Size reduction in the high-gain antennas with dielectric superstrate using artificial magnetic conductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placing a superstrate dielectric cover with a high relative permittivity or highly reflecting sheets above a planar antenna enhances the antenna gain significantly[1-4]. In order for the antenna gain to be maximized the superstrate has to be placed at the certain height with respect to the ground plane [1]. It has been shown in [4] that using artificial magnetic conductors (AMCs), one is able to reduce this height when the superstrate cover is a highly reflecting surface. In this paper, a high-permittivity dielectric superstrate is considered. First, a half-wavelength dipole antenna is employed as the excitation source. This antenna is characterized in both cases of employing a perfect magnetic conductor (PMC) or perfect electric conductor (PEC), as the ground plane. The gain loss versus size reduction is addressed. Then, a microstrip antenna embedded in metallic patches, working as an AMC is introduced as the practical case. The characteristics of this antenna are studied and compared with its conventional counterpart. The measurement results of the fabricated antenna are reported as well.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".