4.7 Article

Comparison of applied torque and energy conversion efficiency between rotational triboelectric nanogenerator and electromagnetic generator

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102318

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51922023, 61874011]
  2. Beijing Talents Foundation [2017000021223TD04]
  3. Tribology Science Fund of State Key Laboratory of Tribology [SKLTKF19B02]
  4. Open Research Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology [DMETKF2020014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study systematically measured the input mechanical torques and energy conversion efficiencies of rotating electromagnetic generator (EMG) and triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG), finding that TENG has a higher conversion efficiency at low input mechanical power compared to EMG.
Triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) is regarded as an equally important mechanical energy harvesting technology as electromagnetic generator (EMG). Here, the input mechanical torques and energy conversion efficiencies of the rotating EMG and TENG are systematically measured, respectively. At constant rotation rates, the input mechanical torque of EMG is balanced by the friction resisting torque and electromagnetic resisting torque, which increases with the increasing rotation rate due to Ampere force. While the input mechanical torque of TENG is balanced by the friction resisting torque and electrostatic resisting torque, which is nearly constant at different rotation rates. The energy conversion efficiency of EMG increases with the increasing input mechanical power, while that of the TENG remains nearly constant. Compared with the EMG, the TENG has a higher conversion efficiency at a low input mechanical power, which demonstrates a remarkable merit of the TENG for efficiently harvesting weak ambient mechanical energy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available