Millimeter-wave broadband transition of stripline and CPWG on thin-to-thick substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many applications such as chip (or package) to PCB transition, due to the small pitch size of the chip (or package), very narrow 50 Ω; stripline or grounded coplanar waveguide (CPWG) is required. In order to reduce the line width, stripline or CPWG should be fabricated on thin substrate (in case of CPWG because minimum manufacturable gap is limited in normal low cost PCB technology). On the other hand using thin substrate increases metallic loss of CPWG and stripline, which is important especially at millimeter wave, and long channels, then it, is preferred to use thick substrate to reduce metallic loss. Also for many applications such as printed circuit antenna, thick substrate is preferred because it can increase the bandwidth and gain of the antenna. Then a broadband transition from stripline (or CPWG) on thin to thick substrate is needed. This paper presents a low-loss, broadband transition of stripline (and CPWG) on thin-to-thick substrates. Measurement results show that the proposed transitions have less than 0.1 dB insertion loss up to 40 GHz. Several TRL kits are used to de-embed the effect of connectors and probes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".