Feasibility Study of Optically Transparent CPW-Fed Monopole Antenna at 60-GHz ISM Bands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a feasibility study on an optically transparent planar monopole lozenge antenna at the 60-GHz industrial-scientific-medical (ISM) band. The feeding of this antenna is composed of a 50-$\Omega$meshed coplanar waveguide. The size of the proposed antenna is around 2.3$\,\times\,$2.3 mm$^{2}$. The transparent and conductive material used to fabricate the proposed antenna is made of a gold grid layer deposited on a 0.2-mm-thick fused silica 7980 Corning substrate. The theoretical transparency equals 83% with a sheet resistance of 0.44$\Omega$/sq. The simulated and measured results of the transparent monopole antenna are compared to a nontransparent (but identical) antenna. It was found that both antennas have the same performances in terms of bandwidth, radiation pattern, and gain. The measurements show the same behavior for transparent and nontransparent antennas. These results confirm the absence of ohmic and skin depth losses in the gold grid layer at 60-GHz ISM bands and provide the possibility of implementing transparent antennas with performances absolutely identical to the nontransparent ones, with the advantage of a soft visual impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".