MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142441082 · doi:10.1109/cefc-06.2006.1633061

FDTD Sub-Cell Modeling of the Inner Conductor of the Coaxial Feed: Accuracy and Convergence Analysis

2006· article· en· W3142441082 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Hajiaboli, Milica Popović

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodCoaxialConductorResistive touchscreenAntenna (radio)Electrical conductorElectrical impedancePerfect conductorBoundary value problemAcousticsElectronic engineeringPhysicsOpticsEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the modeling of coaxial probe used to excite an electromagnetically coupled patch antenna. The modeling is based on the sub-cell modeling of the inner conductor of the coaxial probe and considering the extension of the coaxial probe below the ground plane of the patch antenna. The problem that is tackled here is the method of exciting and truncating the coaxial probe in order to avoid the unstable and unreliable behavior of finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) solution. Three different structures and excitations are considered. First, the antenna is excited using a hard source placed along the inner conductor of the coaxial probe. In the second model, the hard source excitation is replaced by a resistive voltage source. In both of the noted modeling cases, the inner conductor is truncated two cells above the lower absorbing UPML boundary. In the third modeling technique, we consider the inner conductor extended to the boundary layer. The results show progressive refinement in the simulated solution of the input impedance, also compared with measured data in all cases

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207