Comparison of Three Underwater Antennas for Use in Radiotelemetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The radiation patterns of three versions of underwater radiotelemetry antennas were measured to compare the relative reception ranges in the horizontal and vertical planes, which are important considerations when designing detection systems. The received signal strengths of an antenna made by stripping shielding from a section of coaxial cable (stripped coax) and by two versions of a dipole antenna were measured at several orientations relative to a dipole transmit antenna under controlled field conditions. The received signal strengths were greater when the transmit and receive antennas were parallel to each other than when they were perpendicular, indicating that a parallel orientation provides optimal detection range. The horizontal plane radiation pattern of the flexible, stripped coax antenna was similar to that of a rigid dipole antenna, but movement of underwater stripped coax antennas in field applications could affect the orientation of transmit and receive antennas in some applications, resulting in decreased range and variation in received signal strengths. Compared with a standard dipole, a dipole antenna armored by housing within a polyvinyl chloride fitting had a smaller radiation pattern in the horizontal plane but a larger radiation pattern in the vertical plane. Each of these types of underwater antenna can be useful, but detection ranges can be maximized by choosing an appropriate antenna after consideration of the location, relation between transmit and receive antenna orientations, radiation patterns, and overall antenna resiliency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".