pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16020 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 📡 eess.SP

Transmitter Noise Propagation in Millimeter-Wave and Sub-Terahertz: From Limits to Design Guidelines

Mahir Burak Usta , Didem Aydogan , Evgenii Vinogradov , Mohammad Shahmoradi , Eduard Alarcon , Sergi Abadal , Korkut Kaan Tokgoz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords transmitter noisemillimeter-wavesub-terahertzlink budgetSNRnoise propagationshort-range wireless
0
0 comments X

The pith

Transmitter noise reduces achievable SNR by 15 to 25 dB at short distances in millimeter-wave and sub-terahertz systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how noise originating at the transmitter propagates through the communication chain and can become the dominant impairment when distances are short enough that path loss fails to suppress it below receiver noise levels. Traditional link budgets focus on thermal noise and atmospheric effects, yet this analysis demonstrates that frequency-dependent component noise figures cause transmitter noise to impose practical upper bounds on signal quality in the millimeter-wave and sub-terahertz bands. A quantitative framework is built to identify the distance, frequency, and parameter regimes where transmitter noise takes over. If the model holds, short-range links cannot rely on propagation to improve signal-to-noise ratio and must instead prioritize low-noise transmitter hardware.

Core claim

In the scenarios analyzed, this propagated TX noise reduces the achievable Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) by approximately 15 to 25 dB at short distances, creating fundamental SNR ceilings at ranges below about 10 cm. The work develops a systematic framework quantifying TX noise dominance conditions as functions of distance, frequency, and component parameters, revealing fundamental performance constraints for short-range next generation wireless systems. The findings indicate that the TX noise figure should be kept as low as possible for short-range links while both transmitter noise and atmospheric molecular noise must be included for medium- and long-range designs.

What carries the argument

A link-budget model that tracks transmitter noise propagation through frequency-dependent component noise figures, which rise from single-digit values to more than 15 dB in the sub-terahertz range.

If this is right

  • Transmitter noise figure must be minimized for short-range communication to avoid SNR ceilings.
  • Both transmitter noise and atmospheric molecular noise must be included in medium- and long-range link budgets.
  • Short-range next-generation wireless systems face fundamental performance constraints set by transmitter impairments.
  • Design priority shifts from path-loss reduction alone to low-noise transmitter components at high frequencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Device-to-device and indoor short-range applications at these frequencies may require hardware redesign or noise-suppression methods to reach expected data rates.
  • Beamforming or spatial multiplexing gains could be partially offset by the same transmitter noise floor.
  • The framework could be applied to evaluate trade-offs when adding power amplifiers or frequency converters in integrated transceivers.

Load-bearing premise

That component noise figures increase sharply with frequency and that the link budget calculation correctly isolates transmitter noise dominance without other impairments or measurement uncertainties becoming larger.

What would settle it

Measurements at distances below 10 cm that achieve SNR values within a few dB of thermal-noise-only predictions when using components with the reported noise figures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16020 by Didem Aydogan, Eduard Alarcon, Evgenii Vinogradov, Korkut Kaan Tokgoz, Mahir Burak Usta, Mohammad Shahmoradi, Sergi Abadal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of the complete noise landscape. The total noise floor is shown to be a composite of three primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cascaded TX Chain Noise Figure (FTX) vs. Frequency, derived from Table II using frequency interpolated component parameters and cascaded noise figure calculations. B. Atmospheric Molecular Noise At mm-Wave and sub-THz frequencies, molecular absorp￾tion and re-emission introduce additional noise contributions that critically impact signal propagation [32]. Unlike thermal noise, this molecular noise originat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FSPL and total propagation loss (FSPL + atmospheric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parametric analysis of TX noise impact. Plot (a) shows the frequency-dependent hardware requirements for a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Saturated output power (Psat) models for CMOS and SiGe technologies versus frequency, derived from the ETH Zurich PA survey [37]. 2) Bandwidth Allocation: The communication bandwidth (∆f) is modeled as a fraction of the carrier frequency (fc), which is representative of ultra-wideband systems envisioned for 6G. For this work, a 25% fractional bandwidth is used: ∆f = 0.25 × fc (26) TABLE IV: Environmental C… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Short-range link performance at 300 GHz. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SNR versus frequency at the RX input for short-range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Medium-range link performance at 100 m. 30 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [GHz] 0 20 40 60 80 100 SNR [dB] Thermal Only Baseline Baseline + TX Noise (a) SNR versus frequency at RX input for 1000 m distance. 30 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [GHz] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Capacity [Gbps] Thermal Only Baseline Baseline + TX Noise (b) Channel capacity versus frequency at RX input for 1000 m distance [P… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Long-range link performance at 1000 m. dows, with deep nulls at 60, 183, and 325 GHz. The inclusion of propagated TX noise (Baseline + TX Noise) introduces an additional capacity reduction of roughly 10–25 Gbps in the lower frequency region (30–80 GHz), as emphasized in the inset. These results indicate that for medium-range links, atmo￾spheric molecular absorption determines the viable operating windows, … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Environmental sensitivity analysis showing SNR ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive link budget analysis for millimeter wave (mm-Wave) and sub-Terahertz (sub-THz) communication systems with primary focus on transmitter (TX) noise propagation, an often overlooked impairment that can dominate in scenarios where path loss is insufficient to suppress TX noise below receiver thermal and atmospheric molecular noise levels. Unlike traditional thermal noise limited analyses, this work demonstrates that TX noise is amplified by component noise figures that degrade significantly with frequency, rising from single digits to more than $15\,\mathrm{dB}$ in the sub-THz range. In the scenarios analyzed, this propagated TX noise reduces the achievable Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) by approximately $15$ to $25\,\mathrm{dB}$ at short distances, creating fundamental SNR ceilings at ranges below about $10\,\mathrm{cm}$. We develop a systematic framework quantifying TX noise dominance conditions as functions of distance, frequency, and component parameters, revealing fundamental performance constraints for short-range next generation wireless systems. Our findings indicate that the TX noise figure should be as low as possible for short-range communication, and both TX noise and atmospheric molecular noise should be considered for medium- and long-range links.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a link budget analysis for mm-Wave and sub-THz systems, focusing on transmitter noise propagation as an often-overlooked impairment. It claims that frequency-dependent noise figures rising above 15 dB in the sub-THz range cause propagated TX noise to reduce achievable SNR by 15-25 dB at short distances, establishing fundamental SNR ceilings below approximately 10 cm. The work develops a framework to identify TX noise dominance conditions as functions of distance, frequency, and component parameters, concluding that TX noise figures should be minimized for short-range links while both TX and molecular noise must be considered for medium- and long-range scenarios.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper highlights a practically relevant impairment that traditional thermal-noise-limited analyses miss in short-range high-frequency links. The systematic dominance framework could inform design guidelines for next-generation wireless systems, particularly by stressing low TX noise figures at short ranges. The inclusion of atmospheric molecular noise alongside TX noise for longer links adds useful scope.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The central quantitative claims (15-25 dB SNR reduction and ~10 cm threshold) are stated without derivation steps, error analysis, or validation data. The link-budget equations, specific NF values (>15 dB), and path-loss parameters that produce these exact numbers must be shown explicitly so the results can be reproduced and checked.
  2. Link-budget model (throughout): The SNR ceilings and dominance conditions rest on the assumption that the model isolates TX noise over RX thermal and molecular terms. Please provide the explicit equations demonstrating the crossover distance and confirm that unmodeled effects (phase noise, near-field coupling) do not alter the 10 cm threshold under the stated NF values.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The term 'fundamental SNR ceilings' should be qualified as parameter-dependent rather than absolute, given its reliance on the chosen noise-figure and propagation models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which helps improve the clarity and reproducibility of our link-budget analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide more explicit derivations and model details where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central quantitative claims (15-25 dB SNR reduction and ~10 cm threshold) are stated without derivation steps, error analysis, or validation data. The link-budget equations, specific NF values (>15 dB), and path-loss parameters that produce these exact numbers must be shown explicitly so the results can be reproduced and checked.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a high-level summary, does not contain the underlying derivations or parameter values. The full link-budget model is developed in Section II, where the received signal power follows the Friis equation with frequency-dependent path loss and molecular absorption, the propagated TX noise is scaled by the TX noise figure (NF_TX > 15 dB drawn from reported sub-THz component measurements), and the RX noise floor combines thermal noise (kTB F_RX) with atmospheric molecular noise. The 15-25 dB SNR reduction is obtained by subtracting the SNR computed with only RX noise from the SNR that includes the additional TX noise term at d < 10 cm; the ~10 cm threshold emerges from the distance at which TX noise equals the RX floor under the stated NF and frequency values. To enhance reproducibility, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised introduction that lists the key equations, the specific NF values and path-loss parameters used, and a sensitivity analysis; an appendix now includes the error bounds and validation against limiting cases. revision_made: yes revision: yes

  2. Referee: Link-budget model (throughout): The SNR ceilings and dominance conditions rest on the assumption that the model isolates TX noise over RX thermal and molecular terms. Please provide the explicit equations demonstrating the crossover distance and confirm that unmodeled effects (phase noise, near-field coupling) do not alter the 10 cm threshold under the stated NF values.

    Authors: The model isolates TX noise dominance by setting the distance-dependent TX noise PSD (P_TX * NF_TX / L(d,f) * B) equal to the RX noise PSD (kT * NF_RX * B + molecular absorption term) and solving for the crossover distance d_cross; the explicit equation is now highlighted in Section III as d_cross = sqrt( (P_TX * NF_TX) / (kT * NF_RX + N_mol(f)) ) with the full frequency-dependent loss L(d,f) substituted. We have inserted these closed-form expressions and the resulting dominance regions (as functions of d, f, and NF) into the revised text. Phase noise is treated as a distinct multiplicative impairment that primarily degrades EVM rather than raising the in-band noise floor in the same additive manner, while near-field coupling effects decay rapidly beyond a few wavelengths and are negligible at the 10 cm scale for the frequencies considered. However, because neither effect is quantitatively included in the current model, we cannot provide a definitive numerical confirmation that they leave the exact 10 cm threshold unchanged; we have added a limitations paragraph acknowledging this scope restriction and noting that a combined analysis would require separate modeling. revision_made: partial revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Quantitative confirmation that phase noise and near-field coupling leave the reported 10 cm threshold unaltered, since these impairments are not modeled in the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard link-budget model with external NF assumptions

full rationale

The paper conducts a conventional link-budget calculation that adds propagated TX noise (scaled by frequency-dependent NF) to receiver thermal and molecular noise terms. The 15-25 dB SNR reduction and ~10 cm crossover emerge directly from substituting the stated NF trend (>15 dB at sub-THz) and standard path-loss expressions into the SNR formula; neither quantity is obtained by fitting to the paper's own outputs nor by redefining one variable in terms of another. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and the NF degradation is presented as an observed component trend rather than a result derived inside the manuscript. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields minimal ledger entries; main dependencies are standard link-budget equations and assumed frequency-dependent noise-figure values.

free parameters (1)
  • component noise figures = single digits to >15 dB
    Values stated to rise from single digits to >15 dB; treated as inputs that drive the SNR reduction numbers.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard link-budget equations remain valid when transmitter noise is propagated through the channel
    The entire analysis rests on extending conventional link-budget models to include TX noise as an additive impairment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5544 in / 1156 out tokens · 110780 ms · 2026-05-10T07:53:41.582624+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Millimeter- wave and terahertz spectrum for 6g wireless,

    S. Tripathi, N. V . Sabu, A. K. Gupta, and H. S. Dhillon, “Millimeter- wave and terahertz spectrum for 6g wireless,” in6G Mobile Wireless Networks. Springer, 2021, pp. 83–121, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-72777- 2 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72777- 2021

  2. [2]

    Thz radio communication: Link budget analysis toward 6g,

    K. Rikkinen, P. Kyosti, M. E. Leinonen, M. Berg, and A. Parssinen, “Thz radio communication: Link budget analysis toward 6g,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 22–27, 2020, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2000310

    work page doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2000310 2020

  3. [3]

    Thz communications: Paving the way towards wireless tbps,

    T. K ¨urner, D. M. Mittleman, and T. Nagatsuma, “Thz communications: Paving the way towards wireless tbps,”(Springer Series in Optical Sciences), vol. 234, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    When high-speed communication hits a speed bump: Exploring shannon’s equation in mm-wave links,

    C. D’heer and P. Reynaert, “When high-speed communication hits a speed bump: Exploring shannon’s equation in mm-wave links,” IEEE Microwave Magazine, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 41–57, 2024, doi: 10.1109/MMM.2024.3378611

    work page doi:10.1109/mmm.2024.3378611 2024

  5. [5]

    A 21 km 5 gbps real time wireless commu- nication system at 0.14 thz,

    Q. Wu, C. Lin, B. Lu, L. Miao, X. Hao, Z. Wang, Y . Jiang, W. Lei, X. Den, H. Chenet al., “A 21 km 5 gbps real time wireless commu- nication system at 0.14 thz,” in2017 42nd International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–2, doi: 10.1109/IRMMW-THz.2017.8066870

    work page doi:10.1109/irmmw-thz.2017.8066870 2017

  6. [6]

    64 Gbit/s transmission over 850 m fixed wireless link at 240 GHz carrier frequency,

    I. Kallfass, F. Boes, T. Messinger, J. Antes, A. Inam, U. Lewark, A. Tessmann, and R. Henneberger, “64 Gbit/s transmission over 850 m fixed wireless link at 240 GHz carrier frequency,”Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves, vol. 36, pp. 221–233, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10762-014-0140-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10762-014-0140-6 2015

  7. [7]

    High-speed 0.22 thz communication system with 84 gbps for real-time uncompressed 8k video transmission of live events,

    K. Liu, Y . Feng, C. Han, B. Chang, Z. Chen, Z. Xu, L. Li, B. Zhang, Y . Wang, and Q. Xu, “High-speed 0.22 thz communication system with 84 gbps for real-time uncompressed 8k video transmission of live events,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 8037, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52370-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52370-x 2024

  8. [8]

    Demonstration of a photonics-aided 4,600-m wireless transmission system in the sub-thz band,

    Y . Wei, J. Yu, X. Zhao, X. Yang, M. Wang, W. Li, P. Tian, Y . Han, Q. Zhang, J. Tanet al., “Demonstration of a photonics-aided 4,600-m wireless transmission system in the sub-thz band,”Journal of Lightwave Technology, 2024, doi: 10.1109/JLT.2024.3438156

    work page doi:10.1109/jlt.2024.3438156 2024

  9. [9]

    An 80-gb/s 300-ghz-band single-chip cmos transceiver,

    S. Lee, S. Hara, T. Yoshida, S. Amakawa, R. Dong, A. Kasamatsu, J. Sato, and M. Fujishima, “An 80-gb/s 300-ghz-band single-chip cmos transceiver,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 3577–3588, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    A 16-qam 100-gb/s 1-m wireless link with an evm of 17% at 230 ghz in an sige technology,

    P. Rodr ´ıguez-V´azquez, J. Grzyb, B. Heinemann, and U. R. Pfeiffer, “A 16-qam 100-gb/s 1-m wireless link with an evm of 17% at 230 ghz in an sige technology,”IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 297–299, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Technology roadmap for beyond 5g wireless connectivity in d-band,

    J.-B. Dor ´e, D. Belot, E. Mercier, S. Bica ¨ıs, G. Gougeon, Y . Corre, B. Miscopein, D. Kt ´enas, and E. C. Strinati, “Technology roadmap for beyond 5g wireless connectivity in d-band,” in2020 2nd 6G Wireless Summit (6G SUMMIT). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/6GSUM- MIT49458.2020.9083890

    work page doi:10.1109/6gsum- 2020

  12. [12]

    Channel modeling and capacity analysis for electromagnetic wireless nanonetworks in the terahertz band,

    J. M. Jornet and I. F. Akyildiz, “Channel modeling and capacity analysis for electromagnetic wireless nanonetworks in the terahertz band,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 3211– 3221, 2011, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2011.081011.100545

    work page doi:10.1109/twc.2011.081011.100545 2011

  13. [13]

    Transmitter noise effect on the performance of a mimo-ofdm hard- ware implementation achieving improved coverage,

    H. Suzuki, T. V . A. Tran, I. B. Collings, G. Daniels, and M. Hedley, “Transmitter noise effect on the performance of a mimo-ofdm hard- ware implementation achieving improved coverage,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 867–876, 2008, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2008.080804

    work page doi:10.1109/jsac.2008.080804 2008

  14. [14]

    An e- band high-performance variable gain low noise amplifier for wireless communications in 90-nm cmos process,

    Y . Wang, T.-Y . Chiu, C.-C. Chien, W.-H. Tsai, and H. Wang, “An e- band high-performance variable gain low noise amplifier for wireless communications in 90-nm cmos process,”IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1095–1098, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    A d-band wideband low-noise amplifier adopting pseudo-simultaneous noise and input matched dual-peak gmax-core,

    H. Lee, B. Yun, H. Jeon, W. Keum, S.-G. Lee, and K.-S. Choi, “A d-band wideband low-noise amplifier adopting pseudo-simultaneous noise and input matched dual-peak gmax-core,”IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 3260–3273, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    A 220-ghz lna with 9.7-db noise figure and 24.6-db gain in 40-nm bulk cmos,

    L. Wang, Y . Shen, Y . Qian, Y . Ding, and S. Hu, “A 220-ghz lna with 9.7-db noise figure and 24.6-db gain in 40-nm bulk cmos,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 113–117, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    2.10 a 60ghz 28nm utbb fd-soi cmos reconfigurable power amplifier with 21p1db and 74mw pdc,

    A. Larie, E. Kerherv ´e, B. Martineau, L. V ogt, and D. Belot, “2.10 a 60ghz 28nm utbb fd-soi cmos reconfigurable power amplifier with 21p1db and 74mw pdc,” in2015 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC) Digest of Technical Papers, 2015, pp. 1–3

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Design of d-band transformer-based gain-boosting class-ab power amplifiers in silicon technologies,

    X. Tang, J. Nguyen, A. Medra, K. Khalaf, A. Visweswaran, B. Debaillie, and P. Wambacq, “Design of d-band transformer-based gain-boosting class-ab power amplifiers in silicon technologies,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 1447– 1458, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    280.2/309.2 ghz, 18.2/9.3 db gain, 1.48/1.4 db gain-per-mw, 3-stage amplifiers in 65nm cmos adopting Double-embedded-g max-core,

    B. Yun, D.-W. Park, C.-G. Choi, H.-J. Song, and S.-G. Lee, “280.2/309.2 ghz, 18.2/9.3 db gain, 1.48/1.4 db gain-per-mw, 3-stage amplifiers in 65nm cmos adopting Double-embedded-g max-core,” in2022 IEEE Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits Symposium (RFIC), 2022, pp. 91– 94

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Front-end blocks of a w- 13 band dicke radiometer in sige bicmos technology,

    B. Ustundag, E. Turkmen, A. Burak, B. Gungor, H. Kandis, B. Cetindo- gan, M. Yazici, M. Kaynak, and Y . Gurbuz, “Front-end blocks of a w- 13 band dicke radiometer in sige bicmos technology,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 2417–2421, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    A full d-band low noise amplifier in 130 nm sige bicmos using zero-ohm transmission lines,

    T. Maiwald, J. Potschka, K. Kolb, M. Dietz, K. Aufinger, A. Visweswaran, and R. Weigel, “A full d-band low noise amplifier in 130 nm sige bicmos using zero-ohm transmission lines,” in2020 15th European Microwave Integrated Circuits Conference (EuMIC), 2021, pp. 13–16

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Design aspects of single-ended and differential sige low-noise amplifiers operat- ing above fmax/2in sub-thz/thz frequencies,

    S. P. Singh, T. Rahkonen, M. E. Leinonen, and A. Parssinen, “Design aspects of single-ended and differential sige low-noise amplifiers operat- ing above fmax/2in sub-thz/thz frequencies,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 2478–2488, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    A broadband 300 ghz power amplifier in a 130 nm sige bicmos technology for communication applications,

    T. B ¨ucher, J. Grzyb, P. Hillger, H. R ¨ucker, B. Heinemann, and U. R. Pfeiffer, “A broadband 300 ghz power amplifier in a 130 nm sige bicmos technology for communication applications,”IEEE Journal of Solid- State Circuits, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2024–2034, 2022

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    A 300ghz 52mw cmos receiver with on-chip lo generation,

    O. Memioglu, Y . Zhao, and B. Razavi, “A 300ghz 52mw cmos receiver with on-chip lo generation,” in2022 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), vol. 65, 2022, pp. 1–3

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    A 225–265 ghz i-q receiver in 130-nm sige bicmos for fmcw radar ap- plications,

    E. Turkmen, I. K. Aksoyak, W. Debski, W. Winkler, and A. c. Ulusoy, “A 225–265 ghz i-q receiver in 130-nm sige bicmos for fmcw radar ap- plications,”IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 899–902, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Design considerations for low-noise, highly-linear millimeter-wave mixers in sige bipolar technology,

    S. Trotta, B. Dehlink, H. Knapp, K. Aufinger, T. F. Meister, J. Bock, W. Simburger, and A. L. Scholtz, “Design considerations for low-noise, highly-linear millimeter-wave mixers in sige bipolar technology,” in ESSCIRC 2007 - 33rd European Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2007, pp. 356–359

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    A 130 nm-sige- bicmos low-power receiver based on distributed amplifier techniques for broadband applications from 140 ghz to 200 ghz,

    P. V . Testa, V . Riess, C. Carta, and F. Ellinger, “A 130 nm-sige- bicmos low-power receiver based on distributed amplifier techniques for broadband applications from 140 ghz to 200 ghz,”IEEE Open Journal of Circuits and Systems, vol. 2, pp. 508–519, 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    A broadband low-power millimeter-wave cmos downconversion mixer with improved linearity,

    F. Zhu, W. Hong, J.-X. Chen, X. Jiang, K. Wu, P.-P. Yan, and C.-L. Han, “A broadband low-power millimeter-wave cmos downconversion mixer with improved linearity,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 138–142, 2014

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Ad-band low-power gain-boosted up-conversion mixer with low lo power in 40-nm cmos technology,

    C. J. Lee, J.-S. Kang, and C. S. Park, “Ad-band low-power gain-boosted up-conversion mixer with low lo power in 40-nm cmos technology,” IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1113–1115, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    A 43% pae inverse class-f power amplifier at 39–42 ghz with aλ/4-transformer based harmonic filter in 0.13-µm sige bicmos,

    S. Y . Mortazavi and K.-J. Koh, “A 43% pae inverse class-f power amplifier at 39–42 ghz with aλ/4-transformer based harmonic filter in 0.13-µm sige bicmos,” in2016 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium (IMS), 2016, pp. 1–4

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    A 110–134-ghz sige amplifier with peak output power of 100–120 mw,

    H.-C. Lin and G. M. Rebeiz, “A 110–134-ghz sige amplifier with peak output power of 100–120 mw,”IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 2990–3000, 2014

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    A discussion on molecular absorption noise in the terahertz band,

    J. Kokkoniemi, J. Lehtom ¨aki, and M. Juntti, “A discussion on molecular absorption noise in the terahertz band,”Nano Communication Networks, vol. 8, pp. 35–45, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.nancom.2015.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nancom.2015.11.001 2016

  33. [33]

    At- mospheric absorption of terahertz radiation and water vapor continuum effects,

    D. M. Slocum, E. J. Slingerland, R. H. Giles, and T. M. Goyette, “At- mospheric absorption of terahertz radiation and water vapor continuum effects,”Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, vol. 127, pp. 49–63, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.04.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.04.022 2013

  34. [34]

    Utilization of atmospheric transmission losses for interference-resistant communications,

    F. Box, “Utilization of atmospheric transmission losses for interference-resistant communications,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1009–1015, 1986, doi: 10.1109/TCOM.1986.1096448

    work page doi:10.1109/tcom.1986.1096448 1986

  35. [35]

    Attenuation by atmospheric gases,

    ITU, “Attenuation by atmospheric gases,”Radio Communication Sec- tor of ITU Recommendation, no. P.676-12 (08-2019), 2019, [Online]. Available: https://itu-rpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/apidoc/itu676.html

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    The atmospheric model,

    S. Paine, “The atmospheric model,”Zenodo Dataset, Mar 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    PA Survey Version 10: Saturated Output Power vs. Frequency (All Technologies),

    ETH Zurich IDEAS Group, “PA Survey Version 10: Saturated Output Power vs. Frequency (All Technologies),” 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Ieee 802.15. 3d: First stan- dardization efforts for sub-terahertz band communications toward 6g,

    V . Petrov, T. Kurner, and I. Hosako, “Ieee 802.15. 3d: First stan- dardization efforts for sub-terahertz band communications toward 6g,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 28–33, 2020, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.001.2000273

    work page doi:10.1109/mcom.001.2000273 2020

  39. [39]

    25 dBi gain D-band conical horn antenna, model SAC-2507-075-S2,

    “25 dBi gain D-band conical horn antenna, model SAC-2507-075-S2,” Eravant Inc., 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    40 dBi gain W-band cassegrain antenna, model SAY-9231144017-10- S1,

    “40 dBi gain W-band cassegrain antenna, model SAY-9231144017-10- S1,” Eravant Inc., 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    50 dBi Gain E-Band Weather Resistant Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-7138635005-12-S1-WR,

    “50 dBi Gain E-Band Weather Resistant Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-7138635005-12-S1-WR,” 2024

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    53 dBi Gain Sub-THz Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-2243345303- 03-S1,

    “53 dBi Gain Sub-THz Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-2243345303- 03-S1,” 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    58.1 dBi Gain Q-Band Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-3735135302- 22-S1-DP-WR,

    “58.1 dBi Gain Q-Band Cassegrain Antenna, Model SAY-3735135302- 22-S1-DP-WR,” 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Standard Atmosphere, 1976

    NOAA, NASA, and USAF,U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976. Wash- ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976

    work page 1976

  45. [45]

    Geneva, Switzerland: WMO, 2018

    World Meteorological Organization,Guide to Meteorological Instru- ments and Methods of Observation (WMO-No.8), 2018th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: WMO, 2018

    work page 2018