## 5 Illustrative Results  
This part presents a plurality of analytical/simulated results to evaluate the OP of WCwEH in numerous parameters. In the following, analytical results (Ana.) are produced by computing the analytical formulas derived in Sections 3 and 4. Moreover, simulated results (Sim.) are generated by Monte Carlo simulations for comparison between analytical and simulated results to corroborate the analytical formulas. Due to linear mapping between the OP and the TP as mentioned in (18), the TP is computed directly from the OP. Consequently, this part focuses solely on the OP. For illustration, devices are locatedarbitrarily in a two-dimension plane and parameters are selected as in Table 2 unless otherwise addressed. The following figures indicate that (1) the analysis matches exactly the simulation, verifying the preciseness of the derived formulas in Sections 3 and 4; (2) increasing \(M\) improves considerably the communications reliability, which is due to the increase in harvested energy, as expected. Figure 2 illustrates the OP against \(\bar{P}\), which reveals the considerable reliability improvement (viz., smaller OP) with increasing \(\bar{P}\) for five scenarios: (1) hardware impairment and nonlinear energy harvesting (HWiNLEH) with \(M=1\); (2) hardware impairment and nonlinear energy harvesting (HWiNLEH) with \(M=6\); (3) hardware impairment and linear energy harvesting (HWiEH) with \(M=6\); (4) hardware perfection and nonlinear energy harvesting (HWpNLEH) with \(M=6\); (5) hardware perfection and linear energy harvesting (HWpLEH) with \(M=6\). This is reasonable owing to increasing harvested energy. Additionally, HWi slightly degrades the outage performance (i.e., the OP in the scenario of HWiNLEH/HWiLEH is slightly higher than that in the scenario of HWpNLEH/HWpLEH). Moreover, the effect of EHNL is neglected at low \(\bar{P}\) (i.e., the OP in the scenario of HWiNLEH/HWpNLEH is identical to that in the scenario of HWiLEH/HWpLEH for \(\bar{P}<9.5\) dBW). This is because the nonlinear energy harvesting becomes the linear energy harvesting at low \(\bar{P}\). However, at high \(\bar{P}\) where the nonlinear energy harvester is saturated, EHNL significantly mitigates the outage performance (i.e., the OP in the scenario of HWiNLEH/HWpNLEH is greatly higher than that in the scenario of HWiNLEH/HWpLEH for \(\bar{P}>9.5\) dBW) and the performance gap between LEH and NLEH continues to enlarge with increasing \(\bar{P}\), showing the detrimental impact of EHNL. Therefore, EHNL impacts the performance of the WCwEH more significantly than HWi. Figure 3 unveils the influence of the HWi on the outage performance. As per 3 GPP LTE [33], the standard range of \(\rho\) is from 0.08 to 0.175 where the physical meaning of \(\rho\) is error vector magnitude. One notices from Figure 3 that the reliability of the communication is slightly deteriorated by HWi with accreting \(\rho\), which is reasonable because of the increase in the interference caused by HWi. This figure again emphasizes that EHNL impacts the performance of WCwEH more significantly than HWi. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Location of T & \((0,0)\) m \\ Location of S & \((5,5)\) m \\ Location of D & \((50,0)\) m \\ Noise power & \(\sigma=-90\) dBm \\ Path loss exponent & \(\alpha=3\) \\ Fading power at the reference distance of 1 m & \(\tau=10^{-2}\) \\ Shadowed fading parameters \((\kappa,\chi,\mu)\) & \((3,4,2)\) \\ HWi & \(\rho=0.1\) \\ Power saturation threshold & \(t=0\) dBm \\ Energy conversion efficiency & \(\eta=0.6\) \\ Time-splitting factor & \(\beta=0.4\) \\ Transmit power of each antenna of T & \(\bar{P}=7\) dBW \\ Target transmission rate & \(R_{0}=0.6\) bps/Hz \\ Quantity of antennas at T & \(M=6\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Selected parameters unless otherwise addressed.