> The core of this new system is an "Inertia-driven Triboelectric Nanogenerator (TENG)" that converts vibrations (with amplitudes ranging from 20-4000 ㎛ and frequencies from 0-300 Hz) generated by industrial equipment or pipelines into electricity. This enables periodic CO2 concentration measurements and wireless transmission without the need for batteries.
More concerning - can anyone explain why there is such a variation in the results from the DC powered unit vs. the TENG-powered one? The graph at the bottom of the report shows a difference of 30-50ppm between both units when they are sitting side by side on the bench.
That’s if the voltage supply was stable and within electrical specs for a sufficient period of time. We can see this is a snippet 2 hours into the discontinous collection.
3.6V is the maximum value that the nrf52832 SoC can handle. I would suspect the VDD is variable.
I skimmed the original article and it only mentions the graph and says that it's "comparable to DC powered unit". I'm guessing < 100ppm difference is somewhat acceptable?
It’s crazy to think that many people alive today experienced a 30% increase in ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration within their lifetimes.
You’re missing some deeply important context there, which is that those measurements are for outdoor atmospheric CO2 only.
Average indoor air quality ranges from 400-1000 ppm CO2, with adverse mental effects starting to appear close to 2000 ppm.
In that context, you can see why a 50 ppm difference is marginal. This is why asking an LLM is not generally a great idea for understanding something - you need to follow it up with more research.
I have to know, what's the the rise of people like you chiming in with AI sourced tidbits? It's like the people with no knowledge on a subject that use google as a quick catch up tool so they can participate in a conversation, but somehow even worse. Are they the same people, but now lazier or just true believers in the non-sense engines?
The power consumption is the thing, these sensors usually run in the low-digit milliwatt range... and they managed to get it to run on a power generation of 0.5 mW, making the combination of both possible at all.
The challenge with CO2 monitoring is the sensor, not the electronics. Sensor accurracy and service life are key information.
It is easy to create a low power chemical CO2 sensors with a service life of a few weeks/months. Obviously not pratical for real world applications. So critical data is missing in this press release.
Climate change deniers like to argue that our planet would warm up no matter what, even without the greenhouse gas emissions that humankind is releasing into Earth's atmosphere.
Maliverno, however, says that the geological record doesn't suggest that this would be the case.
"There have been several campaigns in the past when researchers drilled into the Antarctic ice sheets and took samples from deep below the surface, reaching layers that are up to 800,000 years old," Maliverno said. "They analyzed the concentrations of carbon dioxide trapped in those layers. There are tiny air bubbles in the ice, essentially samples of the atmosphere as it was back then, and they found that even during the interglacials, the maximum amount of carbon dioxide was nowhere near the amount that we see today."
Moreover, Maliverno added, computer modeling studies that tried to reproduce the current climate change using only natural variables, such as the Milankovitch cycles, couldn't match the rate of warming we see today.
I didn't reply with that information for your benefit. I replied to add context for other readers.
Either you have a specific claim against this publisher, article, or point or you don't. This is a respected science oriented publisher with interviews of scientists talking about their research in their own field.
When? When the indicators tell you that the CO2 is high. CO2 monitor is also used in industrial processes where ventilation is difficult and equipment is heavy. The monitor tells you when to leave the area.
Your question is irrelevant. The article wants to address climate change, not indoors: "This breakthrough addresses a critical need in environmental monitoring: accurately understanding "how much" CO2 is being emitted to combat climate change and global warming."
Looks like you still don't get it. The article had zero intentions to talk about indoors, and you think it's my fault, because you asked "You do realize that indoor air quality is also a thing, right?" Whatever the spirit of HN is, it would be rude to dismiss my comment just because I talked specifically about the claim of the article, which is global warming in general. If you want to talk about indoors, do it in a different thread, and stop bullshitting me. You have only been inappropriate and rude to me.
Tangential/Spoiler: I came to know about Kaist (Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology) in the Netflix series Devil's Plan (season 2) which had two of its students as the top three contestants.
Ingenious, I love it.