Enabling electromagnetic applications of negative-refractive-index transmission-line metamaterials part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metamaterials are artificial periodic media with unusual electromagnetic properties. The size of their unit cells is much smaller than the incident wavelength, thus allowing one to define effective media parameters such a permittivity ε, a permeability μ, and a refractive index n. In this work, “left-handed” metamaterials are considered for which their permittivity and permeability are both negative. These metamaterials exhibit backward-wave propagation characteristics and therefore a negative index of refraction as was predicted in the visionary work of Victor Veselago [1]. Such “left-handed” or “Negative-Refractive-Index” (NRI) media were first implemented using bulk periodic arrays of thin wires to synthesize negative permittivity and split-ring resonators to synthesize a negative permeability [2]. However, the NRI medium presented in [2] relies on resonant elements to synthesize the negative permeability thus leading to narrow bandwidths and high transmission losses. More recently, a completely planar approach for synthesizing NRI media without resonant elements was proposed in [3],[4]. The 2-Dimensional (2-D) NRI structure presented in [3],[4] was realized by periodically loading a planar network of printed transmission lines (TL) with series capacitors and shunt inductors in a dual-TL (high-pass) configuration. The 2-D NRI medium was subsequently interfaced with a commensurate conventional dielectric, leading to the first experimental demonstration of focusing from a NRI metamaterial [4], [5]. More recently, a 3-region lens arrangement was used to observe focusing beyond the diffraction limit [6]-[7] as was predicted by J.B. Pendry [9]. A similar TL approach was followed by Itoh and Caloz and led to interesting structures and circuits [10], [11]. Moreover, intriguing and useful anisotropic transmission-line metamaterials have been reported by Balmain et al. in [12]. In addition, some of the first FDTD simulations of NRI media have been reported in the pioneering work of R. Ziolkowski et al. in [13]. Further developments in the general area of Metamaterials can be found in two recent special issues: The October 2003 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation (Guest Editors R. Ziolkowski and N. Engheta) and the April 2003 issue of Optics Express (vol. 11, No. 7, Guest Editor J.B. Pendry).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".