FDTD Subcell Modeling of the Inner Conductor of the Coaxial Feed: Accuracy and Convergence Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> In this paper, we analyze the method of exciting and truncating the coaxial probe used to excite an electromagnetically coupled patch antenna. The goal of the analysis is to avoid the unstable and unreliable behavior of finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) solution. The model considered here is based on the subcell thin wire modeling of inner conductor of a coaxial probe. Two main categories of structures and excitation models are considered. In the first category, the truncated thin wire is separated from the absorbing boundary by two FDTD cells, for several excitation models and their location along the wire. In the second category, the thin wire is extended into the absorbing boundary, and both the hard and the resistive source models are investigated. The comparison of the results for the two aforementioned categories of the FDTD coaxial probe feeds may be of particular interest to computational electromagnetics community, as it may yield insight into the limitations of the most commercial software packages which do not allow for extension of the coaxial probe model into the absorbing boundary. </para>
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it