Year: 2018Type: External Laboratory Testing — Phase IIIInstitution: VGTU, LithuaniaFrequency: 2.4 GHzCluster: Physics & Engineering
Study Overview
Phase III — the concluding stage of the three-phase testing program — investigates how groups of Aires resonator-converters behave together: whether 2D and 3D configurations outperform a single R-C for suppressing 2.4 GHz electromagnetic pollution. The program was conducted at the Laboratory of Photovoltaic Technology, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, with institutional endorsement from VGTU’s Vice-Rector for Science and Innovation.
Research Team & Institution
| Role |
Researcher / Institution |
| Head of Physics Department (lead) |
Prof. Artūras Jukna, VGTU |
| Head of Laboratory |
Dainius Jasaitis, VGTU |
| Vice-Rector for Science & Innovation |
Prof. habil. dr. Antanas Cenys, VGTU |
| Customer / Commissioner |
UAB AIRESLITA, Vilnius, Lithuania |
Summary of Phase I & II Findings
Phase I (2016): R-C suppresses incident EM wave power; Emin ≥ 2W for 0.9–2.5 GHz; most effective in near-field optical reflectance mode within 3λ of receiver. Phase II (2017): under near-field high-power excitation, R-C becomes an active generator of ultrawide band frequency bursts with central frequency determined by incident wave, environment, and R-C fractal structure. Phase III addresses whether grouping R-Cs multiplies this effect.
Key Findings
Finding 1 — Groups Do Not Dramatically Outperform Single R-CA 2D group of Aires Defender R-Cs does not show significantly higher cancellation of 2.4 GHz electromagnetic pollution compared to a single R-C. The reason: mutual interference of electromagnetic waves reflected from the group’s resultant surface — which can cause both decreases AND increases of amplitude and power of the incident field, depending on geometry.
Finding 2 — Single R-C in Near-Field Reflection Mode Remains OptimalThe most effective damping of electromagnetic pollution occurs with a single R-C located in the near-field zone in optical reflection mode (positioned near the body or device receiving EMR). The mutual interference problem that affects groups does not apply to single-device configurations, which benefit from clean near-field interaction.
Finding 3 — Far-Field Measurement Required for Group AnalysisFor 2D and 3D R-C group configurations, amplitude and power of the electromagnetic wave must be measured in the far-field zone — at a distance where the group can be treated as a point source of secondary (reflected) electromagnetic waves. Numerical modeling is the recommended method for quantitative analysis of group efficiency, as it can account for simultaneous reflection from each individual R-C and the group as a whole, including mutual interference contributions.
The Phase III finding directly informs product design: individual Aires devices (ONE, GO, FLEX, ZONE, ZONE MAX) each contain a single resonator microprocessor. This single-device-in-near-field configuration is specifically the mode the three-phase VGTU testing program identified as most effective for EMF coherent transformation.
Related Research
Design note: The mutual interference finding in this study applies specifically to co-planar, same-orientation arrays of identical R-Cs. Aires multi-resonator products use rotationally offset resonator configurations — for example, the Aires Go uses two 16S5G resonators with antennas on opposing faces, and the Aires Zone Max uses three resonators with two on one face and one centered on the reverse face, all offset relative to each other. This rotational offset geometry avoids the co-planar interference problem identified here and instead produces constructive inter-resonator coupling, consistent with the amplified response observed in multi-resonator modeling by Lukyanov et al. (ITMO University, 2025).
