Design of Log Periodic Dipole Array with FEM and FDTD Based Analysis for GSM, PCS, Industry Standard Medical and Wi-Fi Communication Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need of low profile and multiband antennas in various fields of wireless communication lower band applications. Suitable gain with higher data rates for future communication modules in compact range is most challenging for design engineers. In this paper, Log Periodic Dipole Array antenna was designed and proposed for frequency range from 900 MHz to 2.6 GHz, operating frequency for the proposed antenna is 0.9 GHz (GSM), 2.1 GHz (PCS) and 2.4 GHz Industry standard Medical (ISM) and Wi-Fi applications. The modelled antenna constructed on FR4 substrate with height of 1.6mm, and analysed with electromagnetic simulation software like Magus, CST (Computer Simulation Technology) and HFSS (High Frequency structure simulator) tools. The proposed antenna has advantages like wideband, simple design, antenna results indicate the reflection coefficient value below -10dB for whole band from 900 MHz to 2600 MHz. The proposed antenna showing overall gain of 6 dB. Several antenna parameters are evaluated in Finite Element Method (FEM) and Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) and provided comparative analysis in this work.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".