You need to understand more about capture area effective area etc.

The Bogus gain is relatively easy to measure, open field, sig generator two
standard dipoles and then compare with the FWT OR

two FWT's antennas on same range and use Friis equation to predict expected
isotropic, then you compare with what your DUT performs ...

It really has the gain we claim, sir!




"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...

"Marc H.Popek" wrote in message
...
www.fwt.niat.net

This dielectric embedded antennas are smaller than naturally occurs and
yet
have a net gain

More correctly, they CLAIM a gain, relative to isotropic.

If the antenna is smaller than a free space antenna, then it looses
capture
area.
I would be very interested to know how they recoup that.
I suspect these antennas might need some power to drive an on-board
amplifier, which means that their gain claim is bogus, and what they
aren't
telling you is that the noise floor comes up also.

TANSTAAFL.

"Marc H.Popek" wrote in message
...
You need to understand more about capture area effective area etc.

The Bogus gain is relatively easy to measure, open field, sig generator
two
standard dipoles and then compare with the FWT OR

two FWT's antennas on same range and use Friis equation to predict
expected
isotropic, then you compare with what your DUT performs ...

It really has the gain we claim, sir!

As it happens, I'm headed to DLS in chicago soon http://www.dlsemc.com/ ,
and I have an application for this sort of antenna, provided it passes the
"snake oil" test. www.mobilecommand.net

We have a bluetooth module that could use such an antenna, as well as a
wi-fi module coming along in the near future.

If I can wedge it into our testing day, I wouldn't mind giving it a test,
and reporting the results back here.