## 3 Result and Discussion
### Simulation
Suppose the lowest \(\eta_{t}\) occurred at \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I\) for Figure 6a, then \(\eta_{e}\) only lost 0.24% from 12.9% at \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I=0\). Suppose the cross point occurred at \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I=0.05\) for Figure 6b, then \(\eta_{e}\) only lost 0.79% from 12.9% at \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I=0\). When \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I>>0\), \(\eta_{e}\) was smaller, the Joule heating effect was also low. Joule heating was only effective in increasing thermal efficiency in the interval with \(0\leq\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I\leq 0.05\) as the effective region. For more details, Table 2 summarizes the complete parameters as the result of the simulation analysis in Figures 3-6, such as \(K_{SA}\), \(U_{L}\), \(\eta_{t}\), \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I\), RMS, etc. There was no significant difference between Tables 1 and 2. That is, the OMF component of the experiment and the simulation provided almost identical values. Figure 4: The thermal efficiency vs. the reduced temperature for the without wind loss effect: (a) T-mode (simulation vs. experiment); (b) PVT-mode (simulation vs. experimentation). Figure 5: The thermal efficiency vs. the reduced temperature: (**a**) T-mode simulation vs. PVT-mode simulation for the wind loss effect; (**b**) T-mode simulation vs. PVT-mode simulation for the without wind loss effect. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Items** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Wind Loss Effect**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Without Wind Loss Effect**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **Unit** & **T-Mode** & **PVT-Mode** & **T-Mode** & **PVT-Mode** \\ \hline \(K_{SA}\) & W/m\({}^{2}\cdot\)C & 44.39 & 180.42 & 46.68 & 257.34 \\ \(U_{L}\) & W/m\({}^{2}\cdot\)C & 28.25 & 36.70 & 23.34 & 32.96 \\ \(\eta_{t}\rightarrow\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I=0\) & \(\times\)100\% & 0.495 & 0.569 & 0.540 & 0.603 \\ \(\left(T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I\rightarrow\eta_{t}=0\) & \({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)m\({}^{2}\)/W & 0.029 & 0.019 & 0.035 & 0.021 \\ \(\eta_{t}/\left(\left[T_{i}-T_{a}\right)/I\right]\) & \%\({}_{0.02}\)/\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)W & 17.26 & 30.28 & 15.58 & 29.22 \\ \(RMS_{(r-e)}\) & \% & 16.3 & 10.9 & 14.0 & 10.2 \\ \(RMS_{(s-e)}\) & \% & 0.00 & 0.82 & 0.02 & 0.74 \\ \(\mathit{KS}_{A}/U_{L}\) & - & 1.57 & 4.92 & 2.00 & 7.81 \\ \(\mathit{OMF}\approx F_{R}\) & - & 0.61 & 0.83 & 0.67 & 0.89 \\ \(\mathit{OMF}_{\mathit{rot}}/\mathit{OMF}_{t}\) & - & & 1.36 & & 1.33 & \\ \(K_{SA,\mathit{rot}}/K_{SA,A}\) & - & & 4.06 & & 5.51 & \\ \(U_{L,\mathit{rot}}/U_{L,t}\) & - & & 1.30 & & 1.41 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of parameters constructed from the OMF simulation results. Figure 6: Electrical and thermal efficiency: (**a**) PVT-mode (simulation) wind loss effect and without wind loss effect; (**b**) the effective region for PVT-mode (simulation) vs. T-mode (simulation) for the without wind loss effect. Figure 7 shows the simulation results of thermal efficiency versus reduced temperature for without and wind loss effect. The OMF values were varied by increasing the values of \(K_{SA}\) and \(U_{L}\) proportionally. Then, the results were simulated for thermal efficiency. As seen in Figure 7a for the without wind loss effect, increasing OMF of 0.06 from 0.82 to 0.89 has the potential to increase the thermal efficiency by 3.9%. Figure 7b for the wind loss effect, shows increasing OMF of 0.04 from 0.88 to 0.92, potentially increasing the thermal efficiency by 2.7%.