Bench comparison, 148 runs, one 5 kW inverter
Electrical engineering research poster example
A bench test poster is only useful if the reader can see the whole curve, not the peak. This board runs one 5 kW inverter across five load points on three firmware versions, plots conversion loss rather than efficiency so the differences are visible, and shows that the same 0.9 point gain holds at 30% of rated load, where a rooftop array actually sits.
The whole board
The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.
Block by block
What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.
- Title band and two authors
- The title asks what the firmware bought rather than announcing a gain, and names the three versions and five load points that the columns underneath work through.
- Abstract
- Why peak efficiency describes an operating point a rooftop array rarely occupies, the rig and the run counts, the rise in peak efficiency from 96.9% to 97.8%, and the 0.9 point gain at 30% load. The abstract says the same gain holds at 30%, and the results show 0.9 points at 10% and 50% too, so the gain is flat rather than peaked.
- Figure 1, conversion loss by load point
- Three series, one per firmware version, across five load points, with loss plotted so a lower bar is better. Short tick labels and three short version names keep the axis clear of the legend band underneath.
- Results, all fifteen values
- Efficiency for every version at every load point, the peaks of 96.9%, 97.2% and 97.8% all at 50% load, the nearly flat gain of 0.8 to 0.9 points across the range, and run to run spread never above 0.08 points.
- Runs completed by version
- A bar block showing 50 of 50, 50 of 50 and 48 of 50. Its heading reads runs by version, and the figure caption notes the eight runs behind the v2.0 bar at 100%. Two runs on the newest firmware at full load ended in a thermal derate, which is why 148 runs were analysed rather than 150.
- Introduction and methods
- Why a fixed tilt array spends most of its generating hours between 20% and 50% of rated power, then five labelled protocol entries covering the unit, the rig calibration, the five load points, the runs and the efficiency measure.
- Headline number and discussion
- The stat block carries 0.9 points at 30% load with both efficiencies underneath, the same gain the results give at 10% and 50%. The discussion converts the gain to about 68 kWh a year and gives the thermal derate its own paragraph.
- Conclusions, four next tests and references
- A short conclusions block, a four item checked list of what to test next including three units and a full day profile, and three numbered references.
What makes this board work
The figure plots loss, not efficiency
Three curves between 95.1% and 97.8% drawn from a zero baseline are three flat lines. Plotting conversion loss instead, from 2.2% to 4.9%, makes the same data legible without changing a single number, and the caption says which way is better.
One unit, three firmware versions
Testing all three releases on the same serial number removes unit to unit variation from the comparison, and the methods block says so in its first line. That single design choice is why a 0.9 point difference can be claimed at all.
The gain is reported where the array sits
Release notes quote the peak. This board gives all fifteen values and points out that the gain is nearly flat across the range, then sizes it at roughly 68 kWh a year for a 5 kW array, almost all of it earned below half load.
Questions people ask
What goes on an electrical engineering research poster?
The device under test and how many of them, the rig and its calibration, the operating points and how long each was held, the number of runs, the measure and its precision, and every value rather than a selected peak. Any run that did not complete belongs on the board with its reason.
My values sit between 95 and 98 per cent. How do I plot them?
Plot the complement. A chart axis here always starts at zero, so a series in a narrow band far from zero renders as a flat line. This board plots conversion loss from 2.2% to 4.9% instead of efficiency from 95.1% to 97.8%, states the transformation in the caption, and keeps the raw values in the results block.
Should I test one unit or several?
One unit across several firmware versions removes unit variation from the comparison, which is what this study needed. It also means nothing here describes the spread between units, so the poster lists three units as the first item on its next tests list rather than implying the result generalises.
How many series can a poster figure carry?
Three is comfortable here. The series legend sits in the bottom margin next to the tick labels, so more series with long names will meet them. Keep names to a few characters, as this board does with v1.4, v1.6 and v2.0, and spell the versions out in the caption or the methods.
Where do I report a run that failed?
In the runs block and again in the discussion. Two runs at full load on the newest firmware ended in a thermal derate, so the board reports 48 of 50 completed and spends a paragraph on what that means for the peak gain. Burying it in a footnote would invite the question at the stand.
Why does the stat block pick 30% load when the gain is the same at 10% and 50%?
Because 30% is where a fixed tilt rooftop array spends much of its day, so it is the operating point a homeowner cares about. The gain there is not larger than elsewhere: the results give 0.9 points at 10%, 30% and 50%. The abstract is worded the same way: it says the gain holds at 30%, not that it peaks there.
Build your own in about a minute
The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.
Make one like thisOther poster examples
Cybersecurity research poster example
A phishing study poster is usually read from its numbers down, so this board opens with four of them across the top: 3,200 staff, two campaigns, a click rate that fell from 18.4% to 9.1%, and a report rate that rose from 12% to 31%. Everything under the strip explains how those four were produced.
Robotics research poster example
A robotics poster has to show the method as a sequence before it shows a result, because the result only means something once the reader knows what the robot does at each step. This board runs map, plan, detect, replan and execute across the top as a five stage chain, then gives run times at three obstacle densities underneath.
Renewable energy research poster example
A renewable energy research poster earns its place when it tests a number people rely on. This Australian A0 landscape board checks the design model behind rooftop solar quotes against a year of meter data from 220 systems, and finds the model overstates yield by 3.1% overall and by 7% on south facing roofs.
Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.
Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .