MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demonstration of Low Frequency and High-Power Density Aln-Based Piezoelectric Vibration Energy Harvesters Using High Density Tungsten Proof Masses

2024· article· en· W4405907471 on OpenAlexafffund
André Dompierre, Mostafa Keshavarzi, Amrid Amnache, Luc G. Fréchette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Resonator Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologique
FundersUniversité Grenoble AlpesUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsTungstenVibrationPiezoelectricityEnergy harvestingMaterials sciencePower densityProof massPower (physics)Energy densityEnergy (signal processing)Electrical engineeringAcousticsProof of conceptComputer scienceComposite materialPhysicsEngineeringEngineering physicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we experimentally evaluate the performance of piezoelectric energy harvesters integrated with tungsten proof masses. A wafer level process was successfully developed to fabricate multiple devices. Tungsten proof masses were integrated in MEMS harvesters, which previously used silicon proof masses. This integration helped reduce the resonant frequency of the harvesters closer to ambient vibration and enhance device performance. The results demonstrate significant improvement in the Q factor for the tungsten-integrated devices, increasing from 250 to 2000 for one of the devices. Normalized power densities of $244.8 \mathrm{~mW} \cdot \mathrm{~g}^{-2} \cdot \mathrm{~cm}^{-3}$ at 50 Hz and $69.4 \mathrm{~mW} \cdot \mathrm{~g}^{-2} \cdot \mathrm{~cm}^{-3}$ at 553 Hz were achieved for different devices. These results demonstrated that we have achieved some of the highest performance levels among piezoelectric energy harvesters while operating at low frequencies typical of available ambient vibration in the environment of IoT devices, without the need for vacuum packaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcoustic Wave Resonator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207