# A Low-Cost Remotely Configurable Electronic Trap for Insect Pest Dataset Generation
## 3 Results  
### Energy Consumption  
To characterize the energy requirements of the trap, system consumption is monitored during the timed sequence of actions specified in Table 5. This table represents a timed sequence of interactions with the prototype, designed to differentiate the time intervals of the most representative consumption regimes of the system (monitoring mode, remote configuration mode without video streaming, and remote configuration mode with video streaming).  
During experimentation, an Agilent 34405A laboratory digital multimeter is used along with a Python script, which acquires and stores measurements continuously through the VISA protocol for post-processing. The results obtained are displayed in the temporal graph in Figure 13, where the intervals corresponding to the activities described in Table 5 have been identified. Finally, to facilitate interpretation of the experiment, Table 6 shows the average consumption values for each of the device's operational modes.  
The average energy consumption in each of the identified regimes is shown in Table 6. These results indicate that, for a typical duty cycle in Monitoring mode (standby, capture image, send image), the trap consumes 623 mW during standby and exhibits peaks of 960 mW during the brief transmission interval (presumably negligible). During the remote  
Figure 13: Energy consumption of the trap with relevant intervals labeled. From left to right: (**a**) system start-up, (**b–f**) frame upload to the server, (**g**) activation of the web server without clients, (**h**) active web server with a connected client, and (**i**) active web server with a client in streaming mode.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Time (s)** & **Event** & **Expected Regime** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{0} & System start-up configured in & After an unspecified start-up \\  & monitoring mode, with a & period, it enters monitoring \\  & frame upload period of 60 s & mode. \\  & and framesize of 1280 \(\times\) 720. & After an undetermined time \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{300} & Remote reconfiguration to & until the system queries the \\  & web server mode. & server for configuration, the \\  & & image upload is stopped and \\  & & the web server is started. \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{360} & Client connection to web & The web server task responds \\  & server. & to the client and serves the \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{420} & The client starts streaming & The system launches a parallel \\  & from the web page. & task to the web server that \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Working regime in the experiment.  
reconfiguration mode, when the user accesses the WebServer interface for this purpose, the prototype consumes between 641 and 647 mW, rising to 1017 mW when video streaming is activated to facilitate configuration adjustments.  
Excluding transient states such as system start-up or configuration via WebServer, which in the lifetime of the device will be insignificant periods, the trap can be modeled energetically considering the consumption during the sending of each image, as well as the baseline consumption, which appears in the figure without marking (in white). These states will alternate in the monitoring mode at the rate of the configured T period (60 s in the experimental set-up). The fewer times an image is uploaded to the server, the lower the power consumption is. These values may be reduced even further if some optimizations, based on more relaxed duty cycle times, are applied.  
It is worth noting that even in highly demanding regimes, such as streaming mode, energy consumption remains at 1.017 W. While this is a relatively low energy consumption, it would have a tangible impact on the system's battery life. Therefore, these modes should be avoided if longer operational lifespans are required.