Accurate modeling of thin wires in the FDTD method
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
In many electromagnetic problems analyzed numerically with the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, thin wires need to be modeled. A wire is considered thin when its diameter is less than the selected mesh size. It certainly is possible to select a sufficiently small mesh, so that the wire diameter occupies one or more computational cells, but this approach open results in a very fine discretization and excessive computational resources. We have performed a detailed numerical evaluation of the input impedance and the resonant frequency of a dipole antenna, and compared the results with with those obtained with the method of moments (MoM) based code, the Numerical Electromagnetic Code, NEC. But the results are obtained by use of an incorrect (not physics based) normalization factor. These limitations of available subcell wire models provided motivation for our work. In this article we describe a new algorithm and its implementation. Dipole parameters (the input impedance, resonant frequency and resistance at resonance) computed with the new algorithm are compared with those obtained with the standard algorithm, and modified one, as well as with the reference solution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it