On the amplitude truncation effect in electromagnetic energy harvesters: Modeling and experimental validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy harvesters based on a piecewise linear system make it possible to extract more energy from environment vibrations. The amplitude truncation effect is a phenomenon of an energy harvester with a piecewise linear system. It shows a wider energy harvesting bandwidth and a lower voltage response than the purely linear counterpart. This work investigates the influence of spring length on the amplitude truncation effect and power density of electromagnetic energy harvesters. We first establish an analytical model of the piecewise linear system. Then, we apply the averaging method to explore the voltage responses in the frequency domain and compare the influence of various parameters. Later, we conduct a finite element simulation to analyze the voltage response at a constant frequency. The results obtained by the finite element simulation and averaging method match well with the experimental measurements. The experimental results demonstrate that the amplitude truncation effect is more visible at the shorter spring. Spring length plays a key role in the power density of an electromagnetic energy harvester. The case of 40 mm yields a maximum average power of 45.13 mW. The case of 30 mm displays a maximum power density of 2.35 mW/cm 3.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".