MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762635090 · doi:10.1109/lmwc.2017.2754345

3-D Printed Customizable Inserts for Waveguide Filter Design at X-Band

2017· article· en· W2762635090 on OpenAlexafffund
Reena Dahle, Paul D. Laforge, John Kuhling

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsInsert (composites)WaveguideWaveguide filterBand-pass filterFilter (signal processing)ElectroplatingMaterials scienceInsertion lossPrinted circuit boardFlexibility (engineering)OptoelectronicsLayer (electronics)Electronic engineeringFilter designEngineeringElectrical engineeringPrototype filterComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter presents the design of a customizable 3-D printed insert that can be placed into a standard WR-90 waveguide to realize an inline waveguide filter. These 3-D printed inserts have a significantly lower manufacturing cost and turnaround time compared to the conventional solid copper or bronze waveguide. A two-pole X-Band filter insert has been designed to demonstrate this unique approach. A Stratasys Fortus 400mc 3-D printer is used to print the exchangeable waveguide inserts with support material that is then removed using a basic lye solution. A seed layer of nickel is then spray coated on, and used to electroplate the inserts with copper. Measured results are in good agreement with simulation results for the two-pole bandpass filter with less than 1.05-dB insertion loss over X-Band. The weight of these inserts electroplated with copper is only 6.65 g. The ease and flexibility of this approach provides an excellent option for tuning and customizing filter designs with a fast turnaround using 3-D printing manufacturing technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Microwave and Wireless Components LettersSame topicMicrowave Engineering and WaveguidesFrench-language works237,207