The surface mount antenna is likely to be a patch, or microstrip,
antenna. When mounted on a horizontal surface, They radiate or receive
most strongly straight up, although they do reasonably well at lower
angles and have some response at the horizon. Among other applications,
they're commonly used as GPS antennas, for receiving signals from
satellites. But a vertical antenna would almost certainly do much better
in your application.

I don't know of a site or tutorial that gives the kind of basic
information you're looking for, but you might find what you need at
http://www.cebik.com. Be cautious at other sites, since there's a huge
amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about antennas out there,
and the ability to make a fancy and professional looking web site has
nothing to do with whether the author really understands the subject
matter. If you're interested in a little more depth from a reliable
source, the _ARRL Antenna Book_ is a good investment.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Joe wrote:
. . .
I saw a surface mount antenna advertised in the mouser catalog and I was
wondering if anyone has had any experience with these. It is made by Yageo,
part number is 4311-121-20043, but there does not seem to be a data sheet on
it at the mouser site or at the Yageo site. My concern is that the receiver
and transmitter boards will be in the horizontal plane, and I am wondering
if a straight up telescoping antenna would output a larger range radiation
pattern. If I mount a surface mount antenna to the boards, maybe the pattern
will all be radiating upwards? Does anyone know? Also, can someone steer me
to a good tutorial or site that discusses radiation patterns of different
types of antennas?


TIA,
Joe
KB1KVI

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The surface mount antenna is likely to be a patch, or microstrip,
antenna. When mounted on a horizontal surface, They radiate or receive
most strongly straight up, although they do reasonably well at lower
angles and have some response at the horizon. Among other applications,
they're commonly used as GPS antennas, for receiving signals from
satellites. But a vertical antenna would almost certainly do much better
in your application.

I don't know of a site or tutorial that gives the kind of basic
information you're looking for, but you might find what you need at
http://www.cebik.com. Be cautious at other sites, since there's a huge
amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about antennas out there,
and the ability to make a fancy and professional looking web site has
nothing to do with whether the author really understands the subject
matter. If you're interested in a little more depth from a reliable
source, the _ARRL Antenna Book_ is a good investment.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Hi Roy,

Thanks, I was reading my Radio Amateur Handbook to try and get some ideas
and from the graphic figures they have in there, it did look like a vertical
antenna would be better. I wanted to get another opinion though. Also,
thanks for the link, I have added it to my favorites. There's a lot of stuff
there to read so I can visit the site and learn more as I have time.

Regards,
Joe
KB1KVI

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
The surface mount antenna is likely to be a patch, or microstrip,
antenna. When mounted on a horizontal surface, They radiate or receive
most strongly straight up, although they do reasonably well at lower
angles and have some response at the horizon. Among other applications,
they're commonly used as GPS antennas, for receiving signals from
satellites. But a vertical antenna would almost certainly do much better
in your application.

I don't know of a site or tutorial that gives the kind of basic
information you're looking for, but you might find what you need at
http://www.cebik.com. Be cautious at other sites, since there's a huge
amount of misunderstanding and misinformation about antennas out there,
and the ability to make a fancy and professional looking web site has
nothing to do with whether the author really understands the subject
matter. If you're interested in a little more depth from a reliable
source, the _ARRL Antenna Book_ is a good investment.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Hi Roy,

Thanks, I was reading my Radio Amateur Handbook to try and get some ideas
and from the graphic figures they have in there, it did look like a vertical
antenna would be better. I wanted to get another opinion though. Also,
thanks for the link, I have added it to my favorites. There's a lot of stuff
there to read so I can visit the site and learn more as I have time.

Regards,
Joe
KB1KVI

"Joe" wrote in message
k.net...

Hi John,

See my question about surface mount antennas posted above (LOL). Maybe I
should just leave the PLL out of the circuit and see if I can use just the
receiver. The digital pin of the receiver seems to be noisy only when the
transmitter it within a few feet of it, once I move it away, the noise
goes
away. Thanks.

Joe
KB1KVI

I think everybody would be better off if I stayed out of the discussion on
surface mount antennas.

Yes, I agree about trying it as it is. If you're happy with the performance
as it is, no reason to change at this time. You could make the effort later
if your requirements change.

John

"Joe" wrote in message
k.net...

Hi John,

See my question about surface mount antennas posted above (LOL). Maybe I
should just leave the PLL out of the circuit and see if I can use just the
receiver. The digital pin of the receiver seems to be noisy only when the
transmitter it within a few feet of it, once I move it away, the noise
goes
away. Thanks.

Joe
KB1KVI

I think everybody would be better off if I stayed out of the discussion on
surface mount antennas.

Yes, I agree about trying it as it is. If you're happy with the performance
as it is, no reason to change at this time. You could make the effort later
if your requirements change.

John