Fluid-Power Harvesting by Under-Foot Bellows During Human Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pneumatic and hydraulic bellows were investigated for under-foot power harvesting during human walking. Placement under the heel allows the bellow to be compressed during the heel strike of the gait cycle, whereas placement under the metatarsal allows compression during the mid-stance and toe-off phases. In either case, body weight is used as the power source for a self-contained fluid power circuit. Once unweighted, air is drawn into the bellow through a one-way valve allowing the bellow to recharge as it expands during the swing phase of the gait cycle. A collapsible spring was placed inside the bellow to ensure full opened conditions for this phase. To evaluate this concept, experimental studies were conducted on two circular bellows with outside diameters of 4.13 cm and 6.35 cm placed under the heel or the metatarsal of the foot, on a person walking on a treadmill. These pressure profiles were then reproduced on a compression testing machine to investigate the power generated per cycle. During normal walking, the pneumatic bellows generated peak power levels of 20–25 W and maximum pressures of 450 kPa. The average power available over a single cycle was 1.5 and 4.5 W for the small and large bellows, respectively. This novel use of bellows demonstrates the ability to use these devices for regenerative fluid power harvesting capabilities during walking.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".