By Topic

Comments on "A physical optics correction for backscattering from curved surfaces" and "An efficient method to compute spurious end point contributions in PO solutions" [with reply]

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Michaeli, A. ; RAFAEL, Haifa, Israel ; Gupta, I.J. ; Burnside, W.D.

Comments on two related papers by Gupta et al. (ibid., vol.AP-35, no.5, p.553-631, May 1987 and ibid., vol.AP-35, no.12, p.1426-35, Dec. 1987) are made. The commentor states that the usual reason for preferring physical optics (PO) over geometrical optics (GO) in application to curved surfaces is to avoid a numerical search for a specular point. The evaluation of the end-point contributions, however, also requires a numerical search, this time for the shadow boundaries. It would therefore be inconsistent to try to remove the above contributions if the PO procedure is used. Thus the entire discussion of the redundant end point contributions seems to be equally redundant. The authors address the comments and defend their work.<>

Published in:

Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:37 ,  Issue: 4 )