## 3 Results
This ability to collect flux more effectively over a wider area is a key advantage of the VC method compared to the DDQ method. When an EV passes above the transmitter, the total amount of energy transferred to its receiver would be equivalent to the area below the efficiency curve multiplied by the time duration of the pass and the power of the source. In Figure 7, the ratio of the area below the curves of the VC to the DDQ is 1.54. This means that the VC receiver would harvest 54% more energy from the source during a full pass than the DDQ receiver, hence the importance of the expansion of the efficiency curve. The fluctuations observed in the efficiency graph are not of significant concern. While it is, of course, preferable to avoid any \"dips\" in the graph, the primary objective is to maximize the area under the curve, as this corresponds to greater energy transfer. The consistency of the graph is secondary to achieving this goal, and we have successfully fulfilled that aim. To experimentally validate these results, we scaled down both models to bench-top dimensions which could be easily measured in the lab. We then simulated, constructed, and measured the smaller models to show that the results of the simulations and the actual models were in accordance. The dimensions of the VC and DDQ scaled-down models  
Figure 7: Simulation results of the energy transfer efficiency in the DDQ (blue curve) and the VC (red) models. are displayed in Table 1. Some of the dimensions were dictated by the dimensions of the readily available hardware, such as the ferrite plates. Although far from optimal, these models enabled us to examine the agreement between simulation and experiment results. For simplicity, we focus here on the results of the VC scaled-down model which are presented in Figure 8. The solid curve, presenting the simulated efficiency, exhibits two distinct peaks and two mid-level peaks. The VC graph spans a range from \(-15\) to \(15\) cm (the transmitter coils span from \(-5.5\) to \(5.5\) cm; see Table 1). This indicates that even when the device is not positioned directly above the transmitting coils, it still picks up magnetic flux and receives energy. The experimental results, displayed as dots in the figure, agree with the simulated results in their main findings: the figure displays two distinct high peaks and two mid-level peaks and it spans over the same position range. However, there are differences in the locations of these peaks and in their values, and the measured efficiency is lower around the center and higher outwards than the simulated values. The quantitative discrepancies between the simulation and the measurements may be attributed to several factors: imperfection in coil positioning, the use of a stack of thin ferrite plates instead of the simulated bulk, variance between the simulated and actual B(H) curve of the material, variations in the actual values of the electric circuit components, and variations in the resonance frequencies. All may lead to symmetry breaking and changes in the measured values. Still, as the experiment and simulations describe the same qualitative features, we assume that the simulations may be relied upon. The results from a scaled-down DDQ lab model, which exhibit similar qualitative agreements and quantitative discrepancies between simulations and experiments, further support the reliability of the simulations for studying receiver configurations. These results are not presented here. In the following, we describe measurements of the resonance frequency. The transmitter and VC resonance circuit configurations were designed to operate at 85 kHz, within the standard frequency range of DWPT for EV applications. The capacitor for each VC circuit was selected to achieve a resonance frequency of 85 kHz for the self-inductance of each VC coil.