## 3 Experimental Measurements
### Comparison of Simulations and Measurements Results without CPM  
The resulting values for simulations 1 and measurements 1 without CPM are summarized in graphic display in Figure 10.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Distance** & **5 mm** & **15 mm** & **50 mm** & **300 mm** \\ \hline
**E** [V/m] **by measurements 1** & 126.33 & 90.47 & 39.49 & 3.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The highest effective electric field intensity values for the measurements at the specified distances without CPM (measurements 1).  
Figure 10: Summary graphic display of the resulting values for simulations 1 and measurements 1 without CPM.  
The composition of the models at a very close distance (5 mm) from the source of EM radiation plays a key role. Neither the phantom used in the experimental measurements, nor the simple human model (SM) used in the simulations contain bones, and the differences between their E values are the smallest compared to the other simulated models. Based on these observations, we assume that bones can be an important factor influencing the distribution of EMF in the human body, from which could reflect some of the radiation, creating local maxima on the body surface.  
Comparing the multi-layer model (MM) with the simple model (SM) in terms of their structure, we find that the MM is composed of five layers and contains bone structure in the rib area. This difference in structure may account for the differences in peak E values between MM and complex chest models. While MM represents the internal organs with a layer of general tissue, complex chest models contain more detailed anatomical structures, including all the bones of the trunk, head, and upper limbs, as well as blood in the circulatory system and air in the respiratory system.  
Another important factor that we take into account at a very close distance is the issue of the very near field, which is still little explored and thus unpredictable. There is an adaptation of the antenna and the biological tissue, which is close to the conductive connection. The formulae used to calculate the power level are primarily intended for the far field, which can lead to deviations at small distances. This effect is also seen at larger distances, such as 15 mm, 50 mm, and 300 mm, where the deviations between measurements and simulations are much smaller. With a 15 mm separation, the SM model shows variances of 4.95% and the Child model of 14.66%. The variations for the SM and Child models at a 50 mm distance are 3.33% and 8.41%, respectively. The variances at a distance of 300 mm are 2.91% less for the SM and 4.91% for the Child model are.  
These outcomes indicate that the detailed structure of the models, including the presence of bones and other anatomical details, has a significant effect on the distribution and intensity of EMF in the body. This effect is most pronounced at very close distances, where local maxima of the field strength may occur due to reflections from bone and other structures. In the case of larger distances, these effects are less pronounced, which is also reflected in smaller deviations between experimental measurements and simulations.