## 4 Simulation Results
The result obtained clearly shows that the proposed system model has higher performance than the bit transfer methods implemented only with the energy-harvesting-then-transmission protocol in the wireless powered communication models proposed in the literature. The reason for the rapid increase in the \(R_{\text{sec}}\) value between \(z=0\) and \(z=0.1\) can be explained as follows: After \(z=0\), \(\beta_{1}\log_{2}\biggl{(}1+\frac{P_{\text{BS}}\cdot z\left|\beta_{\text{BS-HT }}\right|\cdot\left|\beta_{\text{HT}}\right|}{c_{\text{TT}}^{2}}\biggr{)}\) term is added to the \(R_{\text{s}_{1}}\) equation and HT helps the BS in bit transmission. Since the signal reaching ED\({}_{n}\) via backscatter in the \(P_{\text{BS}}\)\(\left|g_{\text{BS-ED${}_{n}$}}\right|^{2}+P_{\text{BS}}\)\(\left|g_{\text{BS-HT }}\right|\) expression in the \(R_{\text{ED${}_{n}$}}^{1}\) equation is experienced to channel attenuation twice, it is lower power than the signal transmittedfrom BS to the ED\({}_{n}\). Therefore, the change in \(z\) does not create serious changes in terms of \(R_{\text{ED}_{n}}\). This result shows a rapid increase in the \(R_{\text{sec}}^{1}\) value in the range \(z\) = 0-0.1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline \(S_{\text{BS-ED}_{n}}\) & 0.02 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{HT-ED}_{n}}\) & 0.066 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{i}}\)-HD\({}_{n}\) & 0.1 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{BS-HT}}\) & 0.04 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{BS-IR}}\) & 0.04 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{HT-IR}}\) & 0.05 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{H-HT}}\) & 0.125 \\ \hline \(S_{\text{W-HT}}\) & 0.2 \\ \hline \(P_{\text{BS}}\) & 17 kW \\ \hline \(P_{\text{j}}\) & 100 W \\ \hline \(P_{\text{W-H}}\) & 10 dBm \\ \hline \(N\) & 3 \\ \hline \(P_{d}\) & 0.9 \\ \hline \(P_{f}\) & 0.1 \\ \hline \(P(H_{0})\) & 0.75 \\ \hline \(P(H_{1})\) & 0.25 \\ \hline \(P_{\text{bs}}\) & 1 mW \\ \hline \(P_{c}\) & 0.1 mW \\ \hline \(\
u_{\text{IR}}^{2}=\
u_{\text{ED}_{n}}^{2}\) & \(10^{-12}\) W \\ \hline \(k_{\text{BS}}=k_{\text{HT}}\) & 1 \\ \hline \(E_{i}\) & 2 mJ \\ \hline \(\beta_{0}\) & 0.2 s \\ \hline \(\gamma\) & 1 \\ \hline \(R_{1}^{+}=R_{2}^{+}\) & 5 bps/Hz \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation parameters and their values. Figure 6: Secrecy rate change according to the signal transmission power of the BS. The variation in the secrecy rate of the system according to the number of eavesdroppers is shown in Figure 8. As the ED number increases, system performance decreases. The symbiotic relationship between HT and BS and with no sensing error, perfect detection of the active or passive state of the BS improves the system performance. As seen from the results obtained, the symbiotic scenario without sensing errors (\(P_{\text{j}}=500\) W) shows the best performance at all values of the ED number. Since the increase in the signal transmission power of the Jammer increases the energy harvested by the HT, the number of bits transmitted to the IR by the HT increases. Thus, a certain increase in the number of bits reaching ED is observed. However, the jammer disrupts the signal reaching the ED, resulting in a decrease in the SNR value. Therefore, increasing \(P_{\text{j}}\) improves the secrecy rate. For example, the symbiotic scenario with sensing errors (\(P_{\text{j}}=300\) W) performs better than the symbiotic scenario with sensing errors (\(P_{\text{j}}=100\) W) after \(N=2\), while the symbiotic scenario with sensing errors (\(P_{\text{j}}=500\) W) performs better than the symbiotic scenario with sensing errors (\(P_{\text{j}}=300\) W) after \(N=5\). The results obtained for all \(P_{\text{j}}\) values in the symbiotic scenario with sensing errors are higher than those of the nonsymbiotic scenario with sensing errors. This result clearly shows the advantage of symbiotic design of the proposed system. In the absence of detection errors, the system performance is resistant to ED\({}_{n}\), so an increase in the number of EDs produces a slow decrease in \(R_{\text{sec}}\).