Quantum mechanics

Voltage

Engineering

Materials science

Telecommunications

Power (physics)

Frequency band

Computer science

Energy harvesting

Antenna (radio)

Acoustics

Capacitor

Rectifier (neural networks)

Stochastic neural network

Physics

Nanotechnology

Triboelectric effect

Composite material

Generator (circuit theory)

Piezoelectricity

Artificial neural network

Nanogenerator

Optoelectronics

Recurrent neural network

Low frequency

Machine learning

Electrical engineering

iScience

Triboelectric nanogenerators (TENGs) and piezoelectric generators (PGs) are generally considered the two most common approaches for harvesting ambient mechanical energy that is ubiquitous in our everyday life. The main difference between the two generators lies in their respective working frequency range. Despite the remarkable progress, there has been no quantitative studies on the operating frequency band of the two generators at frequency values below 4 Hz, typical of human motion. Here, the two generators are systematically compared based on their energy harvesting capabilities below 4 Hz. Unlike PGs, the TENG demonstrates higher power performance and is almost independent of the operating frequency, making it highly efficient for multi-frequency operation. In addition, PGs were shown to be inapplicable for charging capacitors when a rectifier was attached to the system. The results of this work reveal the tremendous potential of flexible TENGs for harvesting energy at low frequency.

Triboelectric Nanogenerator versus Piezoelectric Generator at Low Frequency (&lt;4 Hz): A Quantitative Comparison

Triboelectric Nanogenerator versus Piezoelectric Generator at Low Frequency (&lt;4 Hz): A Quantitative Comparison

Triboelectric Nanogenerator versus Piezoelectric Generator at Low Frequency (<4 Hz): A Quantitative Comparison