## 4 Discussion  
### Interpretation of Results  
Before discussing the results, it is essential to discuss the uncertainty in the measurements taken. The temporal resolution of the Pixhawk datalogger is 0.1 s, which means that there is a base level uncertainty of \(\pm\)0.05 s for each data point. Consider the response times shown in Table 3. For all data points except for those between 50-75%, the ATC scheme responded far quicker than the DTC model. The difference in response time between ATC and DTC was significant compared to the temporal uncertainty of the Pixhawk. The results seen are not merely an artifact of instrument noise because the difference ATC and DTC response times lie far outside the \(\pm\)0.05 s uncertainty in timing.  
Findings showed that, in general, the active control scheme was capable of a much faster response to desired power outputs than direct turbine control. The ATC scheme is also more capable of supplying voltage in the desired 12S range, which was expected  
Figure 16: Voltages produced by the turboelectric system in ATC with negative throttle steps.  
Figure 17: Battery pack voltage and current during the 100% throttle load cutoff test. The battery pack voltage successfully switches from discharge (positive) to recharge (negative).  
because of the addition of the battery. Tests also confirmed theories that sudden drops in demanded load could lead to a spike in system voltage.  
Data collected showed that, in general, the active control scheme showed a significantly faster response to desired power outputs. One exception was seen within the 50-75% test point. The ATC system took longer to reach steady-state condition after the throttle change than the DTC system did. The supplied power oscillated as the power approached its final state (Figure 11). These oscillations occurred as a result of the active control scheme not being optimally tuned. More optimization was not performed on this controller because the controller operated sufficiently for the desired tests. In addition, a more optimally tuned controller would perform better in managing power spikes, but a less optimized controller allowed the authors to prove a higher factor of safety for the switching circuitry than would have otherwise been possible with a fully optimized system. A completely optimal controller is of interest to the authors. More testing and iterating could be performed to establish a controller that gives little-to-no oscillations in provided power.  
The 12S Li-Po battery ensemble used during testing did not register voltages outside of its safe operating conditions while conducting the experiments (Figure 17). However, the circuitry, wiring, and generator experienced temporary, sudden increases in voltage up to 60 V during the 100-0% throttle experiments, as seen in Figure 15. The power saturation during sudden load shutdowns was protected from the battery by its resistor bank during testing. While the resistors aided the battery in power digestion during these load shutdowns, the resistors did not protect the rest of the system. Experimenting in acceptable increments would help identify more potential system limitations and safety factors without a resistor bank protecting the battery. Further optimization may be possible as a result of said research.