The input admittance of thin prolate spheroidal dipole antennas with finite gap widths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of the ultraspherical gap field distribution on the admittance of solid circular cylindrical dipole antennas has rigorously been analysed in Do-Nhat (1987) and Do-Nhat and MacPhie (1989). In the present paper the authors extend the analysis to the problem of thin prolate spheroidal dipole antennas with the consideration of 3 types of gap fields: Dirac's function gap field distribution, uniform gap field distribution, and ultraspherical gap field distribution. The numerical results for the input admittance of thin prolate spheroidal antennas, as well as their current distributions are compared for the above mentioned gap excitations. Furthermore, for the given ultraspherical gap field distribution, the difference of the input admittance between very thin solid circular cylindrical dipoles, and very thin spheroidal dipoles is shown. This is possible since the prolate spheroidal functions of the second kind (Do-Nhat and MacPhie, 1994) have been developed for spheroids whose parameter /spl xi/ may approach 1. Also the asymptotic expansion of a particular term (introduced by Infeld (1947)) of the slowly convergent spheroidal susceptance is obtained (Do-Nhat and MacPhie, 1994) to facilitate the computation of the spheroidal susceptance with high accuracy.>
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".