Performances Comparison of Shottky Voltage Doubler Rectifier to support RF Energy Harvesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromagnetic waves are increasingly the preferred source for charging the battery of wireless sensor nodes. Given the small amount of harvestable energy, much work has been proposed to optimize the energy efficiency of radiofrequency energy converter circuits. Among these researches, Voltage Doubler (VD) rectifier occupies a predominant place. This work then proposes to compare the performance of the two types of VD that are the Greinacher Voltage Doubler (GVD) and the Delon Voltage Doubler (DVD). Performance criteria are DC output voltage, RF/DC conversion efficiency, and matching losses. A Rectenna Figure of Merit (RFoM) that considers these three parameters is defined for an overall comparison of the rectifiers. The analyzes are carried out in the 900 MHz, 2.45 GHz ISM and 5.8 GHz frequency bands and the performances of the two circuits when they are perfectly adapted are also analyzed. As a result, it is obtained that the DVD rectifier is more suitable for miniature designs without a matching filter. The two voltage doublers when they are matched have almost similar performances in terms of DC voltage and RF/DC conversion efficiency. However, the insertion losses are higher in the GVD.
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".