal Value Analysis - is one such method. The author sees no one method better than another, and suggests that combining two or more of the methods to be a benefit.

Indirect Cost Factors In Menu Pricing

In the discussion - Indirect Cost Factors in Menu Pricing – by David V. Pavesic, Associate Professor, Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration at Georgia State University, Associate Professor Pavesic initially states: “Rational pricing methodologies have traditionally employed quantitative factors to mark up food and beverage or food and labor because these costs can be isolated and allocated to specific menu items. There are, however, a number of indirect costs that can influence the price charged because they provide added value to the customer or are affected by supply/demand factors. The author discusses these costs and factors that must be taken into account in pricing decisions. Professor Pavesic offers as a given that menu pricing should cover costs, return a profit, reflect a value for the customer, and in the long run, attract customers and market the establishment. “Prices that are too high will drive customers away, and prices that are too low will sacrifice profit,” Professor Pavesic puts it succinctly. To dovetail with this premise the author provides that although food costs measure markedly into menu pricing, other factors such as equipment utilization, popularity/demand, and marketing are but a few of the parenthetic factors also to be considered. “… there is no single method that can be used to mark up every item on any given restaurant menu. One must employ a combination of methodologies and theories,” says Professor Pavesic. “Therefore, when properly carried out, prices will reflect food cost percentages, individual and/or weighted contribution margins, price points, and desired check averages, as well as factors driven by intuition, competition, and demand.” Additionally, Professor Pavesic wants you to know that value, as opposed to maximizing revenue, should be a primary motivating factor when designing menu pricing. This philosophy does come with certain caveats, and he explains them to you. Generically speaking, Professor Pavesic says, “The market ultimately determines the price one can charge.” But, in fine-tuning that decree he further offers, “Lower prices do not automatically translate into value and bargain in the minds of the customers. Having the lowest prices in your market may not bring customers or profit. “Too often operators engage in price wars through discount promotions and find that profits fall and their image in the marketplace is lowered,” Professor Pavesic warns. In reference to intangibles that influence menu pricing, service is at the top of the list. Ambience, location, amenities, product [i.e. food] presentation, and price elasticity are discussed as well. Be aware of price-value perception; Professor Pavesic explains this concept to you. Professor Pavesic closes with a brief overview of a la carte pricing; its pros and cons.