Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Self-Sustaining Multi-Sensor LoRa-Based Activity Monitoring for Community Workout Parks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A solar-powered LoRaWAN sensor node detects activity at street workout parks from micro-vibrations in the steel structures, averaging a 2.8-second error in activity duration, and the authors argue it can sustain itself year-round on…

desk verdict Solid LoRaWAN sensor application paper whose year-round self-sustainability claim outruns the five-day energy evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03203 v1 pith:7IOADGQZ submitted 2025-06-02 cs.NI

Victor Luder , Michele Magno This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords SmartcityLoRaWANActivitymonitoringEnergyharvestingEnergy-awarealgorithmAccelerometersensingWirelesssensornodeUrban
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a small, solar-powered wireless sensor that watches public street-workout equipment by feeling micro-vibrations in the steel bars with an accelerometer. It sends activity events over a city LoRaWAN network, and in tests it measured how long people exercised with an average error of 2.8 seconds. The authors' main claim is that the node is self-sustaining: at 1.147 mW average consumption and with two small solar cells, it builds a positive daily energy balance under average Zurich sunlight, so it could run year-round without battery changes. A week-long deployment at three parks produced usage patterns (peaks at midday and evening, lower weekend use) and the data are released through an online dashboard. If true, this gives city planners a low-maintenance way to quantify use of publicly funded workout infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is vibration-based activity detection on steel structures: an LSM6DSV16BX accelerometer samples at 5 Hz in high-performance mode, a ten-sample ring buffer feeds a per-second variance check, and elevated variance flags exercise; a 35-second calm period closes the session, and only sessions of at least 10 seconds are transmitted over LoRaWAN. On the energy side, the BQ25504 harvester charges the battery from two KXOB201K04TF solar cells, while the nPM1300 power manager and power-gated time-of-flight sensor keep average consumption at 1.147 mW. The adaptive sampling and transmission strategy, staying in standby until the IMU sees activity and then briefly waking the ToF sensor, is what makes the 9.9 J daily surplus possible.

What would settle it

Run the same sensor through a full winter in Zurich, or simulate consecutive overcast days with the real LoRaWAN transmission schedule, and record the battery voltage; if it drops below the node's operating threshold before sunlight returns, the year-round claim fails. Concretely, the measured 9.9 J per day surplus must be compared against a worst-case week of zero solar input, and a discharge test would show whether the battery reserve covers that gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a custom LoRaWAN sensor node, powered by two 25%-efficient solar cells and a 330 mAh lithium-ion battery, can continuously monitor activity in a community street workout park while running energy-autonomously. Activity is detected by sampling a high-performance IMU at 5 Hz, computing the variance of a ten-sample ring buffer each second, and marking elevated variance as activity; the steel structure transmits the vibrations of pull-ups and other exercises. The node also uses a time-of-flight sensor, activated only after acceleration triggers, to confirm a person is present and distinguish activity at the instrumented bar from elsewhere. In validation, ten supervised sessions gave an average duration error of 2.8 seconds, and a one-hour test with regular visitors detected 100% of activities with an average timing difference of 8.09 seconds. Power measurements put normal operation at 1.147 mW and standby at 0.712 mW, implying 46.75 days of battery runtime; a five-day winter field test with 13.5 hours of total sun ended at the same battery voltage it started, and a day with 4.5 hours of sun produced a 9.9 J surplus, which the authors extrapolate to year-round self-sustaining operation.

Load-bearing premise

The year-round self-sustainability claim rests on extrapolating a five-day winter energy test with a 9.9 J daily surplus to all seasons; if an extended stretch of overcast days or snow-covered solar cells exhausts the 330 mAh battery before sunlight returns, the node would stop reporting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single node can run roughly 46.75 days on battery alone and indefinitely with average Zurich sunlight, removing routine battery-replacement visits.
  • The 2.8-second average duration error is small enough to give planners reliable statistics on session lengths, peak hours, and overall park utilization.
  • The accelerometer plus time-of-flight fusion distinguishes activity at the instrumented bar from activity elsewhere in the park, with 100% detection in the reported tests and about a 4-second timing error.
  • The public dashboard and dataset turn the raw LoRaWAN stream into a usable tool for assessing how much publicly funded workout infrastructure is actually used.
  • The seven-day, three-location deployment demonstrates that the system can run within a city-wide LoRaWAN network and produce day-of-week and time-of-day usage patterns.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the energy balance holds, the same vibration-sensing node could be adapted to other steel public furniture such as playground equipment, outdoor fitness stations, or bus shelters, where micro-vibrations propagate through the structure.
  • The 46-day battery reserve provides a buffer against typical short overcast stretches, but a true year-round guarantee would require validating the energy balance through a full seasonal cycle rather than a five-day winter window.
  • The 5 Hz variance-based method is a low-cost, privacy-preserving alternative to cameras or PIR sensors for public-space occupancy monitoring, which may ease regulatory and social acceptance.
  • Extending the node with temperature and humidity sensing, as the authors suggest, or with a more refined people-counting approach via the time-of-flight sensor, could enrich the dataset without substantially changing the power budget.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the design, implementation, and field evaluation of a solar-powered LoRaWAN sensor node that monitors usage of outdoor street workout parks. The sensor uses a low-power IMU to detect structure-borne vibrations from exercise activity, a time-of-flight sensor for presence confirmation, and an energy-aware adaptive sampling and transmission algorithm. The authors claim an average activity-duration error of 2.8 s, an average application-mode power of 1.147 mW, a 46-day battery runtime, and year-round self-sustaining operation based on a five-day winter field test with a reported daily energy surplus of 9.9 J. A week-long, three-sensor deployment in Zurich is presented, with activity patterns and a public dashboard.

Significance. If the claims are supported, the system is a useful contribution to low-power smart-city sensing: it combines custom hardware, a simple and effective vibration-based activity detector, LoRaWAN integration, energy harvesting, and a field-validated deployment with public data. The power measurements and the field dataset are concrete artifacts that others can build on. The main limitation is that the most ambitious claim, year-round self-sustaining operation, rests on a short winter energy test whose interpretation is uncertain and whose numerical basis is internally inconsistent. The detection accuracy, while promising, is based on a small number of ground-truth sessions. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline contributions and need to be strengthened before the claims can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-C and Abstract] The claim of 'year-round, self-sustaining operation' is not supported by the five-day winter test. Using the paper's own numbers, the application-mode load of 1.147 mW over 24 h is about 99.1 J/day, and the measured harvest of 28.7 J/h implies break-even at about 3.45 sun-hours/day. Zurich's winter months average below this (roughly 1.3-2.9 h/day from December to February), so a multi-day deficit is expected. The five-day test with an average of 2.7 h/day sun cannot distinguish a small daily deficit from a zero balance: the cumulative difference over five days would be on the order of 100 J, only about 2% of the battery's stored energy, and the 'same voltage level' observation is consistent with either. Over a prolonged cloudy winter period, the accumulated deficit can exceed the battery's ~4.6 kJ capacity, so the stated 46-day no-sun runtime does not bridge the winter. Please provide a seasonal worst-case energy balance using actual solar irradiance data, or substantially soften the self-sustainability claim.
  2. [Section IV-C, energy accounting] The energy accounting is internally inconsistent. The text states that a day with 4.5 sun-hours (the Zurich average) results in a 9.9 J surplus, while also stating that the system harvests 28.7 J/h. With 4.5 h at 28.7 J/h, the harvested energy is about 129 J, and the daily load at 1.147 mW is about 99 J, giving a surplus of roughly 30 J, not 9.9 J. Please reconcile these numbers, clarifying the load model, transmission period, and which quantities are directly measured versus derived. Without this reconciliation, the quantitative evidence for the self-sustainability claim is not reproducible.
  3. [Section IV-A] The headline accuracy of 'average measured error of only 2.8 seconds' comes from only 10 controlled exercise sessions of 10-30 s duration. The real-conditions field test with regular visitors, which is more representative, reports a larger average timing difference of 8.09 s, and the presence-detection test reports 4 s. The abstract and conclusion should reflect the accuracy under real operating conditions, and the paper should report the number of sessions, variance, and exact error metric (mean? median? absolute difference?) for all detection tests.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A] There is a typo: 'VL5310X' appears, but the datasheet reference and common name is 'VL53L0X' or 'VL53L1X'; please correct the part number and verify the quoted 19 mA average current.
  2. [Section IV-C] Table II lists 'Battery runtime (transmission every 10 minutes) 46.75 days,' but the text in Section IV-C mentions 'data sent every minute' when deriving the 4.194 mW transmission power. Please clarify the transmission period used for each column and tie the app-mode power of 1.147 mW to a specific activity count and transmission schedule.
  3. [Section IV-C] The reference for Zurich sunshine hours is a commercial website (climate.top); please replace it with an official or peer-reviewed climatological source, and state the averaging years.
  4. [Throughout] The abbreviation 'LoRaW AN' appears with a space in several places (e.g., Abstract, Section I, Section IV-B). Please ensure the acronym is consistently written as 'LoRaWAN'.
  5. [Section IV-C] The phrase '330 mAhbattery' is missing a space; also, the battery energy in joules should be stated explicitly (about 4.6 kJ at 3.9 V) so that readers can compare it with the daily energy budget.
  6. [Section III-B] The algorithm description would benefit from a formal pseudocode listing or a precise definition of the variance threshold and the 35-second break threshold, since these parameters directly affect the reported accuracy but are not given numeric values in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the headline metrics are directly measured or computed from explicitly stated inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on three independent measurements: (1) activity detection accuracy from ten ground-truthed sessions (average error 2.8 seconds); (2) power consumption measured directly with the ISP4520/LoRa radio (0.712 mW standby, 4.194 mW during transmission, 1.147 mW application-mode average); and (3) energy-harvesting behavior from a five-day battery-voltage trace in winter. The application-mode average uses an explicitly stated input from prior field tests ('approximately 180 activities expected per day'), not a parameter fitted to the voltage trace, so the battery runtime and surplus calculations do not reduce to the conclusions they support. The 9.9 J daily surplus is reported as a measured result from a 4.5-sun-hour day; although the computation is not fully specified and is not fully reconciled with the 28.7 J/h figure, this is an internal consistency and extrapolation concern, not a circular derivation. No self-citation is load-bearing: references to prior work by the same authors (e.g., [4], [17], [23]) are contextual and do not supply the paper's key results. The unsupported leap from five winter days to 'year-round, self-sustaining operation' is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is introduced. The load-bearing parameters are empirical thresholds and an assumed activity rate; the central energy claim depends on extrapolating a short winter test to annual operation.

free parameters (5)
  • Variance threshold for activity detection = not specified ('elevated' compared to idle)
    The algorithm marks time as active when variance is elevated; the threshold is hand-tuned and adjustable through a sensitivity setting, and it directly controls the reported accuracy.
  • Session break threshold = 35 s
    A calm period lasting 35 seconds ends a session, based on the assumption that exercise rest periods are no longer than 30 seconds.
  • Minimum activity duration for transmission = 10 s
    Only activities lasting at least 10 seconds are transmitted, so shorter vibrations are ignored and do not count toward usage.
  • IMU sampling rate and ring buffer size = 5 Hz and 10 samples
    Chosen to give 1 Hz activity resolution while keeping the microcontroller asleep most of the time; this trade-off determines detection reliability and power.
  • Expected daily activities = 180 activities/day
    Used to compute the average application-mode power of 1.147 mW and the 46.75-day battery runtime from measured standby and transmission currents.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Vibrations from exercise propagate through steel structures reliably to the sensor location.
    The whole detection approach depends on micro-vibrations traveling through the metal hand bars; no controlled propagation-loss measurement is reported.
  • domain assumption Exercise movement produces a sustained vibration pattern that is distinguishable from environmental noise, and a 35-second calm period separates sessions.
    The activity algorithm uses variance elevation and a fixed 35 s break threshold; atypical workouts or long rests would break this assumption.
  • domain assumption The average Zurich daily sun exposure of 4.5 hours, taken from a weather website, is representative for year-round energy balance.
    The annual self-sustainability conclusion is extrapolated from a single 4.5-hour-sun day and a five-day winter test, without seasonal modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Sustaining Multi-Sensor LoRa-Based Activity Monitoring for Community Workout Parks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IOADGQZ

@misc{pith2026250603203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Sustaining Multi-Sensor LoRa-Based Activity Monitoring for Community Workout Parks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IOADGQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03203}
}
read the original abstract

With the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT), more sensors are deployed around us, covering a wide range of applications from industry and agriculture to urban environments such as smart cities. Throughout these applications the sensors collect data of various characteristics and support city planners and decision-makers in their work processes, ultimately maximizing the impact of public funds. This paper introduces the design and implementation of a self-sustaining wireless sensor node designed to continuously monitor the utilization of community street workout parks. The proposed sensor node monitors activity by leveraging acceleration data capturing micro-vibrations that propagate through the steel structures of the workout equipment. This allows us to detect activity duration with an average measured error of only 2.8 seconds. The sensor is optimized with an energy-aware, adaptive sampling and transmission algorithm which, in combination with the Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN), reduces power consumption to just 1.147 mW in normal operation and as low as 0.712 mW in low-power, standby mode allowing 46 days of battery runtime. In addition, the integrated energy-harvesting circuit was tested in the field. By monitoring the battery voltage for multiple days, it was shown that the sensor is capable of operating sustainably year-round without external power sources. To evaluate the sensor effectiveness, we conducted a week-long field test in Zurich, placing sensors at various street workout parks throughout the city. Analysis of the collected data revealed clear patterns in park usage depending on day and location. This dataset is made publicly available through our online dashboard. Finally, we showcase the potential of IoT for city applications in combination with an accessible data interface for decision-makers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardware overview of the individual subsystems. Communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The custom electronics along with the casing that fits the hand bar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Acceleration data showing (raw values) the individual pull ups that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The final sensor in its casing deployed at a street workout park. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Activity data collected over the time of 7 days at one location. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Power consumption when the system transmits data through LoRa. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Voltage monitoring over a period of 5 days including days with no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhanced indoor positioning system using ultra-wideband technology and machine learning algorithms for energy-efficient warehouse management,

    D. Gna ´s, D. Majerek, M. Styła, P. Adamkiewicz, S. Skowron, M. Sak- Skowron, O. Ivashko, J. Stokłosa, and R. Pietrzyk, “Enhanced indoor positioning system using ultra-wideband technology and machine learning algorithms for energy-efficient warehouse management,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi. com/1996-1073/17/16/4125

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Wicpd: Wireless child presence detection system for smart cars,

    X. Zeng, B. Wang, C. Wu, S. D. Regani, and K. J. R. Liu, “Wicpd: Wireless child presence detection system for smart cars,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 9, no. 24, pp. 24 866–24 881, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Advances in smart environment monitoring systems using iot and sensors,

    S. Ullo and P. G. Sinha, “Advances in smart environment monitoring systems using iot and sensors,” Sensors, vol. 20, p. 3113, 05 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Cyclowatt: An affordable, tinyml- enhanced iot device revolutionizing cycling power metrics,

    V . Luder, S. Bian, and M. Magno, “Cyclowatt: An affordable, tinyml- enhanced iot device revolutionizing cycling power metrics,” pp. 1–6, 05 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Artificial intelligence and internet of things for sustainable farming and smart agriculture,

    A. Ali and K. Galyna, “Artificial intelligence and internet of things for sustainable farming and smart agriculture,” IEEE Access , vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 01 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    LoRa network-based system for monitoring the agricultural sector in andean areas: Case study ecuador,

    E. F. R. Guzm ´an, E. D. M. Chochos, M. D. C. Malliquinga, P. F. B. Egas, and R. M. T. Guachi, “LoRa network-based system for monitoring the agricultural sector in andean areas: Case study ecuador,” p. 24, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of lora technology for vehicle and asset tracking in smart harbors,

    I. Priyanta, F. Golatowski, T. Schulz, and D. Timmermann, “Evaluation of lora technology for vehicle and asset tracking in smart harbors,” 10 2019, pp. 4221–4228

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A holistic and interoperable approach towards the implementation of services for the digital transformation of smart cities: The case of vitoria-gasteiz (spain),

    F. Larrinaga, A. P ´erez, I. Aldalur, J. L. Hern ´andez, J. L. Izkara, and P. S ´aez de Viteri, “A holistic and interoperable approach towards the implementation of services for the digital transformation of smart cities: The case of vitoria-gasteiz (spain),” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/23/8061

    work page 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Energy efficiency in smart buildings: Iot approaches,

    C. K. Metallidou, K. E. Psannis, and E. A. Egyptiadou, “Energy efficiency in smart buildings: Iot approaches,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 63 679–63 699, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Future trends and current state of smart city concepts: A survey,

    A. Kirimtat, O. Krejcar, A. Kertesz, and M. F. Tasgetiren, “Future trends and current state of smart city concepts: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 86 448–86 467, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Regional smart city development focus: The south korean national strategic smart city program,

    J. Yang, Y . Kwon, and D. Kim, “Regional smart city development focus: The south korean national strategic smart city program,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 7193–7210, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Potentials and prospects of bicycle sharing system in smart cities: A review,

    S. Shen, C.-X. Lv, H. Zhu, L.-J. Sun, and R.-C. Wang, “Potentials and prospects of bicycle sharing system in smart cities: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 7519–7533, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks (eh- wsns): A review,

    K. S. Adu-Manu, N. Adam, C. Tapparello, H. Ayatollahi, and W. Heinzelman, “Energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks (eh- wsns): A review,” ACM Trans. Sen. Netw. , vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3183338

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Sensing, comput- ing, and communications for energy harvesting iots: A survey,

    D. Ma, G. Lan, M. Hassan, W. Hu, and S. K. Das, “Sensing, comput- ing, and communications for energy harvesting iots: A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1222–1250, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    A study of lora low power and wide area network technology,

    U. Noreen, A. Bounceur, and L. Clavier, “A study of lora low power and wide area network technology,” in 2017 International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Signal and Image Processing (ATSIP) , 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  8. [16]

    Energy harvesting in self-sustainable iot devices and applications based on cross- layer architecture design: A survey,

    A. Banotra, S. Ghose, D. Mishra, and S. Modem, “Energy harvesting in self-sustainable iot devices and applications based on cross- layer architecture design: A survey,” Computer Networks , vol. 236, p. 110011, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/a...

    2023

  9. [18]

    A lora-based and maintenance-free cattle monitoring system for alpine pastures and remote locations,

    L. Schulthess, F. Longchamp, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “A lora-based and maintenance-free cattle monitoring system for alpine pastures and remote locations,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Energy Harvesting & Energy-Neutral Sensing Systems , ser. ENSsys ’23...

    2023

  10. [19]

    Lorafarm: A lorawan-based smart farming modular iot architecture,

    G. Codeluppi, A. Cilfone, L. Davoli, and G. Ferrari, “Lorafarm: A lorawan-based smart farming modular iot architecture,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 7, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/ 7/2028

    2020

  11. [20]

    Intelligent edge based smart farming with lora and iot,

    V . S. V . Raja Gopal, Prabhakar, “Intelligent edge based smart farming with lora and iot,” nternational Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management , 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1007/s13198-021-01576-z

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Self-sustaining ultrawideband positioning system for event-driven indoor localization,

    P. Mayer, M. Magno, and L. Benini, “Self-sustaining ultrawideband positioning system for event-driven indoor localization,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. PP, pp. 1–1, 01 2023

    2023

  13. [22]

    A lorawan network infrastructure for the remote monitoring of offshore sea farms,

    L. Parri, S. Parrino, G. Peruzzi, and A. Pozzebon, “A lorawan network infrastructure for the remote monitoring of offshore sea farms,” in 2020 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  14. [23]

    A lora-based energy-efficient sensing system for urban data collection,

    L. Schulthess, T. Salzmann, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “A lora-based energy-efficient sensing system for urban data collection,” in 2023 9th International Workshop on Advances in Sensors and Interfaces (IWASI) , 2023, pp. 69–74

    2023

  15. [24]

    Fully automatic gym exercises recording: An iot solution,

    S. Bian, A. Rupp, and M. Magno, “Fully automatic gym exercises recording: An iot solution,” in 2023 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 & IoT (MetroInd4.0&IoT) , 2023, pp. 310– 314

    2023

  16. [25]

    Vl5310x time-of-flight ranging sen- sor,

    STMicroelectronics, “Vl5310x time-of-flight ranging sen- sor,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.st.com/en/ imaging-and-photonics-solutions/vl53l0x.html#documentation

    2024

  17. [26]

    Sunshine & daylight hours in zurich, switzerland,

    climate.top, “Sunshine & daylight hours in zurich, switzerland,”

  18. [2025]

    Available: https://www.climate.top/switzerland/zurich/ sunlight/

    [Online]. Available: https://www.climate.top/switzerland/zurich/ sunlight/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.