Figure 1 – Piezoelectric device with attached mass [Sparkfun].
Problem
Compare commercially-available energy harvester types to determine the optimal combination of piezoelectric and substrate materials for body-worn energy harvesting applications.
Process
Compare the stiffness, cost effectiveness, insulation effectiveness, recyclability, and biocompatibility of silicon, glass, plastic, and protein substrate materials.
Compare the actuation force, reaction speed, density, driving voltage, power consumption, and toughness of piezoelectric polymers and piezoelectric ceramics.
Measure the voltage range and peak widths of three different commercially-available energy harvesters using a logging multimeter.
Product
Figure 2 – Desirable properties of various substrate materials.
Figure 3 – Properties of evaluated piezoelectric materials.
Figure 4 – Observed performance of evaluated energy harvester types.
Figure 5 – Observed performance of thin/flexible energy harvester with attached mass.
