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
