Talk:Antenna array

Move article to Antenna array?

The page Antenna array is a disambiguation page (DAB). Disambiguation pages are supposed to be used to list different articles having the same or similar name (WP:DPAGE), but that page instead is just a list of different types of array antenna, such as phased array, smart antenna, and interferometric array. There is no need for that DAB page, and I think this article Antenna array (electromagnetic) should be moved there, with the different types of antenna arrays listed in the article. Unless some convincing argument is made against it, I am going to perform this move in a week. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Jim.henderson (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• @Chetvorno and Jim.henderson:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Time Modulated Array?

I noticed that time-modulation is hinted at but not directly mentioned, it also does not have it's own wikipedia article. Is it worth mentioning here, on Smart Antennas or both? For background, time-modulated arrays are arrays that are switched to a single input/output stage. The effect of switching these individual elements scatters central frequencies to several sidebands, each with their own beam pattern.

Related Articles

• Latest Review Paper I could find.
• Conception.

BenjyC1 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@BenjyC1: This looks fascinating, I had never heard of time-modulated arrays. I think they should be mentioned (briefly) both in this article and Smart antennas, and they should have their own article, too. You want to start one? Cheers, Chetvorno^TALK 23:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Chetvorno:, I can write a little bit about them here and on Smart antenna but am unsure about writing its own article. I should mention that I am a new researcher in the field and have my own published article (not, and not cited in any the above and don't think it should be). I want to avoid any potential COI here so. wouldn't it be better for someone else to write it? BenjyC1 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad you brought up the COI, but it shouldn't be an issue. Looking at the WP policy on conflict of interest, I don't think publishing an article on the subject rises to the level of COI that would disqualify you from writing about it on Wikipedia, if you want to. There are a number of researchers who write Wikipedia articles in their fields of study. Are you developing a commercial product based on time-modulated antennas? Or working in the advertising or promotional department of a company that is? Or hold significant patents on it? These are more the type of COI that Wikipedia discourages. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again for the pointers. I have nothing like that so can give it a go, it may take me some time to put something together, so I'd encourage anyone interested to read up on it and write one before me if they'd like. BenjyC1 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to introduction

Hi, ‎188.193.103.199. On your recent additions to the article: this is not the appropriate place for this content. An "array antenna" is not the same as a "phased array". Read the introduction. An array antenna is any antenna composed of multiple antennas working together. A phased array is a specialized array antenna with phase shifters, allowing the beam to be steered. Here are some sources supporting these definitions: [1] p.102, [2] p.303, [3] p.315, [4] p.128, [5] p.485, [6] p.xi, [7] p.30. We have a separate article about Phased arrays.

Also, the last sentence, on patents, is a little confusing. Your English is a little ungrammatical. Can you make it clearer? --Chetvorno^TALK 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

188.193.103.199, here are the problems I have with your addition to the introduction:

• "...and space applications..." - Space communication didn't begin until the 1960s. Arrays were in use by the 1920s.
• "...phased arrays later found its way into communication (under the names "smart antenna" or "MIMO system") as well." - this implies that the previous sentence was only about phased arrays. This introduction is about general array antennas. We have a separate article for phased arrays.
• "Since several decades, they are in use for navigation purposes as well." - Insufficiently specific. What does this refer to? Phased arrays? This introduction is about general array antennas. Navigation array antennas have been in use for more than "several decades"; the aircraft navigation system VOR used sophisticated array antennas beginning 1937, and radio direction finding (RDF) radiogoniometer arrays were used from 1912.
• "They enable the computation of the arrays attitude, which is also used for at least one decade now." - This is confusing. An array's "attitude" doesn't need to be computed, it can be measured at the antenna. It also seems to be about phased arrays. This introduction is about general array antennas.
• "Still there are some patents granted, which are, however, due to the large body of knowledge published before and the generic structure of the receiver (that makes it very hard to achieve a real add-on) of only very little if no value." - The English is so bad that I am not sure what you are saying. If you mean that most array antenna information is in the public domain, that is probably true, but why is this WP:notable? I doubt that this is preventing new array research and development. If that is what you are saying, you need to support it with a citation from a WP:reliable source (see WP:VERIFIABILITY).
• The introduction should be no more than 4 paragraphs(MOS:LEAD). This intro is already very lengthy, history should probably go in a history section in the body.

I agree the article needs some history, but it must be accurate and should be supported by citations to reliable sources.

--Chetvorno^TALK 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you merge these findings in the article?188.193.103.199 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Matching to an antenna array additions

Hi, I know that you did a lot of work on this, but it is too technical and to how-to. It looks like you are recreating your own published paper, which is a primary source. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. A brief summary is fine. It should probably be not more than two paragraphs. The words "matching metrics" and "impedance matrix" are too technical for this article. Anytime you use the word "we", you are not using encyclopedic voice. Remember, people have been matching antenna arrays since at least the 1940s. They didn't have computers. Stick to general principles, not calculation means. Note, there is no math in the rest of the article.Constant314 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. First, the section is inadequately sourced. There are only 4 citations for the whole voluminous infodump, all to WP:primary sources, research papers. With a few exceptions, Wikipedia requires content be supported by WP:secondary sources, textbooks or summary articles. There are many antenna textbooks online that cover array matching networks. Also, citation of your own papers is discouraged; see WP:COI. Second, Wikipedia articles should be understandable by general readers, if possible. The section about matching networks needs to start at a much more elementary level, explaining without using jargon what impedance matching is, why it is needed, what a matching network is. Thanks, --Chetvorno^TALK 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Constant314: - I see your point, but I disagree. Many Wikipedia articles are very technical. I started to contribute to the "Antenna array" article because I thought that is was too elementary and messy. I think I will not be the only one to mourn the arbitrarily suppressed "Matching to an antenna array" section of the Antenna "Antenna Array" article. Thanks to all those who contributed, @Evemens:, @Interferometrist: and @Neils51:. Regards, FreddyOfMaule (F5OYE).FreddyOfMaule (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@FreddyOfMaule: On making technical articles understandable, see WP:MTAU. On what 'many Wikipedia articles" are, see WP:WHATABOUT. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@FreddyOfMaule:Wikipedia does have highly technical articles. That is why I suggested a stand alone article. It is not really Wikipedia’s charter, but a stand-alone highly technical article does no harm. When I say the section is too technical, it is way too technical. I am an electrical engineer, and I don’t understand it. It presumes a level of knowledge held only by a handful of electrical engineers that work in a small specialty sub-field. The reader of this article may have the knowledge of a ham radio operator.Constant314 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I do object to pages getting so technical that they aren't going to be understood or, even worse, that they'll put readers off from trying to understand the more basic content. On the other hand, there are many cases where rather advanced math is contained in a section of an article that starts out with minimal or no math, and if these are valid and written well and otherwise are the sort of content (albeit advanced) that one would expect to find in Wikipedia, and relate only to one subject (cannot be factored out to support two or more pages using the same content) then my usual response is not to remove it altogether or to demand that it be a separate page (as Constant314 suggests), but just to move it to the bottom of the relevant page where it won't scare off any reader who begins at the top. But I'm not sure those criteria are satisfied in this case.

First, the section assumes nothing about the loads (or generator: transmitter) that are specific to antennas and transmitters. Doesn't the same math apply to a passive distribution network, for instance (though trivial) the audio power driving N speakers (of various impedances, at various relative power levels) throughout a stadium, say? The only thing about antenna elements that is special is their interaction: for instance, the formulation of a mutual impedance matrix governing antenna elements here which I helped write, but that seems (but correct me if I'm wrong!) to be dismissed where Freddy wrote "If there is no interaction between the port of a multiport antenna array, and between the ports of the LTI multiport device coupled to the port of the multiport antenna array....." IF I understood that correctly, it's saying that each antenna fed is just treated as a load Z_i but in which the near field of the other antennas isn't considered, so this is just a problem of feeding power from one (or from <=N) sources to N specified loads. Or is such an interaction assumed and subsumed in the generality of the math? I couldn't see how, since it talks about S_ii of each load independently. And in practice, unlike the loudspeakers in a stadium, there would be significant near-field interaction between the antennas in a typical array geometry. In either case, if this wasn't clear to me, it means that the text assumes too much on my part, and of most all readers I would guess -- a separate issue. So again, if treating the loads as disconnected from each other (except through the network) then isn't this a special case of a power (and phase) splitting network to drive N loads, and aren't there applications in other subject matter that would overlap and justify a page not just on antenna arrays?

And also, though Freddy did take into account of some of my earlier objections, I still cannot read through the section in a reasonable time (thus without jotting down my own analysis or working out a simple example) and say I "understood" most of what was said, and at least one other editor very competent in these matters said the same. So IF it is going to be published in Wikipedia (either alone or as a section here) then it still needs to be developed more slowly and explicitly, ideally with more figures and examples. The one graph included does make one point (pointed out in the text) but a lot more is needed before that. I'd like to see a diagram of an N port connected to loads and source(s) with clear labels of the relevant quantities (or of basic quantities and formulae for the derived quantities) where I could, in principle, tell you what the voltage and current is at every point (or understand why it is arbitrary and not needed). It isn't that the section is too technical per se. Rather it either isn't technical enough (incomplete) or that the main qualitative point (which I didn't exactly get) isn't clearly laid out and might be obscured by technical language/math that could be omitted for the average (or even above-average!) reader.

Finally, as I had complained before, it seems this is more about power-splitting than simply impedance matching. Freddy adjusted the text in response to my earlier comments that the internal impedance of the generator (transmitter) isn't relevant, but rather its design load impedance (i.e. 50 Ω). If someone had just given me the problem to drive 4 antennas from one source (and neglecting practicalities and availability of 200Ω coax!) I would have said just connect each antenna having an impedance of 200Ω through 200Ω coax to a common point where they are in parallel and call that a 50Ω load for the transmitter, and adjust the cable lengths for the right phasing. Or use transformers if you can't find 200Ω coax, and then you can also send different powers to the 4, and then also take into account their mutual interaction and...... Or if the cables to each element are short and for lower frequencies, DON'T match the cable char. impedance to the elements (and suffer a poor individual SWR, and each with a larger S_ii>>0, as the text wants to avoid) and make it all work out using whatever various matching elements to result in the transmitter seeing 50Ω while each antenna gets the right relative voltage in the right phase. Why does my naive solution (and metrics associated with it) differ so greatly from the text Freddy wrote? I guess he's trying to be so general he didn't have to talk in such specifics, but there is still too large a gulf between what I would have expected and his text as presented. So those are some of the problems I see, not that it's altogether too technical for Wikipedia. Interferometrist (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What about my objection above that the section is inadequately sourced? --Chetvorno^TALK 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Planar array radar into Antenna array

wide overlap fgnievinski (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• support There's even a little section all set up and ready, just waiting.... Joyous! Noise! 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• support merging this article somewhere, as the term "planar array radar" is not used. If the consensus is to merge it here I'm okay with it. However I think Phased array might be a better target, as "phased array radar" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the type of radar that this is describing. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• oppose merging this article. The antenna array page could be improved in several directions, but including a very specific application is not one of them. I want to avoid a messy article like "antenna tuner". FreddyOfMaule (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons of short text and context; there are already several mentions of the term on the target, and so readers will see more relevant content if a merge is carried out. Klbrain (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)