Three Microprocessors, One Architecture

The C16S, C28S, and C32S microprocessors all share the same fundamental self-affine circular diffraction grating architecture — a 4-level fractal structure etched onto a silicon wafer. The key difference is the number of fractalization axes, which determines the density of the ring resonator network and the complexity of the counter-resonance interactions.

Why Standard Simulation Packages Are Insufficient

Commercial electromagnetic simulation software (FDTD, FEM-based packages) models interaction in the context of classical physics — meaning they treat reflections and absorptions from flat/smooth surface features. The Aires resonator exhibits two phenomena these tools do not account for:

1. Counter-wave interaction on the resonator surface: Because the fractalization axes are arranged in pairs strictly along ring diameters, counter-propagating surface waves interact at each diameter crossing. This is not a classical reflection scenario.
2. Derivative resonances: The field superposition generated by the primary slit topology itself becomes a secondary diffraction grating, generating further superpositions in a cascade. This multi-order derivative response is physically distinct from single-pass diffraction.

Custom MEMS-based physical models, algorithms, and computer programs were developed to simulate these effects. Scientific consultants: Prof. Dr. A.V. Kopyltsov (Professor of Technical Sciences) and Prof. A. Jukna (Professor, Physics Department).

Physical Model

For all three processors, the simulation used an identical physical model:

• Incident radiation: 2.4 GHz (Wi-Fi), field strength E₀ = 10 V/m, distance from source: 10 m
• Slit behavior: slits absorb incident radiation; the smooth resonator surface reflects (angle of incidence = angle of reflection)
• Receiver space: cubic matrix above the resonator, divided into cubic cells with increment h = 28 μm
• Simulation duration: 1 second of electromagnetic interaction; computational time: 120 machine-hours per run

Mathematical Model: Slit Gain Factor

The key gain mechanism is the path-length difference between radiation traveling over vs. into a slit. For the C16S/C28S/C32S (slit width 0.4 μm, depth 0.8 μm):

Field gain: Kl = 2× in low-density circuit regions, up to 4× in high-density zones. For comparison, the 64P1S5G (5G model, 0.2 μm slit width) achieves Kl up to 8× due to deeper slit-to-width ratio.

The diffraction contribution at angle θ is modeled via: E_total = E_reflected + E_diffracted, using the standard intensity formula I = I₀ × [sin(πb sinθ/λ) / (πb sinθ/λ)]².

Multi-Order Derivative Cascade

The simulation models four orders of field response:

1. Derivative 1: Primary diffraction response of the C-series topology — computed as a symmetric cubic matrix, mirrored for symmetry
2. Derivative 2: Derivative 1 matrix rotated 45° about X, Y, Z axes and summed — the superposition that begins acting as a secondary grating
3. Derivative 3: Derivative 2 projected in 66 directions (67 total spheres summed) — producing deep interference including half-wave and quarter-wave resonant interconnections
4. Derivative 4: Result of third-derivative interactions driving the incident wave flow toward harmonization with the structural eigenmodes — analogous to a direct and inverse Fourier transform

Annular Diffraction: From Ring to Fractal Hologram

A distinctive result from the basic ring analysis (C16S, shown in the report): the diffraction response of a single ring resonator at 2.4 GHz produces an annular spectrogram. Crucially, the ring’s curved surface focuses incident impulses toward its geometric center, where counter-propagating surface waves from opposite sides of the ring initiate counter-resonance. At gamma-radiation frequencies, this produces an internal fractal structure analogous to the pattern of a sunflower — a naturally self-similar biological structure. At 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi frequencies, the same topology produces a correspondingly scaled holographic response consistent with the fractal mathematical model.

Scaling: More Axes = More Coherent Response

*The 64P1S5G uses a different fractalization architecture (1 level + prototype) optimized for 28 GHz millimeter-wave interaction, rather than the 4-level 2.4 GHz architecture of the C-series.

Researchers: K. Korshunov, I. Soltovskaya, T. Shamko  |  Project manager: I. Serov  |  Scientific consultants: Prof. Kopyltsov, Prof. Jukna  |  Year: 2018

← Technology explanation  |  ← All research