Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Table 3 Case study for the knee energy harvesting device [6,29]

From: Harvesting biomechanical energy or carrying batteries? An evaluation method based on a comparison of metabolic power

					Device mass [kg]
		0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9	1
Walking time [hours]	40	−0.6	−2.9	−5.1	−7.4	−9.7	−12.0	−14.3	−16.7	−19.0	−21.4
	50	1.9	−0.3	−2.6	−4.9	−7.2	−9.5	−11.8	−14.1	−16.5	−18.8
	60	4.5	2.3	0.0	−2.3	−4.6	−6.9	−9.2	−11.6	−13.9	−16.3
	70	7.1	4.8	2.6	0.3	−2.0	−4.3	−6.6	−9.0	−11.3	−13.7
	80	9.7	7.4	5.2	2.9	0.6	−1.7	−4.0	−6.4	−8.7	−11.1
	90	12.3	10.1	7.8	5.5	3.2	0.9	−1.4	−3.8	−6.1	−8.5
	100	15.0	12.7	10.4	8.1	5.9	3.5	1.2	*−1.1*	−3.5	−5.8
	110	17.6	15.4	13.1	10.8	8.5	6.2	3.9	1.5	−0.8	−3.2
	120	20.3	18.0	15.8	13.5	11.2	8.9	6.5	4.2	1.9	−0.5
	130	23.0	20.7	18.4	16.2	13.9	11.6	9.2	6.9	4.5	2.2

The values in the table are the differences in metabolic power in watts (carrying batteries minus harvesting device scenarios), for given mass and walking times. Positive values indicate that the harvesting device requires less effort than batteries (i.e., energy harvesting is preferred over batteries), negative values (bold) represent combinations were batteries are preferred options. The Italic values refer to the current published device (0.75kg, 100h).

Back to article page

ISSN: 1743-0003

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com