Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 2757 subscribers
  • Views 3505 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

UPDATE on Seeking Ideas for RoadTesting Antennas

rscasny

I finally got some information on the antennas that I want to roadtest. These antennas are for Frequency / application :  2.4/5GHz Antenna – typical for Bluetooth, WiFi.

 

Here they are:

 

image

 

2.4GHz / 5GHz Wi-Fi Stand Alone Balance Antenna with MHF Connector, 9.00mm Width, Cable Length 100.00mm

  • Product Name: 2.4/5GHz Balanced Flex Antenna
  • Protocol: BLE, BT, Thread, Wi-Fi, Wireless Hart, Zigbee
  • Type: Wi-Fi Antenna
  • Cable Length: 100.00mm
  • Length: 34.90mm
  • Mounting Style Adhesive
  • Net Weight: 0.574/g
  • Packaging Type: PET Film
  • Polarization: Linear
  • Radiation Pattern: Omnidirectional
  • Thickness: 0.10mm
  • Width: 9.00mm

Click Here for More information

 

image

 

2.4GHz SMT On-ground MID Chip Antenna

  • Product Name: 2.4GHz SMT OnGround MID Chip
  • Protocol: BLE, BT, Thread, Wi-Fi, Wireless Hart, Zigbee
  • Type: Wi-Fi Antenna
  • Length: 3.00mm
  • Mounting Style: Surface Mount
  • Net Weight: 0.042/g
  • Polarization: Linear
  • Radiation Pattern: Omnidirectional
  • Thickness: 4.00mm
  • Width: 3.00mm

Click Here for More Information

 

Your thoughts about roadtesting these specific products would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Randall Scasny

RoadTest Program Manager

Parents

  • There is a lot of interesting testing that can be done with the FPC1000 I already have-- but I don't know how useful it would be.  These antennas are going to be affected by how they are mounted and what they are mounted on.  Perhaps that could be part of the test, but that would mean that the road-tester would probably need multiple examples of each antenna that could be mounted in different ways (as well as an unmounted one)-- so that we can see an example of how they are effected by their near-field environment.

     

    The surface mount version would need some kind of example PC board to test with (no doubt the manufacturer already has this).  Without an FPC1500 (or other 2-port VNA), these could be supplied with some simplified test devices-- maybe some WiFi radios and also a simple antenna noise bridge.

     

    The antenna patterns could be recorded in a remote spot in an "RF dead zone" (we have lot's of this in the desert)--  One would only need a way to record the relative signal level, while rotating the antenna-- a WiFi receiver that can supply the RSSI signal, a spectrum analyzer, or RF signal strength meter (etc), along with a signal source for a reference antenna placed a suitable distance away.

     

    Sounds like a fun project!

Reply

  • There is a lot of interesting testing that can be done with the FPC1000 I already have-- but I don't know how useful it would be.  These antennas are going to be affected by how they are mounted and what they are mounted on.  Perhaps that could be part of the test, but that would mean that the road-tester would probably need multiple examples of each antenna that could be mounted in different ways (as well as an unmounted one)-- so that we can see an example of how they are effected by their near-field environment.

     

    The surface mount version would need some kind of example PC board to test with (no doubt the manufacturer already has this).  Without an FPC1500 (or other 2-port VNA), these could be supplied with some simplified test devices-- maybe some WiFi radios and also a simple antenna noise bridge.

     

    The antenna patterns could be recorded in a remote spot in an "RF dead zone" (we have lot's of this in the desert)--  One would only need a way to record the relative signal level, while rotating the antenna-- a WiFi receiver that can supply the RSSI signal, a spectrum analyzer, or RF signal strength meter (etc), along with a signal source for a reference antenna placed a suitable distance away.

     

    Sounds like a fun project!

Children
No Data