## 4 Discussion  
To validate the algorithm, authors propose the use of a simulation with different wind speed values, where different circumstances were tuned for the algorithm to work at all levels. Step forms were used to represent the drastic changes in wind speed. The wind speed model used is shown in Figure 16.  
HFLC performance was compared against the performance of a classic PID controller without anticipated wind speed measuring to corroborate the advantages of locating a remote anemometer. The results obtained reflected in the rotation speed of the generator shaft are shown in Figure 17. It is observed that before 450 s, the speed values of the generator shaft are lower than the nominal value. After 450 s, the rotation speed is maintained around the nominal speed of 14.6 rad/s, and it is observed that the HFLC makes the changes as fast as the drastic changes in the wind speed. In addition, the controller detects changes in the magnitude of the error and executes a response action with a value selected by the programmer that responds as quickly as is convenient according to different circumstances. By contrast, the controller based on a mathematical model has a control response proportional to the magnitude of the error in any circumstance. Figure 16: Wind speed values used for simulation. In the first 100 s, there are winds corresponding to region 1. Between 100 and 450 s, the wind turbine is maintained in region 2 with values lower than the nominal speed. After 450 s, the wind turbine is in region 3. Only between 600 s and 650 s are there values from region 4. Figure 17: Rotation speed of generator shaft. Differences in performance between the HFLC and the PID controller are observed. The HFLC shows better performance as, in operating region III, it greatly reduces the error in the speed of the rotor shaft with respect to nominal speed. In Figure 18, the pitch angle movement is documented, and it is observed at 450 s that the controller detects a drastic change in wind speed, the pitch angle movement starts immediately, and the PID controller without anticipated wind speed measuring starts movement 20 s later. It is also observed that with the HFLC, the actuator moves long distances until reaching the small error range, which results in a lower error in the generator shaft speed. On the other hand, the PID controller dampens the paths of the actuator as the error is reduced, so reduction with the error in the generator shaft speed is slower. To carry out the experiment, only real winds in the predominant direction between 70\({}^{\circ}\) and 110\({}^{\circ}\) are considered, which represents 72% of the annual time. When the wind direction is in another direction range, the controller switches to a conventional PID controller. The development of the algorithm in real operating conditions is shown in Figure 19.  
Figure 19: Experiment with real wind conditions. The behavior of the wind at the time of the experiment is shown in the upper part of the figure. The comparison of the generator shaft rotation speed using the HFLC and PID controllers is shown in the middle of the figure. The pitch angle movement with both controllers is shown in the lower part of the figure. Figure 18: Pitch angle movement. There is also a difference in the pitch angle paths, where the HFLC makes sudden (peak-shaped) changes in the angle path, while the PID controller makes smooth changes. Graphical results show that an HFLC has a better performance than a PID controller, as the value of the rotation speed of the generator shaft is always closer to the value of the nominal speed. According to a variable integration procedure, the average speed of the generator shaft with the HFLC is 14.159 rad/s, while with the PID controller, it was 12.753 rad/s. In general terms, the proposed control algorithm proved to be more efficient in the region of operation III, maintaining the nominal rotation speed of the generator up to 11% longer with respect to the controlled PID.