Reconfigurable Liquid Crystal Reflectarray Metasurface for THz Communications

Dehao Wu; Maziar Nekovee; Xiaomin Meng

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 13 references

Reconfigurable Liquid Crystal Reflectarray Metasurface for THz Communications

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 20-by-20 liquid-crystal reflectarray metasurface can steer 108 GHz beams by switching each cell's reflection phase by about 177 degrees.

desk verdict Simulation-only binary LC reflectarray with a useful workflow but an unresolved permittivity inconsistency and no robustness analysis; the central 177-degree claim is plausible but not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02736 v1 pith:2KKD3BS4 submitted 2019-08-07 physics.app-ph physics.comp-ph

Xiaomin Meng , Maziar Nekovee , Dehao Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords terahertzcommunicationsliquidcrystalreconfigurablereflectarraymetasurfacegeneticalgorithmbeamsteeringbinaryphase108GHz

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a reconfigurable reflectarray metasurface for terahertz communications at 108 GHz, built from liquid-crystal unit cells that switch between two states. Full-wave simulations show the unit cell delivers a 177-degree reflection phase difference between ON and OFF states while holding reflection amplitude at 0.88 in both states. For the full 20-by-20 device, the paper shows that genetic-algorithm-optimized ON/OFF configurations produce steerable and multi-beam far-field patterns under plane-wave and near-field feed illumination. A sympathetic reader would care because a binary, low-power, semi-passive reflective surface might steer terahertz beams without the thousands of active phase shifters a conventional phased array would need.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the liquid-crystal-loaded patch-antenna unit cell: a 1 mm square cell whose patch width $W = 0.714$ mm and liquid-crystal layer height $h = 0.087$ mm were tuned so that the ON and OFF states differ by nearly 180 degrees in reflection phase. The two states are modelled by assigning the liquid crystal two distinct permittivity and loss-tangent values, which shifts the unit-cell resonance. The second mechanism is the genetic algorithm, whose cost function is built from the far-field pattern's peak locations (for example, $\text{cost} = |E - E_{\text{target}}|^2$ or peak-index differences), and which searches the binary configuration space of the 400 elements. The theoretical far-field expression $E(\theta, \varphi)$ ties these together by summing the element pattern, the array factor, and the state-dependent amplitude $\Gamma_{mn}$ and phase $e^{i\varphi_{mn}}$ of each unit.

What would settle it

Measure or simulate the unit cell with the biasing network included: if the reflection phase difference between ON and OFF at 108 GHz drops well below 177 degrees, or if the reflection amplitudes in the two states move apart, the central design claim is contradicted. The same check could be done experimentally by fabricating a single cell or small array and measuring its reflection phase and amplitude under bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 1 mm by 1 mm patch antenna on a liquid-crystal substrate can act as a binary phase-coding element at 108 GHz. Switching the liquid crystal between its low-permittivity state ($\varepsilon_\perp = 2.47$, $\tan\delta_\perp = 0.02$) and its high-permittivity state ($\varepsilon_\parallel = 3.25$, $\tan\delta_\parallel = 0.015$) changes the reflected wave's phase by 177 degrees while keeping its amplitude near 0.88 in both states, close to the 180-degree ideal for binary coding. In simulation, arranging 20 by 20 such elements and selecting each element's state with a genetic algorithm yields the expected mirror reflection when all elements are ON, anomalous reflection toward the surface normal, beam steering to a prescribed direction, and a multi-beam profile. The paper presents these as full-wave simulation results, not measurements, and notes that the aperture is only 2 cm by 2 cm, with larger apertures or tiled devices left for future work.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes the commercial liquid crystal keeps its published permittivity and loss-tangent values at 108 GHz, and that leaving out the biasing circuit and ignoring coupling between neighbouring cells does not change the unit-cell response; if actual bias lines, temperature drift, or inter-element coupling shift the two permittivity states, the claimed 177-degree phase difference and 0.88 reflection amplitudes may not survive in a fabricated device.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A binary liquid-crystal reflectarray of this kind would need only low-power switching voltages, not continuous phase control, so the drive electronics could be much simpler than for existing liquid-crystal reflectarrays.
A 20-by-20 aperture with the claimed unit cell could act as a beam-steering smart mirror for terahertz links, redirecting an incoming wave toward a user without a 100,000-element phased array.
The same 2 cm by 2 cm aperture can produce qualitatively different patterns from the same physical structure, including mirror reflection, anomalous reflection, single-beam steering, and multi-beam profiles, by changing only the ON/OFF matrix.
The reported full-wave results suggest a path toward larger apertures by tiling multiple 20-by-20 modules, which the authors identify as future work for increasing gain and coverage.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the 177-degree, 0.88-amplitude unit cell is confirmed by experiment, the same binary coding idea could be extended to other terahertz functions such as polarisation conversion or radar-cross-section control, because the device already shows distinct scattering patterns from binary states.
The omission of the biasing circuit is testable right away: adding realistic bias lines to the full-wave model would show whether the phase difference degrades, and if it does, a redesigned unit cell with integrated bias electrodes would be needed.
The optimisation bottleneck the authors report, hours for one 20-by-20 pattern, suggests that practical real-time reconfiguration would likely need a different synthesis method, such as a fast Fourier transform based approach, rather than genetic search.
Because the optimal ON/OFF matrices for a given beam direction are not unique, the genetic-algorithm solutions could be stored in a codebook, letting the device switch rapidly between precomputed configurations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this is a simulation-only design study for a 108 GHz binary-phase LC reflectarray. The new piece is combining binary coding (ON/OFF) with LC unit cells, plus a GA-based pattern synthesis workflow running across CST, Matlab, and VBA. It does not introduce new physics; it is an incremental engineering concept. The central 177-degree phase shift and 0.88 reflection amplitudes come from full-wave CST simulations, but they are outcomes of a parameter sweep that targeted 180 degrees, so they are design achievements, not independently predicted results. And there is a real internal inconsistency that needs fixing before the numbers can be trusted.

The paper does several things well. It states its own limitations clearly: no bias circuit, preliminary GA results, high sidelobes, long optimization times. The GA cost-function description is understandable, and the full-wave patterns for canonical configurations align qualitatively with the PIN-diode coding metasurface literature. The cross-platform workflow is a useful practical contribution for people wanting to do similar simulations.

Soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is the permittivity inconsistency: Section II-A's table gives ε⊥=2.47, ε∥=3.25 for GT3-23001, but Algorithm 3 in Section III-C assigns ε=2.46 for ON and ε=3.28 for OFF. Since the ON/OFF state is defined by those values, the reader cannot tell which set actually went into the CST unit-cell and 20x20 simulations. The numerical difference is small, so this might be a typo, but it is exactly where simulation credibility breaks down. The second soft spot is the absence of any error or robustness analysis: no sweep around the chosen h and W, no discussion of mesh convergence, no accountability for the omitted bias lines. That matters because the 177-degree result is a design optimum, and the paper gives no sense of how steep the optimum is. The far-field comparisons are also mostly qualitative; there is no quantitative error metric between theoretical and full-wave patterns. Minor: some text/caption mismatches in Figure 6 and typos.

The stress-test note is essentially right. I don't see a circular derivation or a self-citation problem; the citation pattern is fine. The issue is narrower: an unverified material-parameter inconsistency plus a central claim that could shift under realistic tolerances.

Who is this for? Researchers working on THz reconfigurable surfaces, especially LC-based, and engineers wanting a starting point for CST/Matlab/VBA workflows. It does not demonstrate a working device.

Recommendation: if an editor sent this to me, I would ask the authors to fix the permittivity inconsistency, state explicitly which values were used in CST, and add a small robustness sweep around the design point. After that, it deserves a serious referee for a specialist venue; as is, I would not send it to a top journal. If I were forced to decide now, I'd lean conditional revision rather than reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a computational design study of a 20×20 liquid-crystal (LC) based binary-phase reflectarray metasurface for 108 GHz. The unit cell is a patch on an LC substrate modelled on Merck's GT3-23001. CST full-wave simulations are claimed to give a 177° reflection phase difference between ON and OFF states at 108 GHz with reflection amplitude 0.88 in both states. A genetic algorithm (GA) written in Matlab is used to optimize the binary ON/OFF matrix for beam-steering and multi-beam patterns, and full-device CST simulations are presented for normal incidence, oblique incidence, and a near-field feed horn. The paper also documents a cross-platform Matlab-CST-VBA implementation workflow.

Significance. If the simulated performance is reproducible, the proposed design is a useful contribution to THz communications: it is a semi-passive, binary-controlled reflectarray that avoids lossy diode phase shifters and exploits LC tuning. The paper's strengths are the full-device 20×20 CST simulation (rather than unit-cell-only extrapolation), the explicit cross-platform workflow, and the inclusion of GA code structures for pattern synthesis. However, the central quantitative claim—177° phase difference with 0.88 amplitude—is an output of a design optimization that explicitly targets ~180° phase difference, and the paper currently uses inconsistent LC permittivity values in different sections. These issues must be resolved before the reported numbers can be relied upon. The absence of experimental validation is a limitation, but not by itself disqualifying for a computational design study.

major comments (3)

[II-A, Table 1 and III-C, Algorithm 3] The LC permittivity values are inconsistent: Table 1 lists ε⊥=2.47 and ε∥=3.25, while Algorithm 3 assigns ε=2.46 for ON and ε=3.28 for OFF. The headline 177° phase difference and 0.88 amplitude depend directly on the permittivity values used in the CST unit-cell model, so the paper must state which set of values was used in the unit-cell and full-device simulations and, if both appear, rerun the simulations with a single set and report the resulting phase and amplitude. As written, the central result cannot be traced to a definite material parameter set.
[III-A, Algorithm 1] The reported 177° phase difference is not an independent prediction; Algorithm 1 explicitly searches for parameter pairs (h, W) satisfying a phase-difference window close to 180° (pl ≤ S11P ≤ pu) together with amplitude constraints, and the final h and W are selected by sorting these candidates. The paper should present the phase-difference and amplitude maps over the swept h and W ranges and discuss sensitivity to fabrication tolerances and to possible deviations of the LC permittivity from the datasheet values. Without this, the robustness of the 177°/0.88 claim to the design procedure itself is not established.
[II-A] The manuscript states that the biasing circuit was omitted from the simulation 'to save computational time without significant impact on the accuracy,' but no supporting simulation or reference is provided. At 108 GHz, bias lines, alignment layers, and the LC filling structure can detune a unit cell and change both reflection phase and loss. Since the device concept relies on electronically switching the LC, this omission should either be quantified with a comparative simulation or explicitly listed as a limitation that may affect the absolute phase and amplitude numbers.

minor comments (8)

[Section III heading] The heading 'IMPLEMENTATION ROUNTINES' should be 'IMPLEMENTATION ROUTINES'.
[Section I-B] The phrase 'with applied electric electric field' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
[Section II-A] The company name 'Merk' should be 'Merck'.
[Section II-C and Algorithm 2] The cost function in Eq. (3) is defined as |E−E_target|², whereas Algorithm 2 defines cost as the squared difference of the peak index (|LOC−LOC_E|²). The relationship between these two definitions and the 'secondary cost conditions' mentioned in the text should be clarified.
[Section IV-A and Fig. 6] The text says the GA beam-steering is towards θ=45°, φ=135°, but the caption of Fig. 6(b) says θ=54°, φ=135°. The two should be made consistent.
[Section IV-B] The statement 'the area of the device is 20mm2' is incorrect for a 20×20 array of 1 mm unit cells; the area is 400 mm². Also, 'dBm2' should be 'dBsm' for radar cross section units.
[Section I-A] The text attributes the opening of the 95 GHz to 3 THz spectrum to the FAA, while reference [1] is an FCC announcement; the agency should be corrected.
[Section I-C] The sentence 'VBA is a the language used in initialising full device model for CST simulation' has grammatical errors and should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 177-degree phase difference is a full-wave simulation result for an explicitly optimized unit cell, not a quantity derived from or defined by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a simulated design performance. Algorithm 1 sweeps h and W and selects dimensions whose S11 phase difference falls within prescribed bounds close to 180 degrees; Section IV-A then reports the achieved 177 degrees at 108 GHz. This is a design optimization outcome, not a prediction drawn from a derivation chain, so it is not circular in the sense of an input being defined in terms of the output. The LC permittivity values are taken from external literature for Merck GT3-23001, and the GA and array-factor calculations are standard numerical procedures applied to the binary state matrix; none of these steps are justified by self-citation. The inconsistency between the table values (2.47/3.25) and Algorithm 3's assigned values (2.46/3.28) is a reproducibility and correctness concern, but it does not make the derivation circular. No load-bearing self-citation or renamed known result was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on the validity of the LC material parameters, the accuracy of the CST model, and the assumption that bias lines can be ignored. The unit cell dimensions are fit by a sweep to achieve the headline phase shift, and the GA results are shaped by hand-designed cost functions.

free parameters (4)

Patch width W = 0.714 mm
Chosen via parameter sweep in Algorithm 1 to maximize phase difference near 180 degrees and balance reflection amplitudes.
LC height h = 0.087 mm
Same parameter sweep; affects the resonance and the achievable phase shift.
Unit cell periodicity = 1 mm
Chosen by hand as a compromise between beam resolution and steering angle range, as stated in Section III-A.
Target phase difference = 180 degrees
Design goal used in the sweep; the achieved 177 degrees is evaluated against this target.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LC GT3-23001 permittivity values from literature are accurate at 108 GHz
Unit cell and full device simulations use eps values from refs [6]-[9]; if these are off, the phase shift and amplitude change.
domain assumption Omitting the biasing circuit does not significantly affect results
Stated in Section II-A; actual bias lines would add loss and coupling.
domain assumption Periodic boundary condition unit-cell simulation represents the 20 by 20 array
Unit cell is simulated with periodic boundaries mimicking an infinite array (Section III-A); edge effects and finite-size coupling are ignored.
standard math Far-field is a product of element pattern and array factor with a cosine-power approximation
Equation (1) uses a standard array-factor model, but the element pattern exponent q is not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconfigurable Liquid Crystal Reflectarray Metasurface for THz Communications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KKD3BS4

@misc{pith2026190802736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconfigurable Liquid Crystal Reflectarray Metasurface for THz Communications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KKD3BS4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02736}
}

read the original abstract

We present computational studies on a proposed 20 by 20 elements electronically reconfigurable liquid crystal (LC) based binary phase reflectarray metasurface, operational at 108 GHz. LC was modelled after Mer's GT3-23001, and full wave simulations have shown a phase difference of 177 degrees between ON and OFF states, while reflection amplitudes were both 0.88 for ON and OFF. We present preliminary full wave simulation results on the Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimised far-fields. We also present the basic design procedures and cross-platform implementations on optimisation routines involving Matlab, CST and VBA environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02736 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** GA algorithm flowchart function that determines the fitness of our far-field results is defined as follows: cost = |E − Etarget| 2 (3) where Etarget is the desired far-field electric field pattern that we wish to find out about the coding matrix. More details on the cost function are presented in the Implementation section. III. IMPLEMENTATION ROUNTINES A. Unit Cell The unit cell design was achieved in a few stages:… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The unit cell simulation with periodic boundary con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Green/red coloured unit element for ON/OFF state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Unit cell reflection phase and amplitude properties. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: a) Radiation pattern plot from a far-field plane wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Full wave simulation of far-fields with close-up feed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

FCC opens 95GHz to 3THz spectrum for 6G, 7G, or whatever is next

Jeremy Horwitz: “FCC opens 95GHz to 3THz spectrum for 6G, 7G, or whatever is next”, https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/15/fcc-opens-95ghz-to-3thz-spectrum- for-6g-7g-or-whatever-is-next/, 03/15/2019

work page 2019
[2]

Field-programmable Beam Reconﬁguring based on Digitally-Controlled Coding Metasur- face

Xiang Wan, Meiqing Qi, Tianyi Chen, Tiejun Cui: “Field-programmable Beam Reconﬁguring based on Digitally-Controlled Coding Metasur- face”, Scientiﬁc Reports, 2016, 6

work page 2016
[3]

A Pro- grammable Metasurface with Dynamic Polarization, Scattering and Focusing Control

HuanHuan Yang, Xiangyu Cao, Fan Yang, Jun Gao, Shenheng Xu, Maokun Li, Xibi Chen, Yi Zhao, Yuejun Zheng, Sijia Li: “A Pro- grammable Metasurface with Dynamic Polarization, Scattering and Focusing Control”, Scientiﬁc Reports, 2016, 6

work page 2016
[4]

Coding Metamaterials, Digital Metamaterials and Programmable Metamateri- als

Tiejun Cui, Meiqing Qi, Xiang Wan, Jie Zhao, Qiang Cheng: “Coding Metamaterials, Digital Metamaterials and Programmable Metamateri- als”, Light: Science and Applications , 2014, 3

work page 2014
[5]

Reconﬁgurable Tunable Microwave Devices Using Liquid Crystal

PouriaYaghmaee: “Reconﬁgurable Tunable Microwave Devices Using Liquid Crystal”, PhD Thesis, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Electrical Characterisation of Liquid Crystals at Millimetre Wavelengths Using Frequency Selective Surfaces

R. Dickie, P. Baine, R. Cahill, E. Doumanis, G. Goussetis, S. Christie, N. Mitchell, V . Fusco, D. Linton, J. Encinar, R. Dudley, D. Hindley, M. Naftaly, M. Arrebola and G. Toso: “Electrical Characterisation of Liquid Crystals at Millimetre Wavelengths Using Frequency Selective Surfaces ”, Electronic Letters, 2012, 48, no. 11

work page 2012
[7]

Tunable Electric-LC Resonators Using Liquid Crystal

P. Yagmaee, W. Withayachumnajul, A. K. Horestani, A. Ebrahimi: “Tunable Electric-LC Resonators Using Liquid Crystal”, IEEE, 2013, 978, pp. 382–383

work page 2013
[8]

Investigation on 77GHz Tunable Reﬂectarray Unit Cells with Liquid Crystal

A. Moessinger, R. Marin, J. Freese, S. Mueller, A. Manabe, R. Jakoby: “Investigation on 77GHz Tunable Reﬂectarray Unit Cells with Liquid Crystal”, Pro. EuCAP, 2006

work page 2006

Show all 13 references

[9]

Design and Simulation of LC Based Patch Antenna at 20 GHz Frequency

A. Karim, H. Yadav, S. Ahmad: “Design and Simulation of LC Based Patch Antenna at 20 GHz Frequency”, AIP Conference Proceedings , 2014, 1620, pp. 15-21

2014
[10]

Reconﬁgurable Liquid Crystal Reﬂectarray with Extended Tunable Phase Range

Saygin Bildik, Sabine Dieter, Carsten Fritzsch, Michael Frei, Christoph Fischer, Wolfgang Menzel, Rolf Jakoby: “Reconﬁgurable Liquid Crystal Reﬂectarray with Extended Tunable Phase Range”, Proceedings of the 41st European Microwave Conference , 2011, 978, pp.1292-1294

2011
[11]

Liquid Crystal Based Beam Scanning Reﬂectarrays and Their Potential in SATCOM Antennas

Perez-Palomino, G., Barba, M., Encinar, J., Cahill, R., Dickie, R., and Baine: “Liquid Crystal Based Beam Scanning Reﬂectarrays and Their Potential in SATCOM Antennas”, Proceedings of EuCAP 2017 , 2017

2017
[12]

Liquid Crystal Based Reﬂectarray Antenna Design

M. Y . Ismail, M. Inam: “Liquid Crystal Based Reﬂectarray Antenna Design”, International Scholarly and Scientiﬁc Research and Innovation, 2016, 10, 2017

2016
[13]

Design and Demon- stration of an Electronically Scanned Reﬂectarray Antenna at 100 GHz using Multi-Resonant Cells Based on Liquid Crystals

Gerardo Perez-Palomino, Mariano Barba, Jos. A. Encinar, Robert Cahill, Raymond Dickie, Paul Baine and Michael Bain: “Design and Demon- stration of an Electronically Scanned Reﬂectarray Antenna at 100 GHz using Multi-Resonant Cells Based on Liquid Crystals”, IEEE Transaction on...

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

FCC opens 95GHz to 3THz spectrum for 6G, 7G, or whatever is next

Jeremy Horwitz: “FCC opens 95GHz to 3THz spectrum for 6G, 7G, or whatever is next”, https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/15/fcc-opens-95ghz-to-3thz-spectrum- for-6g-7g-or-whatever-is-next/, 03/15/2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Field-programmable Beam Reconﬁguring based on Digitally-Controlled Coding Metasur- face

Xiang Wan, Meiqing Qi, Tianyi Chen, Tiejun Cui: “Field-programmable Beam Reconﬁguring based on Digitally-Controlled Coding Metasur- face”, Scientiﬁc Reports, 2016, 6

work page 2016

[3] [3]

A Pro- grammable Metasurface with Dynamic Polarization, Scattering and Focusing Control

HuanHuan Yang, Xiangyu Cao, Fan Yang, Jun Gao, Shenheng Xu, Maokun Li, Xibi Chen, Yi Zhao, Yuejun Zheng, Sijia Li: “A Pro- grammable Metasurface with Dynamic Polarization, Scattering and Focusing Control”, Scientiﬁc Reports, 2016, 6

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Coding Metamaterials, Digital Metamaterials and Programmable Metamateri- als

Tiejun Cui, Meiqing Qi, Xiang Wan, Jie Zhao, Qiang Cheng: “Coding Metamaterials, Digital Metamaterials and Programmable Metamateri- als”, Light: Science and Applications , 2014, 3

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Reconﬁgurable Tunable Microwave Devices Using Liquid Crystal

PouriaYaghmaee: “Reconﬁgurable Tunable Microwave Devices Using Liquid Crystal”, PhD Thesis, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Electrical Characterisation of Liquid Crystals at Millimetre Wavelengths Using Frequency Selective Surfaces

R. Dickie, P. Baine, R. Cahill, E. Doumanis, G. Goussetis, S. Christie, N. Mitchell, V . Fusco, D. Linton, J. Encinar, R. Dudley, D. Hindley, M. Naftaly, M. Arrebola and G. Toso: “Electrical Characterisation of Liquid Crystals at Millimetre Wavelengths Using Frequency Selective Surfaces ”, Electronic Letters, 2012, 48, no. 11

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Tunable Electric-LC Resonators Using Liquid Crystal

P. Yagmaee, W. Withayachumnajul, A. K. Horestani, A. Ebrahimi: “Tunable Electric-LC Resonators Using Liquid Crystal”, IEEE, 2013, 978, pp. 382–383

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Investigation on 77GHz Tunable Reﬂectarray Unit Cells with Liquid Crystal

A. Moessinger, R. Marin, J. Freese, S. Mueller, A. Manabe, R. Jakoby: “Investigation on 77GHz Tunable Reﬂectarray Unit Cells with Liquid Crystal”, Pro. EuCAP, 2006

work page 2006