Theoretical Methods for the Impedance and Bandwidth of the Thin Dipole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dipole is the fundamental elemental antenna, and the wire electric dipole and its monopole equivalent are still widely used in practice. Despite the long history of dipole research, its complete impedance behavior remains elusive, because of long-standing shortfalls in modeling the feed. The available analytic approaches are the wave-structure method and the induced-EMF method. The wave-structure method does not lend itself to feed-gap detail. However, it reveals the impact of the dipole's thickness and length on the impedance of dipoles, which is not readily available from other approaches. The method is restricted to an infinitesimal feed gap, i.e., different from a practical dipole antenna. The induced-EMF method is accurate for short and impracticably thin (for self-supporting) wire antennas. Numerical techniques can be used for practical dipole thicknesses, but no theory is available to benchmark the results. Here, the induced-EMF method with a finite feed gap is solved, and the impedance of the thin dipole is presented. The bandwidth is the critical parameter, and other methods are also applied for calculating the theoretical bandwidth. It is of particular interest that the lossless, thin dipole with a finite gap is a structure that has an extremely wide bandwidth. This paper includes a brief review of previous work to acknowledge the rich history and provide context for current research. However, it mostly presents new analysis and new impedance-bandwidth results for a range of dipole lengths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".