2002
DOI: 10.1080/10668680209508970
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distributed Cogeneration vs. Centralized Generation: A Technical Comparison

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The following short paper is a review of two theories of locomotion as prevalent in the Neuroscience think tank, centralized motion as practiced in most human made designs and a decentralized approach, as prevalent in nature. (Strachan 2002;Kolers 1972;Yamada, Ogurusu, and Sakata 2010;Franciszek and Jan 2014;Wong and Rankin 2019;Saigusa 2000;Jurado 2007;Abdelhack, n.d.) We publish two robotic models of worm inspired locomotion, one centralized and decentralized in motion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The following short paper is a review of two theories of locomotion as prevalent in the Neuroscience think tank, centralized motion as practiced in most human made designs and a decentralized approach, as prevalent in nature. (Strachan 2002;Kolers 1972;Yamada, Ogurusu, and Sakata 2010;Franciszek and Jan 2014;Wong and Rankin 2019;Saigusa 2000;Jurado 2007;Abdelhack, n.d.) We publish two robotic models of worm inspired locomotion, one centralized and decentralized in motion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%