Matching Losses Evaluation in Voltage Doubler Rectifiers for High Efficiency Rectifying Antenna Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voltage Doubler (VD) rectifiers are known to be most effective in the design of radiofrequency energy harvesting circuits (known as rectenna for Rectifying Antenna). The performance comparisons in most of the previous work have been evaluated concerning single-wave or double-wave bridge rectifiers. However, there are several topologies of VD; this paper then proposes to compare the performance of two types of VD: the Latour VD (LVD) and the Schenkel VD (SVD). Both prototypes are designed with Schottky HSMS 2850 diode, and performances in terms of DC output voltage, conversion efficiency, and matching loss are evaluated. For operating frequencies between 0 and 3.5 GHz, it appears that the performance in terms of DC output voltage and conversion efficiency is almost similar. However, for matching losses, gaps of up to 60 μW/Ω are observed between the two types of VD. This difference can be significant if we consider the level of power consumed in most rectennas applications. The LVD is the topology that shows the least matching loss for input power between -20 dBm and 20 dBm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".