The document describing the process and results for harvesting energy from the movement of the human body is an interesting example of how one can present new findings in a clear and precise, yet colloquial way.
Although there’s lots of repetition among the Introduction and the next two or three sections of the document (mostly through the concept of generative braking), that repetition stands for clarity, and starts also to show a pattern in how research papers are presented.
It’s very clear from reading the document, that the reasoning behing choosing swing extension as the moment to harvest energy is adequate to their purposes, but they also recognise that there is still more potencial into the stance phase, acknowledging that their proposed solution doesn’t takes advantage of that. To me, that increases the credibility into their research.
It’s also very clear that the specifics of the device were reserved – naturally – to the patent application, where more technical information could be released and protected at the same time.
Irrespective of if they are embodied in a wearable or implanted design, energy harvesters that operate about body joints and selectively engage power generation have the potential to improve the quality of life for the user without increasing their effort.
Finally, the end the discussion section with this paragraph, which in connection to the product website makes sense to many people, those who need power in their daily lives.