Low-cost antenna array and phased array architectures — Design concepts and prototypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent telecommunications standards are requiring antenna technologies to evolve towards low-cost, high-integration packages. Furthermore, higher gain and radiation pattern constraints result in the need of steerable, versatile antenna arrays. One of the key requirements is the overall cost, including non-recurring engineering or designs costs should be reasonably low for consumer market applications. Additionally, an increasing number of applications planned in the near- to mid-term require flexible and/or conformal antennas. Previously developed antenna array technologies have found usage primarily in military-based applications, where design and development time, as well as size are of secondary importance to the antenna performance. As such, bulky phased array antennas have been implemented in the past where the constraints have been primarily on the high-performance of the overall system rather than a certain packaging technology or end-user low-cost application. This paper will discuss a new approach towards more compact integration, discussing initial design of a Ku-band, metallic-waveguide fed active/passive array, and the lead-in to a more cost-effective technology for array feeds. Additional discussion will be on the development of the new printed circuit board waveguide (PCB-WG) and applications at Ku-band, as well 18 GHz and 60 GHz with a variety of antenna elements. Versatility of the new technology is illustrated through the comprehensive design of a 36 GHz dielectric resonator array (DRA). Future development of technology is examined towards the end of the paper. Furthermore, this paper will illustrate how additional research goals and motivations in the field of array antennas can be addressed by the new technology. Such issues as packaging of antenna arrays and front end circuitry to increase the overall gain and reduce the noise figure (NF), as well as novel methods for developing front-end active circuitry will become evident from the core technology development. This can lead to minimizing loss throughout the system, decrease cost, and reduce the overall size.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".