Comparison of conventional and regenerative electrostatic energy harvesters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a performance comparison of two green electrostatic energy harvesters based on force‐sensitive mechanically variable capacitors. A startup battery is required in the conventional electrostatic energy harvester to precharge the mechanically variable capacitor. This adds an extra element to the device and increases the harvester's size and weight. The proposed harvester does not need a startup battery, operates in a regenerative mode, and provides a similar output power. It has a compact size and can start from low voltages. The conventional and regenerative harvesters were developed using mechanically variable capacitors fabricated with renewable materials (i.e. nanocellulose and carbon‐coated nanocellulose). The flexible nanocellulose films and the cost‐effective fabrication process make the energy harvesters suitable for powering low‐power and wearable devices. The bio‐based materials further reduce the environmental impact of the devices. Prototypes of the two energy harvesters were built, and their performances were compared on the basis of simulation and measurement results. Both simulation and experimental results are shown to demonstrate the startup and scalable energy availability of the proposed regenerative electrostatic energy harvester for driving low‐power devices, such as wireless sensor networks.
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.
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 it