A wire model for the Sierpinski gasket type monopole antenna and a truly broadband bent-wire antenna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years fractal concepts have been increasingly used to design multi-band antennas (D.H. Werner and S. Ganguly, IEEE A&P Magazine, vol. 45, pp. 38-57, 2003; S. Best, ibid., vol. 45, pp. 9-28, 2003), because of their so-called self-similar characteristic and space-filling capability, and as a novel antenna miniaturization technique (J.P. Gianvittorio and Y. Rahmat-Sami, ibid., vol. 44, pp. 20-36, 2002). The attention grabbing Sierpinski gasket geometry has been used to design both monopole and patch type antennas, but only the latter is suitable for conformal applications (J. Yeo and R. Mitra, IEE Antennas & Propagation, ICAP 2003, Conf. Publ. No. 491, pp. 143-146, 2003), However the Sierpinski patch gasket antenna may not perform as well as a monopole without modification, because of its fixed height above the ground plane. The purpose of this paper is to analyze by numerical simulation (NEC 4D) a triangular wire antenna that simulates the performance of the Sierpinski gasket antenna, and provides an insight into how this gasket antenna functions as it does. Also, while the Sierpinski gasket geometry is said to exhibit broadband performance, it is not really a broadband antenna. The paper concludes with a mini study of a simple wire antenna that is truly broadband.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".