Performance Comparison of Coil Geometries in Self-Resonant Wireless Power Transfer System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A self-resonant wireless power transfer (SRWPT) system offers exceptional reliability by eliminating the need for physical compensation capacitors. Planar coils with parasitic capacitance between adjacent layers are particularly ideal for such systems. The geometry of the coil significantly influences the performance of the WPT system. This paper thoroughly examines and compares four prominent coil geometries: circular, square, hexagonal, and octagonal. By optimizing the track-width ratio and track-gap ratio, the AC resistance of these PCB coils is markedly reduced, leading to highly efficient SRWPT systems. Comprehensive equivalent circuit models and theoretical frameworks for the inductance and capacitance of these PCB coils have been developed. The finite element method (FEM) is employed to optimize coil design and simulate performance. Four distinct SRWPT coils were constructed and subjected to rigorous experimental testing to evaluate their effectiveness. Results reveal that the hexagonal planar coil can transfer the highest power, at 82.3W, while the square coil achieves the highest efficiency of 93% and the highest quality factor of 54.
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".