Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Satellite Signal Detection via Rydberg-Atom Receiver

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Rydberg-atom receiver captured a GEO satellite beacon without a low-noise amplifier.

desk verdict Real first: LNA-free GEO beacon pickup by a Rydberg receiver, but the satellite origin and headline sensitivity need stronger controls before I'd trust the quantitative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15439 v1 pith:SD43NXSG submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph

Mignwei Lei , Jianquan Zhang , Qun Luo , Zhentao Zhang , Ming Wang , Meng Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Rydberg-atomreceiversatellitesignaldetectiongeostationarybeaconmicrowavecavitysuperheterodyneEITAutler-TownessplittingC-bandminimumdetectablepower
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 reports a Rydberg-atom microwave receiver that captured a beacon signal from a geostationary satellite without using a low-noise amplifier (LNA). A 16-meter parabolic antenna focuses the 3.80 GHz signal into a microwave cavity around a cesium vapor cell, and a superheterodyne local field down-converts the signal. The paper measures a minimum detectable incident power of $-128\,\mathrm{dBm}$ and a field sensitivity of $21\,\mathrm{nV/cm/Hz^{1/2}}$, and detects the beacon with 24 dB SNR. If correct, this is the first satellite signal reception by a Rydberg-atom receiver that needs no active electronic amplification.

What carries the argument

The central object is the microwave cavity, a rectangular metal resonator operated in the TE101 mode, which stores the incident field and effectively multiplies the power seen by the atoms by the cavity quality factor $Q$. The detection chain is a superheterodyne electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) readout: a strong local microwave field drives the cesium atoms near the $57D_{5/2}$-$58P_{3/2}$ transition, so the atomic vapor acts as a mixer that down-converts the C-band satellite signal to a low-frequency beat. The field calibration is carried by the Autler-Townes relation $E = -2\pi\hbar\Delta f/\mu$ in the strong-field regime, and the power-to-field conversion is then summarized by the fitted linear relation $E = k\sqrt{P}$ with $k = 169.27\ \mathrm{V/m/W^{1/2}}$.

What would settle it

Feed a calibrated weak microwave signal near $-120\ \mathrm{dBm}$ into the cavity at 3.80 GHz with the same antenna and cables, independently measured by a calibrated power meter, and compare the atomic response with the extrapolated line $E = 169.27\sqrt{P}$; a significant deviation would falsify the claimed minimum detectable power and sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central result is that a passive front end, consisting of a 16 m parabolic antenna (54 dB gain, 48 dB after cable and polarization losses) and a TE101-mode microwave cavity, lets a cesium Rydberg-atom receiver detect a monofrequency beacon from a geostationary satellite at 3.80 GHz with 24 dB SNR in a 1 Hz resolution bandwidth. The receiver's quoted minimum detectable power is $-128\,\mathrm{dBm}$, corresponding to an electric-field sensitivity of $21\,\mathrm{nV/cm/Hz^{1/2}}$ at 3.80 GHz. The authors also read out C-band modulated signals from a satellite at 3.812 GHz with about 8 dB SNR, after adding a 60 dB LNA. The paper therefore claims the beacon detection as the first satellite-signal reception by Rydberg sensors without LNA, filter, or mixer.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the calibration constant $k=169.27\ \mathrm{V/m/W^{1/2}}$, obtained by fitting strong-field Autler-Townes splittings against the square root of incident power, stays valid at the weak-field noise floor used to quote $-128\ \mathrm{dBm}$ and $21\,\mathrm{nV/cm/Hz^{1/2}}$; if the power-to-field relation bends at low power, the quantitative sensitivity figure would no longer be supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Narrowband geostationary beacon signals can be monitored with a Rydberg receiver whose receive chain needs no active electronic amplification, because the dish and cavity supply the gain.
  • The measured linear dynamic range of roughly 103 dB means the same atomic sensor can track both a strong local microwave field and weak satellite signals without reconfiguration.
  • C-band modulated signals with a bandwidth of about 15 kHz are readable at 8 dB SNR, which is high enough that data demodulation is a plausible next step even though the paper does not perform it.
  • At the quoted sensitivity of $21\,\mathrm{nV/cm/Hz^{1/2}}$, a passive front end brings satellite-scale signal powers into the detectable range; for the same beacon, a commercial microwave spectrometer achieved 42 dB SNR, about 18 dB higher.
  • Adding a low-noise amplifier extends the receiver to wider-bandwidth signals over 10 kHz, so the LNA-free mode is specifically suited to narrowband, high-coherence signals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper measures readable SNR but does not demodulate actual satellite traffic; decoding the 400 kHz-offset square-wave signals and measuring bit error rate would be the direct next test of communication readiness.
  • If the calibration linearity extends to the noise floor, the $-128\,\mathrm{dBm}$ floor leaves headroom: every 3 dB of additional passive antenna gain would extend the detectable distance for the same beacon by about 40%.
  • Because the receiver is tuned by the local microwave source, the same atomic cell and cavity could likely be retuned across the C-band to other geostationary transponders without changing the sensor hardware.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a portable Rydberg-atom receiver that couples a 16-m parabolic antenna to a TE101 microwave cavity containing a cesium vapor cell, and claims the first detection of satellite beacon signals without a low-noise amplifier. The authors measure a minimum detectable incident power of -128 dBm and a field sensitivity of 21 nV/cm/Hz^1/2 at 3.80 GHz, observe a geostationary beacon tone with an SNR of 24 dB, and demodulate C-band satellite-modulated signals with an SNR of 8 dB (using a 60-dB LNA for the modulated case). The central achievements asserted are the LNA-free beacon reception and the quantitative sensitivity improvement from the high-gain antenna and microwave cavity.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a meaningful step toward real-world applications of Rydberg-atom receivers, since it demonstrates reception of a genuinely weak, long-distance signal with a passive front end rather than a laboratory signal generator. The link-budget analysis is a useful feature, and the direct comparison with a commercial microwave spectrometer (18 dB worse sensitivity) provides a concrete performance benchmark. The use of a high-gain antenna plus cavity enhancement is a sensible system-level approach. However, the quantitative sensitivity and the satellite-origin claim are not fully supported by the evidence as presented, and the paper's references are unreliable for verifying prior art.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Fig. 3] The satellite origin of the 24 dB beacon line is not established by any control experiment. Because a strong local microwave source (-27 dBm) shares the same signal path via a power combiner, a spurious tone or local-oscillator leakage near the satellite frequency would produce a heterodyne signature almost identical to the reported line. The authors should report at least one control measurement: antenna pointed away from the satellite, feed blocked, input terminated, or local microwave switched off with the same analyzer settings. The link-budget agreement (-100 dBm expected versus 24 dB SNR) is suggestive but does not by itself exclude an internal artifact.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 2(b), Eq. (6)] The headline sensitivity of 21 nV/cm/Hz^1/2 depends on the calibration constant k=169.27 V/m/W^1/2, obtained by fitting strong-field AT-splitting data (Fig. 2, red dots) against the square root of incident power, and then assuming this linear relation holds down to the -128 dBm noise-floor limit. The manuscript provides no independent verification of linearity in the weak-field regime, no error bars on the fit or on k, and no uncertainty on E_min. If the power-to-field transfer or the cavity coupling is nonlinear at low power, the sensitivity claim is unsupported. The satellite detection would survive such a nonlinearity, but the quantitative sensitivity would not.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The noise floor is shown as a single blue dashed line with no description of how it was measured (number of traces, averaging, spectrum analyzer video bandwidth, or associated uncertainties). The quantitative claims of -128 dBm minimum detectable power and 24 dB SNR rest on this floor. The 4 dB gap between the measured 24 dB and predicted 28 dB SNR is attributed to unspecified losses; without an uncertainty budget for the link-budget parameters (transmitter power, antenna efficiency, cable/polarization losses), the agreement cannot be rigorously assessed.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4 and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that C-band modulated signals were read out with an SNR of 8 dB, but the experimental text states that these signals were amplified by a 60-dB LNA before detection. The LNA-free claim is therefore limited to the monochromatic beacon tone. This distinction must be made explicit in the abstract and conclusion, otherwise the reader will reasonably infer that the 8-dB modulated-signal result was obtained without active amplification, which contradicts the methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The reference list appears to contain many generic or mismatched titles and does not accurately identify the prior work on Rydberg-receiver satellite detection, such as the S-band MX satellite experiment and the soil-moisture remote-sensing work. Please verify and replace all references with correct bibliographic entries, since accurate citation is essential for evaluating the novelty claim.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 2(b) caption] The sentence 'as Estimated from the noise floor' contains a stray 'as' and should be reworded for clarity.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The notation in Eq. (4) is unclear: the symbols 𝐸0-0, 𝐸1-!, and the proportionality need definition. Please spell out that Etot, Eloc, and Esig represent amplitudes of total, local, and signal fields, and clarify the dependence on the heterodyne beat frequency Δω.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (5)] The expression for the AT splitting field in Eq. (5) should define Δ𝑓 and μ explicitly at first use, and the 'asymmetric' appearance of the EIT spectra for near-resonant fields deserves a sentence of explanation.
  5. [Sec. 2.1] The circulated-power relation P_c = Q P_in assumes perfect impedance matching, but later the text acknowledges insertion loss of the combiner and cables. Please state explicitly whether the Q used in Eq. (1) is the loaded Q of the cavity and how the coupling efficiency was measured.
  6. [Sec. 3] The link-budget parameters (transmitter power ~47 dBm, aperture efficiency ~0.7, 3-dB cable and polarization losses) are stated without uncertainty estimates; adding error bars or a short sensitivity analysis would strengthen the comparison with the measured 24 dB SNR.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: sensitivity calibration and link budget are independent of the measured claims; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (satellite beacon detection without an LNA, sensitivity of 21 nV/cm/Hz^1/2, and measured SNR of 24 dB) do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The calibration constant k=169.27 V/m/W^1/2 is obtained from strong-field Autler-Townes splitting using Eq. (5) with the known Rydberg dipole moment and a linear fit E=k*sqrt(P), as stated in the Fig. 2 caption: 'the detectable strength of electric field sensed by Rydberg atoms is 21 nV/cm, according to measurements of the MW field strength (red circles) by EIT-AT spectra versus the square root of the incident power and its linear fit (red line) by formula E=k*sqrt(P) with parameter determined as k=169.27 V/m/W^1/2.' The minimum detectable incident power (-128 dBm) is read from the noise floor, and E_min = 21 nV/cm is then obtained by applying that fitted calibration to the noise-floor power. This is a calibrated measurement, not a prediction forced by the fit; the linear extrapolation from strong-field calibration to the -128 dBm noise floor is a robustness assumption, but it is not circular. The link-budget SNR estimate uses standard free-space path loss (Eq. 7), an assumed beacon transmitter power of about 47 dBm, and antenna gain (Eq. 8) with stated aperture efficiency and losses; none of these parameters is fitted to the measured 24 dB SNR, so the close agreement is not manufactured by construction. References 4, 20, and 28 contain overlapping authors, but they are cited for background sensitivity values and standard EIT/master-equation formalism, and the satellite-detection result does not depend on them. The paper imports no uniqueness theorem and no ansatz from the authors' prior work. The reviewer concern about the absence of a pointing/blocking control for local-oscillator leakage is an experimental-verification issue, not a circular-derivation issue, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard atomic-physics models (EIT-AT, superheterodyne), standard antenna and link-budget formulas, and a set of assumed or fitted calibration parameters. The main fitted quantity is the power-to-field calibration k, and several link-budget constants are assumed rather than measured.

free parameters (5)
  • Power-to-field calibration constant k = 169.27 V/m/W^1/2
    Obtained by linear fit of AT-splitting field strength versus sqrt(incident power); used to convert the -128 dBm noise floor to E_min = 21 nV/cm.
  • Local microwave power = -27 dBm
    Optimized to improve weak-field sensitivity; the reported sensitivity and noise floor depend on this operating point.
  • Antenna aperture efficiency e_A = 0.7
    Assumed in the gain estimate of Eq. (8); affects the predicted SNR of 28 dB.
  • Cable and polarization losses = 3 dB each
    Assumed losses that reduce antenna gain from 54 to 48 dB; affects the link-budget prediction.
  • Beacon transmitter power = ~47 dBm (50 W)
    Assumed for the link-budget estimate of received power; not independently measured.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Eq. (5): AT splitting is proportional to MW field via E = -2πℏΔf/μ; used to calibrate field strength.
    Standard Autler-Townes relation from prior literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Eq. (4): probe transmission responds linearly to total field amplitude in superheterodyne detection.
    Standard Rydberg superheterodyne model; assumed valid in the weak-signal regime.
  • standard math Eq. (7): free-space path loss L = -32.5 - 20log10(f) - 20log10(d) applies to the GEO link.
    Standard Friis transmission equation; used for the expected SNR estimate.
  • domain assumption Eq. (8): antenna gain G = e_A (πd/λ_MW)^2 with e_A=0.7, plus 3-dB cable and 3-dB polarization losses.
    Assumed antenna parameters and losses for the link budget, not measured in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Beacon transmitter power is about 47 dBm (50 W).
    Assumed for the link-budget estimate; the paper states 'assumed as ~47 dBm'. Not independently measured.
  • domain assumption The 3.80 GHz signal is the GEO satellite beacon and not local interference.
    Supported by antenna pointing and comparison with a commercial spectrometer, but not independently verified from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Satellite Signal Detection via Rydberg-Atom Receiver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SD43NXSG

@misc{pith2026250615439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Satellite Signal Detection via Rydberg-Atom Receiver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SD43NXSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15439}
}
read the original abstract

Rydberg-atom receivers aim for ultra-high sensitivity to microwave fields through various techniques, but receiving satellite signals has remained a significant challenge, due to the difficulty of capturing weak microwaves over long distances. In this work, we introduce a high-gain antenna to focus satellite signals, and then apply into an atomic cell via a microwave cavity. Using microwave-enhanced coupling, the minimum detectable power of incident microwave is down to -128 dBm, and the corresponding sensitivity is estimated as 21 nV/cm/Hz1/2 at frequency of 3.80 GHz. Furthermore, beacon signal from geostationary satellites is captured with Rydberg sensors for the first time, without the need for a low-noise amplifier. And C-band modulated signals are read out with a signal-to-noise ratio of 8 dB. Our results mark a significant breakthrough in facilitating satellite communications using Rydberg-atom receivers.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rydberg Atomic Quantum Radio: A Comprehensive Survey From Wireless Communication Perspective

    eess.SP 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A wireless-communications-oriented survey of Rydberg atomic quantum radios covering physics, architectures, sensitivity-bandwidth-frequency trade-offs, channel models, and SAGSIN use cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Electromagnetically Induced Transparency in Atomic Vapor,

    H. Fan, S. Kumar, J. Sedlacek, et al., "Electromagnetically Induced Transparency in Atomic Vapor," J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 48, 202001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Electromagnetically Induced Transparency and Coherent Effects in Rydberg Atoms,

    D. Meyer, Z. Castillo, K. Cox, et al., "Electromagnetically Induced Transparency and Coherent Effects in Rydberg Atoms," J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 53, 034001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Coherent Effects and Electromagnetic Transparency in Ultra-Cold Atoms,

    Y. Jau and T. Carter, "Coherent Effects and Electromagnetic Transparency in Ultra-Cold Atoms," Phys. Rev. Appl., 13, 054034 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Conclusion We have successfully demonstrated detections of satellite signals using self-made portable Rydberg-atom receiver. By enhancing coupling between Rydberg atoms and microwave, we have achieved a high sensitivity of 21 nV/cm/Hz¹/² at frequency of 3.80 GHz, which is approaching to the traditional MW receiver. Through MW cavity and high-gain antenna,...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Advances in Electromagnetic Induced Transparency and Applications,

    K. Ouyang, Y. Shi, M. Lei, et al., "Advances in Electromagnetic Induced Transparency and Applications," Appl. Phys. Lett., 123, 264001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Electromagnetic Transparency and Laser Interactions,

    S. Chen, D. J. Reed, A. R. MacKellar, et al., "Electromagnetic Transparency and Laser Interactions," Optica, 9(5), 485 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Design and Analysis of Antennas with Electromagnetic Induced Transparency,

    C. Holloway, M. Simons, J. Gordon, et al., "Design and Analysis of Antennas with Electromagnetic Induced Transparency," IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 18(9), 1853-1857 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Electromagnetic Fields and Transparency in Atomic Vapors,

    D. Anderson, R. Sapiro, G. Raithel, "Electromagnetic Fields and Transparency in Atomic Vapors," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69, 2455 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Coherent Electromagnetic Effects in Ultra-Cold Systems,

    Cai, Y., Shi, S., Zhou, Y., et al., "Coherent Electromagnetic Effects in Ultra-Cold Systems," Phys. Rev. Appl., 19(4), 044079 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in Transparent Systems,

    C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, et al., "Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in Transparent Systems," J. Appl. Phys., 121, 233106 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Advances in Antenna Propagation for Electromagnetic Systems,

    D. A. Anderson, R. E. Sapiro, G. Raithel, "Advances in Antenna Propagation for Electromagnetic Systems," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69, 5931 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Electromagnetic Transparency in Controlled Systems,

    H. Meyer, K. Cox, F. Fatemi, et al., "Electromagnetic Transparency in Controlled Systems," Appl. Phys. Lett., 112, 211108 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Electromagnetic Wave Behavior in Atomic Systems,

    D. Anderson, R. Sapiro, G. Raithel, "Electromagnetic Wave Behavior in Atomic Systems," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 69, 2455-2462 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Application of Electromagnetic Induced Transparency,

    M. Simons, A. Haddab, J. Gordon, et al., "Application of Electromagnetic Induced Transparency," Appl. Phys. Lett., 114, 114101 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Advanced Techniques in Antenna and Propagation Design,

    C. Holloway, M. Simons, J. Gordon, et al., "Advanced Techniques in Antenna and Propagation Design," IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag. Lett., 18, 1853–1857 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Quantum Effects in Electromagnetic Transparency,

    M. Jing, Y. Hu, J. Ma, et al., "Quantum Effects in Electromagnetic Transparency," Nat. Phys., 16(9), 911–915 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Enhancement of Electromagnetic Transparency Effects,

    D. Ding, Z. Liu, B. Shi, et al., "Enhancement of Electromagnetic Transparency Effects," Nature Physics, 18(12), 1447-1452 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Studies on Electromagnetic Transparency in Materials,

    N. Prajapati, A. Robinson, S. Berweger, et al., "Studies on Electromagnetic Transparency in Materials," Appl. Phys. Lett., 119, 214001 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    New Advances in Electromagnetic Systems,

    B. Wu, R. Mao, D. Sang, et al., "New Advances in Electromagnetic Systems," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Advances in Microwave Theory and Techniques,

    G. Sandidge, G. Santamaria-Botello, E. Bottomley, et al., "Advances in Microwave Theory and Techniques," IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Quantum Electromagnetic Effects and Applications,

    B. Liu, L. Zhang, Z. Liu, et al., "Quantum Electromagnetic Effects and Applications," arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06915, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Quantum Control and Electromagnetic Transparency,

    H. Tu, K. Liao, H. Wang, et al., "Quantum Control and Electromagnetic Transparency," Science Advances, 10(51), (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Electromagnetic Transparency in Photonic Materials,

    S. Borówka, U. Pylypenko, M. Mazelanik, et al., "Electromagnetic Transparency in Photonic Materials," Nature Photonics, 18(1), 32-38 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Recent Advances in Electromagnetic Systems and Applications,

    P. Elgee, J. Hill, K. LeBlanc, et al., "Recent Advances in Electromagnetic Systems and Applications," Appl. Phys. Lett., 123(8) (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Electromagnetic Wave Propagation and Control,

    D. Arumugam, J. Park, B. Feyissa, et al., "Electromagnetic Wave Propagation and Control," Sci. Rep., 14(1), 18025 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Electromagnetic Innovations in Antenna Propagation,

    D. Shakya, S. Ju, O. Kanhere, et al., "Electromagnetic Innovations in Antenna Propagation," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Electric uncertainties in electromagnetically induced transparency in atomic vapor,

    C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, A. Dienstfrey, D. A. Anderson, G. Raithel, "Electric uncertainties in electromagnetically induced transparency in atomic vapor," J. Appl. Phys., 121(23), 233106 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media,

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, J. P. Marangos, "Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media," Rev. Mod. Phys., 77(2), 633–673 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    Highly Sensitive Measurement of a Megahertz rf Electric Field with a Rydberg-Atom Sensor,

    B. Liu, L. Zhang, Z. Liu, et al., "Highly Sensitive Measurement of a Megahertz rf Electric Field with a Rydberg-Atom Sensor," Phys. Rev. Appl., 18, 014045 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Antenna Theory and Design,

    C. Balanis, "Antenna Theory and Design," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 17(1), 45-50 (1969)

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.