energy harvesting from sound - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: anagram
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 31, 2021, 10:13:20 am
content: Apparently the trick we've all been missing in efficient energy harvesting from sound is to put an amplifier between the mic and the batteryhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Energy-harvesting-from-sound-waves-for-low-voltage-Vijay-Prajapati/916c21098b21dd6f9f907a4187abac1280082b9a. I feel so dumb. I think I can improve their circuit by replacing the LED with a piezo sounder, though it would get quite loud as charging progressed...

author: MF-jockey
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2021, 11:56:48 pm
content: And if you switch on a power amplifier, you can cook your meal with the twittering of birds

author: m3vuv
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 06:27:44 am
content: i see no reason if you lived next door to say a motorway no reason to use a big loudspeaker as a mic then rectifie the output to charge something,not sure it would be worth it but dooable i would imagine in theory .

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 07:16:18 am
content: How did this get publishedStill a great laugh tho. What if you chain multiple amplifier together, then we could power an entire country with just 1 microphone!

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 09:17:02 am
content: A large part of "scientific" papers are utter bullshit.There is a HUGE issue in the quality of submissions and IMHO, large part of the problem is in all the secrecy and making scientific publishing a business.When I worked at uni, we had a scoring system where basically there are class A and B publications, and then "the rest", and researchers are not supposed to publish at all in "the rest" category, but can publish in class B or class A journals, latter providing their department higher score, which means, in the long run, more funding for the department.But do note the world is full of substandard universities. Crap universities publishing BS in crap journals is an ecosystem of its own.I myself published a paper in one of the "class A" publications (Elsevier, Microprocessors and Microsystems journal) and I must say I wasn't too pleased about the quality of the review process. I had to request one completely incompetent reviewer to be replaced, for example. The whole process is also expensive, universities must pay the journals to get something published, then transfer all the rights to make money by selling access to the publications. You could expect the authors get paid by the journals but it's the opposite! Also I skimmed through quite many publications in said "class A" journals and wasn't too pleased about the scientific standards. The quality problem is wide, not only limited to the "worst offenders".Autogenerated crap is known to pass the process just fine.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 09:32:02 am
content: "Just add a 12v battery".

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 09:42:17 am
content: The quality control in scientific publications is really poor. There are way too any poor papers published, because the numbers are inportant not really quality. A common problem is that the same weak results are published multiple times with only minor changes. The numbers just get so large that it is hard to find the few good ones, even with the search engines.This articel is utter BS, not even good for the 1st of april. The best result is knowing about the quality of the review system for that journal.The conversion of sound to electricity and back is relatively low efficiency - so the potential to get useful power levels (e.g. > 1µW) is low. The air just has low mass and this not really much force. The acoustic impedance is poorly matched, so most of a sound wave is refelcted by a speaker. It is a bit like making white solar cells.

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2021, 09:43:55 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on November 03, 2021, 09:17:02 amAnother problem is that, taking into account the information provided in most papers, it’s almost impossible to recreate the experiment in another lab to check the results

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2021, 09:34:50 am
content: Research should really be published with source code, schematics (from the version control system, not just the final version) and most importantly lab notes ... but who would feel secure enough to expose themselves to that extent?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2021, 11:16:52 am
content: Quote from: Marco on November 06, 2021, 09:34:50 amThe paper I authored came with a website where you could download all the source code of the developed tools, and example data captures used in the paper.And I can assure you, the code was quite crappy C/C++ bastardization with some a tad less crappy VHDL. Didn't feel too secure publishing that, but that was still the only right thing to do, the purpose of science is not to "feel secure".This was over a decade ago and it seems it's now gone from the University site. The university have changed their name after that anyway. Maybe some business consultant saw the old web site layout and decided it's not suitable in 2020's.

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2021, 12:58:31 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on November 06, 2021, 09:34:50 amIf you have a grant from a company to conduct that research it’s quite common that they have the right to censor publications derived from it. It’s far from perfect, but at least the research can be conducted. However, I think that it should be mandatory to allow reviewers to access any information required to verify the publication (with a confidential agreement to avoid leakages)