• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Efficiency of Patch Antennas

Status
Not open for further replies.

ab5r

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
486
Location
Grandview, TX
#1
I appreciate the response from many (too numerous to list) of the "experienced" people on this thread, and submit the following question.

There has been a discussion on AMSAT-BB threads regarding the OUTERNET (www.outernet.is) and the gear needed for access. One of which is a patch antenna. I am not blessed with knowledge about patch antennas or microwave, in general.

I was just wondering about the efficiency of a patch antenna vs. other types.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Regards,
Jerry
 

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
829
#2
Don't know the db factors, but in handheld GPSes and cell phones? External whips, quadrifilars, whatever else was available always outperformed a patch. Patches were used when you needed an antenna that was "built in", slim, couldn't trip or impale anyone, wouldn't break off. You can get "adequate" gain from an design, one way or another, but patches were always chosen for convenience. No one wants a whip antenna or even a rubber duck stub on their cell phone anymore, do they? So, they complain about dropped calls on their slim pretty patches.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
757
#4
For INMARSAT and other satcom systems patch antennas allowed the units to be packaged into a suitcase or small box. The patch either embedded into the case lid like the Mitsubishi units, or multiple panels like the Thrane units. Larger panels meant higher gain and better signal at the edge of the satellite transponder footprint.

Not needing an umbrella looking dish or a long "Christmas tree" antenna like Trivec units meant these could be placed on a window sill or balcony for use. However, patch antennas often do not work as well as a larger dish or antenna with directing elements. For monitoring INMARSAT, I use a Trivec AV-2011 antenna. This is over six feet long and resides in the back yard. It takes up space, and is a large aluminum anodized antenna that would not work well in a portable setting.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
7,538
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
#5
The AV-2011 is a UHF 240-318Mhz antenna and INMARSAT is L-band. How does that work?
prcguy


For INMARSAT and other satcom systems patch antennas allowed the units to be packaged into a suitcase or small box. The patch either embedded into the case lid like the Mitsubishi units, or multiple panels like the Thrane units. Larger panels meant higher gain and better signal at the edge of the satellite transponder footprint.

Not needing an umbrella looking dish or a long "Christmas tree" antenna like Trivec units meant these could be placed on a window sill or balcony for use. However, patch antennas often do not work as well as a larger dish or antenna with directing elements. For monitoring INMARSAT, I use a Trivec AV-2011 antenna. This is over six feet long and resides in the back yard. It takes up space, and is a large aluminum anodized antenna that would not work well in a portable setting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top