Dragan,

I will have our design engineers review the proposed Taoglas substitute antenna and provide feedback.

Joe

Dragan,

Ou RF engineer has reviewed the proposed Taoglas antenna and determined that it will not be in compliance with our FCC certification results. The Taoglas antenna is a monopole type while the antenna we used in our certification is a PIFA type. Also, the connecting cable on the Taoglas antenna is 55mm in length and the cable we used for certification is 105mm (e.g. more loss).

Joe

Hi Joe,

Thank you for the quick response.

Do you have suggestions for some other smaller external antennas that can be used, and which are in compliance  with requirements from Application Note 538?

Ceramic chip antenna from AN 538 also requires bigger PCB (ground plan).

Regards,

Dragan 

Dragan,

I checked with our internal design team and they were not aware of any alternate antenna choices. I suspect that there are some potential alternatives however we simply haven't researched that becasue the requirements for an alternative depend so much on the end system requirements.

My recommendation for you would be to contact Ethertronics (http://www.ethertronics.com/) to ask them if they have a solution similar to the 1000418 part that will meet your needs.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Thanks.

I already send questions to Ethertronics for their 1000602 Family (http://www.ethertronics.c...000668_1000672.pdf). I am still waiting for their response.

Could your design RF engineer check this antenna also? It should been same type (IMD- Isolate Magnetic Dipole) and have also max gain 2.5dBi. I suppose that  Ethertronics could make it with same cable (same or more cable loss).

We already pass certification with 1000418  antenna that you suggested, referring to your FCC/IC certification results, but because of mechanical issues we want to change antenna and to use  smaller (thinner) one. 

Regards,

Dragan

Dragan,

The 1000617A antenna (with 150 mm cable) would match our FCC certification specifications for 2.4GHz operation. It would not however meet the 5GHz band due to the fact that it has a higher peak gain of 5.0 dBi. If you can restrict the operation of your product to 2.4GHz (e.g. through software control), then this antenna solution will comply with our certification. A short coax cable might also be used if you are able to ensure that the cable loss is at least 0.47dB in the 2.4GHz band.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Thanks. Meanwhile, I also receive reply from antenna manufacturer  Ethertronics  that these antennas are the same type IMD and that can produce antennas with specific cable length (loss) and terminated with WFL connector.

Yes, we will use only at 2.4GHz (802.11g).

Regards,

Dragan

Hi Joe,

One more question :)

Do we need some official document from LogicPD that this new antenna match your FCC certification specifications for 2.4GHz?

I only have this confirmation on web.

Or is it enough to say that we used antenna of same type and gain, as per FCC Certification Guide?

Regards,

Dragan 

Dragan,

You do not need a document from LogicPD to use the alternate antenna. Our FCC certification remains valid for your product as long as the antenna meets the criteria specified in our FCC Certification Guide.

Best of luck with your product success!

Joe