MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ridge gap waveguide to microstrip line transition with perforated substrate

2014· article· en· W2020313992 on OpenAlexaff
Shoukry I. Shams, Ahmed A. Kishk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostripMaterials scienceWaveguideOpticsDielectricOptoelectronicsReflection (computer programming)PermittivityBandwidth (computing)Insertion lossTelecommunicationsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. The ridge gap waveguides is one of the highly recommended guided structures in high frequency applications. This is due to its ability to carry the signal with low losses. The signal pass through this structure in the form of Quasi TEM mode, which grantee less dispersion compared to other structures working in the same operating band with ridge gap waveguide, like SIW. One of the major drawbacks of the ridge gap waveguide is related to the used excitation technique. It is always difficult in fabrication and in many cases, it is responsible for limiting the possible bandwidth of the structure. One simple and straightforward idea is to connect the ridge gap waveguide to one of the standard 50Ω lines, such as Microstriop lines or Coplaner waveguides. This work is focused on the Microstrip line case. It is required that the ridge waveguide is directly connected with the 50Ω Microstrip line. The direct connection will have a certain level of mismatch and the reflection increases as the dielectric constant of the microstrip line substrate increases. As a first step of the transition design, a low relative permitivity substrate is chosen. This initially reduces the reflection occurs at the transition. The second step of the transition design is to insert two sections of matching between the microstrip line and the ridge gap waveguide with the help of lower dielectric constants substrates than those used in the microstrip line. The substrates with these lower dielectric constants can be achieved by using the same substrate and apply perforation. Controlling the perforation density will adjust the relative permitivity of the substrate at the required value to achieve matching. Using the previously described technique, the ridge gap waveguide can be attached directly to a 50Ω microstrip line. Connecting the microsrtip line to one of the standard coaxial connectors, like (SMA, 2.4mm, 3.5mm or 1.85mm), is a well-established connection. This provides a very easy procedure for ridge gap waveguide measurements. It is worth to mention that the fabrication process for such a transition is very simple as it is a two dimensions printed structure. To eliminate the radiation of this transition, an extension of the periodic cells is placed in the microstrip line side. Within the microstrip line part, the periodic cells will introduce some sort of packaging to get rid of leakage due to radiation. This extension also provides more smooth transition between the ridge gap waveguide and the microstrip line packaged with similar periodic structure. One important point that should be taken into consideration is that the substrate thickness of the microstrip line must be exactly the same as the gap height in the ridge gap structure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrowave Engineering and WaveguidesFrench-language works237,207