High-efficiency passive full wave rectification for electromagnetic harvesters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the performance of four types of full-wave bridge rectifiers designed for electromagnetic energy harvesters based on silicon diodes, Schottky diodes, passive MOSFETs, and active MOSFETs. Simulation and experimental results show that MOSFET-type rectifiers are more efficient than diode-type rectifiers, reaching voltage and power efficiency of 99% for ideal voltage source with input amplitudes larger than 800 mV. Since active MOSFETs require extra components and an external DC power supply, we conclude that passive MOSFETs are superior for micro-power energy harvesting systems. We demonstrate passive MOSFET rectifiers implemented using discrete, off-shelf components and show that they outperform all electromagnetic harvester rectifiers hitherto reported obtaining a power efficiency of 95%. Furthermore, we show that passive MOSFET rectifiers do not affect the center frequency, harvesting bandwidth, or optimal resistance of electromagnetic harvesters. We demonstrate a complete power management module by adding a capacitor to the rectifier output terminal. We found that this configuration changed the optimal resistive load from 40 Ω to 55 Ω and decreased output power efficiency to 86%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".