VGTU Phase II & III Reports (2017–2018): Resonator-Converter Interference Mechanism Confirmed — 20% Field Amplitude Reduction; Fractal Antenna Threshold Excitation at 2W

Este sitio web tiene ciertas restriucciones de navegación. Le recomendamos utilizar buscadores como: Edge, Chrome, Safari o Firefox.

FREE Bored Panda childrens book with Orders $250+ Limited Time Only!

VGTU Phase II & III Reports (2017–2018): Resonator-Converter Interference Mechanism Confirmed — 20% Field Amplitude Reduction; Fractal Antenna Threshold Excitation at 2W

Por Dainius Jasaitis, Prof. Artūras Jukna, VGTU

VGTU Phase II & III (2017–2018): Interference Mechanism Confirmed — 20% Field Reduction in Reflection Mode; 2W Excitation Threshold Identified

Phases II and III of the VGTU resonator-converter testing program. Phase II revealed the interference mechanism — incident and R-C-reflected waves create a product wave with different frequency and phase. Phase III extended findings across device types and configurations.

Laboratory testingSpectrum analyzer0–8 GHz bandOptical transmission & reflectionInterference mechanism20% field reductionVGTU Photovoltaic Lab2017–2018
20%
Field amplitude reduction (optical reflection mode)
~2W
Minimum threshold power to excite R-C at 0.9 GHz
3λ
Max distance from receiver for maximum damping
0–8 GHz
Full test frequency band

Program Overview: Three Phases of VGTU Testing

Phase Year Focus Key Result
Phase I 2016 Electric field amplitude vs. distance; 3 R-C types 27% average field reduction at 0.9–2.5 GHz (transmission mode)
Phase II 2017 Optical properties; interference mechanism; group R-C effects 20% amplitude reduction (reflection mode); 2W excitation threshold
Phase III 2018 Expanded R-C types; multi-device groups; near/far-field zones Confirms Phase I & II; extends to group configurations

The Interference Mechanism (Phase II Discovery)

Phase I established that resonator-converters reduce measured field strength. Phase II explained why: the resonator-converter (R-C) does not simply block or absorb the incident EM wave. Instead:

  1. The incident EM wave interacts with the R-C’s self-affine diffraction grating surface
  2. Some energy of the incident wave is reflected from the R-C surface
  3. The incident wave and the reflected wave from the R-C interfere with each other
  4. The interference product is a new EM wave with frequency and phase different from both the incident and reflected waves
This interference mechanism is the fundamental operating principle of the resonator-converter. It is not blocking, shielding, or absorption — it is wave interference producing a transformed field. The product wave has different frequency and phase characteristics from the original — consistent with the coherent transformation mechanism described in the Aires WIPO patent and the MEMS simulation reports.

Phase II Results: Optical Reflection Mode

20% amplitude reduction in reflection mode: In optical reflection mode (R-C positioned with one face toward both transmitter and receiver), the electric field amplitude of the resultant EM wave in the 0.9–2.5 GHz band decreases by 20% on average. Note: this is lower than the Phase I result of 27% in transmission mode, because the two modes test different spatial configurations of the interference effect. The reflection mode configuration represents the typical R-C use case (device attached to phone or held near body, facing the source).
Distance threshold — maximum at 3λ: The maximum damping efficiency in optical reflection mode is achieved when the R-C is at a distance ≤ 3λ from the receiver (user). Beyond 3λ, the effect diminishes as the interference product disperses. This confirms the optimal use case: R-C attached directly to or near the emitting device.

Excitation Threshold: Minimum 2W Required

Threshold power: For 0.9 GHz electromagnetic waves, the minimum power required to excite the R-C’s active response (detectable interference effect) is approximately 2 W. Below this threshold, no measurable interaction is registered by the spectrum analyzer. This threshold is frequency-dependent: Emin = f(h, E²), meaning it scales with photon energy h and the squared electric field amplitude E² (proportional to the Poynting vector). At 2.5 GHz (higher photon energy), the threshold is met at lower power levels.
Fractal antenna interpretation: Once the threshold is exceeded, the R-C acts as a source of EM waves with a frequency band determined by the characteristics of its internal fractal antenna structure. The frequency of the emitted/interference-product radiation depends on R-C antenna characteristics — specifically the fractal structure dimensions — rather than simply echoing the incident frequency. This is consistent with the theoretical prediction that the self-affine grating generates harmonics at eigenfrequencies of the fractal structure.

Phase II: Group R-C Effects

Phase II also tested groups of multiple R-Cs of the same type (devices) vs. a single R-C, measuring combined effects across the 0–8 GHz frequency band. The group configuration modifies the interference pattern due to multi-source superposition, with different damping profiles depending on spacing between devices and distance to the receiver.

Phase III Confirmation and Extensions

Phase III (2018) extended the multi-stage program by:

  • Confirming Phase I and II findings across additional R-C types and sizes
  • Expanding group R-C testing to include mixed-type configurations
  • Measuring near-field (distance <10λ) and far-field (distance >10λ) separately, with precise distance ranges for each testing scenario
  • Using the same experimental setup (Signal Hound Spectrum Analyzer, 100 Hz–8 GHz, FFT analysis) for direct comparability with Phase I and II data

Phase III conclusions confirm that the interference mechanism first characterized in Phase II operates consistently across the tested frequency range and R-C configurations, with maximum efficiency consistently observed in optical reflection mode at ≤3λ from the receiver.

Institution: VGTU Photovoltaic Technology Laboratory, Vilnius  |  Team: Dainius Jasaitis, Prof. Artūras Jukna  |  Years: 2017–2018

← Phase I report  |  ← Technology explanation  |  ← All research