Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Physics
12B
McMillan/Cybulski/Acre/Tallman
18 December 2017
The Effect of Antenna Shape on Signal Strength
In modern western society, the world economy and large portions of people’s
personal lives are driven by wireless communications found in cell phones, radios, GPS,
and many other devices and services. These technologies make use of antennas to
antenna can have an impact on its ability to transmit signal. In search of an ideal design,
three different shapes (loop, monopole, and dipole) were tested to determine their
relative signal strengths. One antenna was connected to a frequency generator to act as
a transmitter, and another antenna (which was manipulated in shape) was connected to
a multimeter that measured the voltage generated inside the receiving antenna when the
After many trials, an ANOVA statistical test was carried out on the data to
determine which shape of an antenna yielded the highest signal strength. The loop
antenna demonstrated the highest signal strength, while the monopole and dipole were
roughly the same, and much lower. The ANOVA test had a p-value of less than 0.0001,
which is less than 0.05, the standard barrier of statistical significance, leading, after
further analysis using t tests, to the conclusion that the loop antenna had a significantly
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature............................................................................................................ 3
Problem Statement............................................................................................................. 8
Experimental Design..........................................................................................................9
Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 22
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... 25
Appendix C: Randomization.............................................................................................28
Works Cited...................................................................................................................... 35
Coles – Corpel 1
Introduction
Electromagnetic waves govern many parts of society’s daily tasks. From listening
to the radio, to using cell phones for communication, to using Wi-Fi for internet access,
electromagnetic waves are essential for both the business and the social worlds.
antennas, one of which transmits the wave and another that receives it. The shapes of
the antennas in question can impact the ability of the antenna to receive or send signals.
Three such shapes are the dipole, monopole, and loop antennas.
As shown in Figure 1, the dipole antenna has two equally long “arms” on either side of
the central feed, the portion where the signal is input into the antenna from its source
(Poole). The monopole antenna is nearly identical to the dipole save for the fact that the
feed is connected to one end of the antenna rather than in the middle
formation of a wire antenna in which there are many circular loops parallel to one
This experiment set to find out if there was a difference between these three
shapes in terms of reception strength and if so, which shape performed the best.
In the experiment, the dependent variable being analyzed was the voltage within the
receiving antenna, which was measured in millivolts (mV). To find this value, the
transmitting antenna (which was kept as a dipole antenna throughout all the trials) was
to this antenna lay the receiving antenna, which varied in shape. When the frequency
generator was switched on, a multimeter, connected to the receiving antenna, was used
In certain cases, like building a radio transmission antenna, getting the optimal
design is critical to allow the device to transmit to as large an area as possible. In other
cases, such as home radio reception devices, the portability of the device is much more
important than receiving the strongest possible signal. As so much of modern society is
built on antenna technology, poor decisions in antenna shape can have far reaching
implications for the efficiency of the society, crippling human ability to communicate. This
research will allow for easier determination of the shape most ideal for each antenna
Review of Literature
complicated one. In determining the impact of the shape of an antenna on that antenna’s
ability to transmit and receive signals, numerous scientific principles were applied,
Before a signal can be transmitted, it must first be understood what that signal is.
transmissions works because electromagnetic waves moving through the material move
Receivin
g
Antenna
Transmis
sion
Antenna
Transmi Receiv
tter er
Figure 2 shows an example of a basic antenna transmission setup, much like the
one in this research. In this system, electromagnetic signals are generated within an
antenna when a current is applied to the antenna, moving electrons, which causes the
Coles – Corpel 4
antenna to emit electromagnetic waves. The inverse process occurs in the receiving
antenna, wherein electromagnetic waves move the electrons in the receiving antenna,
ideal signal transmission and reception, an antenna with a length of ½λ, where λ is the
resonance. At resonance, the current sent through the antenna, which is sinusoidal in
nature, will be at a point where the amplitude is zero when it reaches the end of the wire
and bounces back towards the middle, avoiding any complications due to phase
cancellation (Gilchrist). Phase cancellation is the process by which two signal waves
meet at differing points in their wave cycle. The high peaks of one wave are “cancelled
out” by the low valleys of another, because frequencies are additive in nature. This
radio, as many commonly-used radio frequencies (both AM and FM) have wavelengths
measured in kilometers. Instead, shorter, less efficient antennas are used for the same
purpose (Burgess). Another factor is placement. Placing antennas high above the area
spherical nature of most antennas signal paths for increased coverage (Lowes). Also, to
transmitter to receiver is ideal (Talepour et al.). The reflection of radio waves off an
Coles – Corpel 5
obstruction or even the ground surface may lead to reflected and refracted waves which
may have a phase interaction with the original signal, leading to possible phase
rapidly growing field, there is much relevant research occurring. New antenna designs
for small devices are being proposed all the time, with devices like those proposed by
are often largely theoretical or tested only through simulation software, like that of
Elmaran and Srivatsun’s adaptable circular patch antenna, which was simulated and
never tested in a real-world environment. This research proposes a real-world test akin
real-world response of their antenna from a signal source unmentioned in their research
and found it effective for their purpose, the experiment in this paper provides its own
signal source to control for the busy radio signals in the open air.
The shape of the antenna can impact more than just its operating frequency. By
changing the shape of the antenna, the shape of the signal is changed as well. The
standard antenna, known as a dipole, has a fairly evenly spherical frequency output.
(Poole)
Coles – Corpel 6
(“Antenna”)
Figure 3 shows an example dipole, which has the signature layout of two “arms”
of equal length connected to a central source known as the feed (Poole). The frequency
range of a hypothetical perfect dipole is also shown, and it is largely spherical. Other
shapes, such as the monopole and loop antennas have different characteristics.
Coles – Corpel 7
The loop antenna has a somewhat directional frequency output, as shown by the
solid line in Figure 4, which is an example of a real-world output graph from the
This directionality occurs because the nonlinear nature of the antenna leads to extreme
phase cancellation of the electromagnetic waves which make up the signal. This phase
cancellation leads to what are called lobes, or pockets where the signal is stronger than
the surrounding areas, as shown by the divot in the figure (“Antenna”). These lobes,
while useful for special applications, and of great concern in others such as radar
(Villano), are not incredibly relevant to this research and will not be studied.
The final type of antenna in this experiment, the monopole antenna, is like a
dipole antenna, but the feed is connected to one end instead of in the middle. This
configuration makes antenna design easier, but may be less efficient because current
must move farther in the antenna transmission material to reach the end from the
source, and all materials have slight resistance properties to them (Gilchrist). Because of
its similarities to the more-common dipole, it is less extensively studied and reliable
Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
signals.
Hypothesis:
The dipole antenna will have the greatest ability to receive electromagnetic
signals.
Data Measured:
The explanatory (independent) variable was the shape of the receiving antenna.
In this experiment, monopole, dipole, and loop antennas were tested. The response
(dependent) variable was the amount of voltage introduced in the receiving antenna by
test was run to determine the results, with thirty trials run for each variation of the
receiving antenna.
Coles – Corpel 9
Experimental Design
Materials:
Procedure:
1. Randomize trials with the Google Sheets randomization function (see Appendix
C).
3. Connect the multimeter to the receiving antenna using alligator clips. Ensure the
multimeter is set to read alternating current (AC) voltage by pointing the dial to
the appropriate setting.
5. Set frequency generator to 100,000 Hz by twisting the range knob to “100 kHz.”
6. Turn the frequency knob until the screen reads approximately 100,000.
7. Log the amount of voltage in the current when the generator is off.
9. Log the immediate spike in voltage and the value that the voltage in the receiving
antenna settles to.
11. Repeat step 4-8 for all trials, connecting the equipment to the proper antennas.
Coles – Corpel 10
Diagram:
frequency
generator
antennas
multimeter
Figure 5 shows a picture of how the experimental design will be set up. The
frequency generator is in the background, the multimeter lies in the foreground, and the
antennas (which are the copper wires) lie parallel along the middle of the photograph.
The antennas shown in figure 5 are dipoles (See Appendix A), and the antenna furthest
to the right in this image, connected to the frequency generator, is the transmission
antenna. When the frequency generator is turned on, the radio waves are sent from the
transmitting antenna (the left antenna in the perspective of the image) to the receiving
antenna (the right antenna). Then, the researchers used the multimeter to measure the
Table 1
Dipole Trial Results
Initial Final Spike
Frequency Voltage Voltage Spike
Trial # Shape Reading Reading Difference
(kHz) Difference (mV)
(mV) (mV) (mV)
1 Dipole 99.944 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
7 Dipole 99.876 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
8 Dipole 99.959 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
10 Dipole 99.910 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
13 Dipole 99.883 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
14 Dipole 99.854 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
15 Dipole 99.834 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
17 Dipole 99.811 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.2
21 Dipole 99.777 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
22 Dipole 99.726 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3
25 Dipole 99.734 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
26 Dipole 99.855 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
27 Dipole 99.807 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
28 Dipole 99.826 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
31 Dipole 99.764 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
32 Dipole 99.771 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.5
35 Dipole 99.771 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
36 Dipole 99.907 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
38 Dipole 99.526 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
40 Dipole 99.938 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.4
41 Dipole 99.941 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
44 Dipole 99.797 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
45 Dipole 99.802 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0
47 Dipole 99.873 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2
49 Dipole 99.828 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0
50 Dipole 99.830 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
51 Dipole 99.840 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2
54 Dipole 99.823 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4
Initial Final Spike
Frequency Voltage Voltage Spike
Trial # Shape Reading Reading Difference
(kHz) Difference (mV)
(mV) (mV) (mV)
57 Dipole 99.790 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.2
60 Dipole 99.966 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Average 99.832 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
Coles – Corpel 12
Standard
Deviation 0.088 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Table 2
Loop Results
Initial Final Voltage
Trial Frequency Voltage Spike
Shape Reading Reading Difference
# (kHz) Spike (mV) Difference
(mV) (mV) (mV)
61 Loop 99.840 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.6 0
62 Loop 99.867 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.1 0.5
63 Loop 99.855 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.1 0.5
64 Loop 99.857 1.2 1.5 0.3 2.3 0.8
65 Loop 99.843 1.2 1.7 0.5 2.3 0.6
66 Loop 99.843 1.2 1.5 0.3 2.4 0.9
67 Loop 99.838 1.2 1.4 0.2 2.3 0.9
68 Loop 99.818 1.4 1.5 0.1 1.7 0.2
69 Loop 99.813 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.1 0.5
70 Loop 99.799 1.2 1.4 0.2 2.2 0.8
71 Loop 99.798 1.2 1.4 0.2 2.2 0.8
72 Loop 99.791 1.2 1.7 0.5 2.2 0.5
73 Loop 99.905 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.6 0
74 Loop 99.784 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.6 0
75 Loop 99.779 1.3 1.5 0.2 2.3 0.8
76 Loop 99.773 1.2 1.5 0.3 1.6 0.1
77 Loop 99.786 1.2 1.4 0.2 2.2 0.8
78 Loop 99.805 1.4 1.6 0.2 2.4 0.8
79 Loop 99.818 1.2 1.7 0.5 2.4 0.7
80 Loop 99.817 1.2 1.5 0.3 1.6 0.1
81 Loop 99.815 1.2 1.5 0.3 2.4 0.9
Initial Final Spike
Trial Frequency Voltage Voltage
Shape Reading Reading Difference
# (kHz) Difference Spike (mV)
(mV) (mV) (mV)
82 Loop 99.806 1.3 1.7 0.4 2.3 0.6
83 Loop 99.811 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.3 0.7
84 Loop 99.800 1.2 1.8 0.6 2.4 0.6
85 Loop 99.803 1.2 1.6 0.4 1.7 0.1
86 Loop 99.808 1.2 1.7 0.5 2.3 0.6
87 Loop 99.813 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.2 0.6
88 Loop 99.850 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.4 0.8
89 Loop 99.842 1.2 1.4 0.2 2.2 0.8
90 Loop 99.854 1.2 1.6 0.4 2.4 0.8
Coles – Corpel 13
Table 3
Monopole Results
Initial Final
Frequency Voltage Spike
Trial # Shape Reading Reading Voltage Spike
(kHz) Difference Difference
(mV) (mV)
2 Monopole 99.845 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0.2
3 Monopole 99.837 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
4 Monopole 99.787 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0
5 Monopole 99.611 0.1 0.1 0 0.5 0.4
6 Monopole 99.600 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1
9 Monopole 99.898 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0.2
11 Monopole 99.765 0.1 0.1 0 0.4 0.3
12 Monopole 99.980 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0.2
16 Monopole 99.682 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 0.4
18 Monopole 99.987 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4
19 Monopole 99.553 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0
20 Monopole 99.707 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
23 Monopole 99.831 0.1 0.1 0 0.4 0.3
24 Monopole 99.753 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
29 Monopole 99.720 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.2
Initial Final Spike
Frequency Voltage Voltage Spike
Trial # Shape Reading Reading Difference
(kHz) Difference (mV)
(mV) (mV) (mV)
30 Monopole 99.726 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2
33 Monopole 99.752 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 -0.1
34 Monopole 99.756 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0
37 Monopole 99.650 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0
39 Monopole 99.927 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.1
42 Monopole 99.888 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.1
43 Monopole 99.889 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
46 Monopole 99.841 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
48 Monopole 99.828 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
52 Monopole 99.963 0.1 0 -0.1 0.3 0.3
53 Monopole 99.934 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
55 Monopole 99.898 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1
56 Monopole 99.530 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0
58 Monopole 99.862 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.2
Coles – Corpel 14
Tables 1-3, above, show the results of the dipole, loop, and monopole antenna data
trials, respectively. The initial reading, final reading, and voltage spike were measured
directly. The voltage difference, Dv, in each table was calculated by subtracting the initial
Dv=F−I
The spike difference, Ds, was calculated by subtracting the final reading, F from the
voltage spike, S.
Ds=S−F
For this experiment, observations were not recorded as trials were so quick that
any trial where any of the factors that surrounded of the experiment, such as a
movement in the antenna or presence of people in the testing hallway, were any way out
Figure 6 shows a before and after of one of the dipole antenna data trials. As
shown, the only change is in the reading on the multimeter in the foreground. There
were no visible changes throughout the experiment. The loop and monopole trials were
so visually similar to the dipole ones that they did not merit inclusion in this paper.
Coles – Corpel 16
This research and the experiment detailed within the paper were conducted to
determine whether the shape of the antenna had an impact on the ability of an antenna
to receive a signal. A comparative experiment was run to test this, comparing three
assist with the validity of data. If the trials were not randomized, some outside factor may
have influenced the results during a certain part of the experiment. For example, if all the
monopole trials were run on the same day that the frequency generator malfunctioned,
the results would be biased. The monopole and dipole trials were run in random order as
they were able to be run with minimal changes to the experimental setup. The loop
outside factors did not allow for the experimenters to acquire enough materials to build
multiple receiving antennas, forcing the loop antenna trials to be run after the dipole and
monopole trials were complete. The randomization within the mono- and dipole
other factors, although the practical constraints regarding the loop made it impossible to
For the purpose of this experiment, the dipole antenna served as a control, as it
is the simplest form of antenna. This gave the researchers something of which they
could base the rest of their trials off. Thirty trials were run for each antenna shape to
ensure that enough data points to run a valid statistical test existed. This experimental
replication reduced the chance that any one outlier trial will throw off the results of the
Before any statistical analysis was run, a visual representation of the data was
observed to determine which test would yield the most helpful results.
Figure 7 shows a boxplot of the data collected during the experiment. The chart
shows that the monopole and dipole antennas consistently had spike differences within
a similar range, while the loop antenna generally had a larger spike difference. The top
75% of the loop antenna readings are higher than any of the monopole antenna
readings. However, the loop antenna had the largest range of data and overlaps both
other groups. Still, most of the data in the loop trials is higher than the other trials,
indicating that there may be a significant difference in breaking strength. The monopole
and dipole trials cover such a similar range and have such a substantial overlap that
there is unlikely to be a significant difference between the two based on this graphical
analysis. The monopole and loop antennas both have outlier trials, but the conclusions
above are not significantly changed when the outliers are removed.
Coles – Corpel 18
Figure 8 shows the spike difference boxplot when all outliers are removed. None
of the upper or lower quartile points have moved, making it seem unlikely that the
outliers had any impact on the conclusions drawn visually. The means also moved
slightly, but not enough to have an overall impact on the relationships in the data.
A visual analysis is not enough to draw any rigorous conclusions. A statistical test
must be carried out to verify the data. For this experiment, an ANOVA statistical test was
run. An ANOVA test compares means from multiple populations, in this case ideal for the
spike difference of various types of strings. One requirement for an ANOVA test is that
the data that a population comes from is normal. The central limit theorem states that
any group of samples over size thirty from any population will come from a normal
population which is now the sampling distribution. Thirty trials of each shape were run to
ensure adherence to this rule. Another requirement is that all populations have similar
standard deviations. The standard deviations were included in the Data and
Table 4
Standard Deviation of Each Antenna Shape’s Spike Difference
Dipole Monopole Loop
The values in Table 4 make it clear that the standard deviation of the loop antenna trials
is larger than the other two groups, which is expected given the larger variability
observed in the box plot. A common rule of thumb is that the test is valid as long as the
largest standard deviation is no more than twice the smallest. This is not the case for this
data; however, the ANOVA test is not very sensitive to differences in standard deviation,
so the test is continued, albeit with some cautious interpretation of the results. The final
condition of the ANOVA test is that the data be from a random sample of a population.
The experiment was randomized to the point possible for the researchers, so this
condition will be considered fulfilled for the purposes of running this test; however, the
Before the test can be run, null and alternative hypotheses must be drafted.
H 0 : μ d=μ m=μl
Figure 9, above, shows the hypotheses used for this ANOVA test. Ho represents
the null hypothesis of there being no difference between the three antennas’ signal mean
receptions, represented by μ. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, says that there is some
Table 5
ANOVA Test Output
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
Model 2 3.475 1.737 40.890 < 0.0001
Residual 87 3.697 0.042
Total 89 7.172 0.081
Based on Table 5, the null hypothesis was rejected. A calculation of the values shown in
this table is provided in Appendix D. The F value of 40.890 with 2/87 degrees of freedom
leads to a p-value of less than 0.0001, which is less than 0.05, the standard barrier of
difference in means this extreme by chance alone if the null hypothesis were true. This
value does not, however, give any information regarding where the differences lie. The
box plot in figures 7 and 8 indicate that the difference likely comes from the mean signal
reception strength is higher in the loop antenna than the others. However, a difference
between the monopole and dipole antennas is less prominent. A t test must be carried
out to verify.
The requirements for a t test are very similar to those of an ANOVA, and the
requirements of normality and randomness have already been met. The third
requirement of a t test, that the samples are from independent populations, is intrinsic to
the nature of an ANOVA and is met by this experiment. The statistical hypotheses must
H 0 : μ d=μ m
H a :μ d ≠ μ m
Figure 10, above, shows the hypotheses used for this t test. Ho represents the
null hypothesis of there being no difference between the two antennas’ mean receptions,
Coles – Corpel 21
represented by μ. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, states that the two receptions are in
Table 6
t Test Output for Monopole and Dipole Antennas
As shown in Table 6, the t value of -.381 with 57.3 degrees of freedom leads to a p value
of 0.70, well above the 0.05 standard for significance in difference. A sample calculation
of the t statistic is provided in Appendix D. From this, it can be concluded that the
monopole and dipole antennas did not differ significantly in their ability to receive signal
The determination that the loop antenna had the highest mean signal strength,
as proven by the various statistical tests above, can be used to inform a scientific
Conclusion
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the impact of the shape of an
antenna on the signal strength of that antenna. The experiment tested the signal
strength of various antenna shapes (dipole, monopole, and loop) created out of copper
wire. A frequency generator was connected to a dipole antenna to act as the transmitter
and a multimeter was connected to the other antenna, which changed shape between
trials, to act as the receiver. To find the signal strength of the antenna, the multimeter
was set to read millivolts. The signal would spike to a value and then settle to a different
value. The value of the highest spike was said to represent the signal strength. It was
hypothesized that the dipole antenna would have the highest signal strength.
The hypothesis was rejected, as the dipole antenna and monopole antennas
both had inferior signal strength to the loop antenna. The dipole antenna had an average
spike of 0.14 volts, the monopole 0.15 volts, and the loop had an average spike of 0.56
volts. This data was analyzed using an ANOVA statistical test. The F value of this test
was 40.890 with 2/87 degrees of freedom, leading to a p-value of less than 0.0001,
which is therefore less than 0.05, the standard barrier of statistical significance. This
means that there is essentially a 0% chance of getting a difference in mean spike this
extreme if all the antennas truly performed the same. The data was further analyzed with
t tests to verify what was suggested by the means, that the loop antenna had the best
performance. As the loop antenna had the highest signal strength, the dipole necessarily
could not hold that title and the hypothesis was rejected.
This conclusion seems out of line with the existing scientific literature, but makes
sense given the constraints of the experimental design. In an ideal setting, the length of
a dipole or monopole antenna would be one half the wavelength of the frequency it must
put out. This is because at this point the frequencies reflecting off the end of the inside of
the antenna are not stored in any way and able to simply move back through the
Coles – Corpel 23
gets temporarily stored in the copper wire as if it were a capacitor (Gilchrist), instead of
being broadcast. The generator available could put out a frequency with a wavelength
of, at its shortest possible length, three kilometers. The researchers were unable to
acquire the three kilometers of copper wire necessary to build an ideal transmission and
receiving antenna, and therefore had to settle for an antenna that was approximately
1/64 of a wavelength long. This being far from the ideal length led to less than ideal
performance from the di- and monopole antennas in the experiment. The loop antenna is
not so constrained by this length requirement because the short distances in the
experiment allowed the coil to act more like an electromagnet than an antenna. This
made the antenna appear to perform better because of the strong near field
able to transmit a signal a farther distance (Gilchrist). This effect arose from the coiled
nature of the antenna, which is physically similar to a simple coil electromagnet. The
charge received by the antenna from the signal energized the antenna as it did in the
monopole and dipole trials. However, in this case, the current essentially created an
electromagnet due to the coiled shape of the wire leading to an incredibly strong near-
interference, leading to high amplitudes in the area immediately around the signal
source. This effect would, however, rapidly decay as distance from the antenna
increased (Gilchrist).
There is also a chance that the physical integrity of the antenna degraded over
the course of the experiment, as at the end of each day the copper wire was rolled up to
be stored. This rolling and unrolling led to seemingly permanent kinks and divots in the
wire which could not be smoothed out. It is possible that this decline in antenna quality
Coles – Corpel 24
brought down the ability of the wires to carry and receive signal. Also, the antennas were
laid on the ground which may have, at low frequencies, acted more like a conductor than
a reflective surface as was originally envisioned. This would interfere with the ability of
the antennas to transmit signals and would alter their shapes in a way akin to placing
These results, despite the experimental errors, are not useless. The knowledge
that loop antennas can be made using much less material and perform with increased
efficacy over a less than ideal dipole over short distances is useful when designing
transmission and reception devices of all kinds, especially radios that require long
The results are also relevant to the scientific community at large because they
bring to light various easily overlooked factors in antenna performance and give some
hint as to what shapes should be used in what scenarios. Still, further study should be
conducted on antennas of ideal dipole and monopole length as well as various other
shapes. Further, the impact of distance between antennas on signal strength, with shape
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank their parents for their support of this
research, both emotionally and financially. They helped the researchers obtain the
materials needed to perform this experiment and kept the researchers’ spirits up during
The researchers would also like to extend their gratitude to Dr. Brian Gilchrist of
the University of Michigan for his extensive knowledge on the science behind radio wave
understanding of the results they obtained from their experiment and the scientific
Materials:
Procedure:
3. For a monopole antenna, connect multimeter to the end of the antenna. For a
dipole antenna, connect the multimeter to the middle of the antenna.
Coles – Corpel 27
Materials:
Procedure:
2. Coil wire around the dowel as tightly as possible while ensuring that the coils do
not touch.
3. Remove the coil from the dowel without uncoiling by sliding it off one end of the
dowel.
Appendix C: Randomization
Materials:
Procedure:
The tables in the data and observation section included two separate
calculations. One calculation, the voltage difference, Dv, in each table was calculated by
Dv=F−I
Shown below is a sample calculation using the simple equation for the voltage
difference.
Dv=F−I
¿ 0.2 mV −0.1 mV
¿ 0.1 mV
The equation for the voltage difference shown in Figure 11 is incredibly similar to the
equation for spike voltage difference, Ds, which was calculated by subtracting the final
Ds=S−F
Shown below in figure 12 is a sample calculation for the difference in the voltage spike.
Ds=S−F
¿ 0.3 mV −0.1 mV
¿ 0.2 mV
Table 7
Antenna Reception Values
Antenna Type n x́ s
Table 7, above, shows the number of trials, mean voltage spike (response
variable), and standard deviation of each antenna shape. These values will be used for
the sample calculations. Due to rounding errors in these values, the calculated F-statistic
will be slightly off from the one given in the Data Analysis and Interpretation section.
However, the concepts used to calculate this value remain the same.
To find the p-value, two variables must be calculated, the F-statistic and the
degrees of freedom.
= 0.2822
Figure 13, above, shows the calculations made to find the sample mean of all the
populations in the ANOVA test. This is the number of observations in each sample (n)
times the mean of each sample (xbar), like weighted means, and is used in the next two
calculations.
Coles – Corpel 31
2 2 2
n1 ( x́ 1−x́ ) + n2 ( x́2− x́ ) + n3 ( x́ 3− x́ )
MSG=
I −1
= 1.7373
Figure 14, above, shows the calculations made to find MSG. MSG is the mean
square group or the variation among sample means between each population. It is found
by dividing the sum of each population size times each sample mean’s deviation from
xbar squared by one less than the number of groups (I). This is used to find the F
= 0.0415
Figure 15, above, shows the calculations made to find MSE. MSE is the mean
square error or the variation among individuals in all samples of each population. It is
found by dividing the sum of one less than each population size times each population’s
standard deviation (s) squared by one less than the number of overall trials (N).
MSG 1.7373
F= =
MSE 0.0415
= 41.8172
Figure 16, above, shows the calculations made to find the F-statistic. The F -
statistic is the ratio of the variation among sample means between each population and
Coles – Corpel 32
the variation among individuals in all samples of each population. The F statistic is right
skewed but when the numerator and denominator values grow, the curve become closer
I −1 3−1
df = =
N −I 90−3
= 2/87
Figure 17, above, shows the calculations made to find the degrees of freedom in
an ANOVA test. The degrees of freedom are the number of values that are allowed to be
variant. With an ANOVA test, there are two different values for the degrees of freedom.
The numerator value is found by taking the number of populations and subtracting one
(which gives the degrees of freedom between each group). The denominator value is
found by taking the total number of data points and subtracting the number of
populations (which gives the degrees of freedom within each group). It is extremely
important to note that this is not a fraction that can be simplified. Both the numerator and
Once the F-statistic and degrees of freedom are calculated, the p-value can be
these numbers into a program to compute the value. Both returned, in this case, a p-
To compare the different antenna shapes (in this case the dipole and monopole
antennas), a two-sample t test must be used. To find the amount of standard deviations
away from the mean, t, the average of each sample, x́ 1 and x́ 2 , will be subtracted
and then divided by the square root of the standard deviation of the first sample, s 1
squared, over the number of trials of the first sample, n1 , added to the sample
Coles – Corpel 33
deviation of the second sample, s 2 , squared, over the number of trials of the second
sample, n2
x́
(¿ ¿ 1− x́ 2 ) (0.1367−0.15)
√ s12 s 22 =
+
n1 n2
t =¿
√ 0.14262 0.1282
30
+
30
= -0.3802
Figure 18, above, shows a sample calculation of a two-sample t test to find the
number of standard deviations the dipole antenna is from the monopole antenna. The
sample calculation shown in the figure above used the data from this experiment.
Once the t-value has been calculated, the p-value can be determined by looking
program to compute the value. It is important to note two things when using a table to
calculate results, because the book calculates the area below the t-value. Firstly, if the
alternate hypothesis states that the first mean, μ1, is greater than the second mean, μ2,
then the p-value is truly one minus the given value. Secondly, if the alternate hypothesis
states that the first mean is equal to the second mean, then the p-value needs to be
measured on both ends of the distribution (because the first mean is either greater than
or less than the second mean). This means that the value in the table needs to be
doubled (or if the t-value is positive, then the quantity of one minus the given value must
I have copied Barb Lupi here at Michigan to help set up a half-hour time for us to talk via phone or
Skype.
Regards,
Brian Gilchrist…
Coles – Corpel 35
Works Cited
“Antenna Patterns and Their Meaning.” Cisco, Cisco Inc, 7 Aug. 2007,
www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-
accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html.
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA135756591&it=r&asid=74051d8c932ee4cfe1800f33547ab65a. Accessed
16 Sept. 2017.
Burgess, Larry. "The Challenge of Mobile Phone and IoT Antennas." Design
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA433009785&it=r&asid=cf3e59421b3f4961b4f5c69349f0c240. Accessed 29
Aug. 2017.
go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?
tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&sear
chType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=4&docId=GALE
%7CA21009046&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=
AONE&contentSet=GALE
%7CA21009046&searchId=R2&userGroupName=lom_accessmich&inPS=true
Coles – Corpel 36
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA500499907&it=r&asid=313087d4a4adee7c3c8d6e98c7b56ad5. Accessed
13 Sept. 2017.
Lowes, Robert. “The Ins and Outs of Wireless Networking: Doctors Need Wi-Fi
go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?
tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&sear
chType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=12&docId=GALE
%7CA155919627&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=
AONE&contentSet=GALE
%7CA155919627&searchId=R3&userGroupName=lom_accessmich&inPS=true.
www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/Why%20an%20Antenna%20Radiates.pdf.
antenna using stacked curve dipoles for DTV reception." International Journal of
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA459422820&it=r&asid=616b711cb8cf7d1c4e0e6c65b235c4f6. Accessed
17 Sept. 2017.
www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm.
Geodesy and Cartography, vol. 38, no. 3, 2012, p. 93. Academic OneFile,
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA310868534&it=r&asid=e84f2c35c37fdd948f305fa668a195a8. Accessed 18
Sept. 2017.
go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?
tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&sear
chType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE
%7CA353439979&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=
AONE&contentSet=GALE
%7CA353439979&searchId=R1&userGroupName=lom_accessmich&inPS=true.
Villano, Michelangelo, et al. "Antenna array for passive radar: Configuration design and
p=AONE&sw=w&u=lom_accessmich&v=2.1&id=GALE
%7CA374098774&it=r&asid=b31745ce4779b1963a7eae1b2f51cc84. Accessed
15 Sept. 2017.