FIG. 6.

Optimizing interface adhesion, clamping, and the thickness of each layer for increased power. (a) ME receiver performance for seven different epoxies (n ≥ 90 for each). M-Bond epoxy results in a higher voltage amplitude compared to all other epoxies (***p < 0.001 for all pairs via Wilcoxon rank sum test). (b) Comparison of power and $Q_M$ using two different clamping methods: adhesive clamping and mechanical clamping. Mechanical clamping resulted in a 67% and 57% increase in power and $Q_M$, respectively (***p < 0.001 via unpaired t-tests). (c) Measured power from four different ME receiver configurations (config. 1–4, n = 3 for each) as a function of magnetic field strength. (d) Magnified version of (c) from 0 to 1 mT. Different shades denote different configurations. Configuration 1 exhibited the highest power, as expected from our model. The power starts saturating at 0.6 mT, resulting in lower power than theoretically predicted.