Jump to content

Garmin Oregor's Antenna?


Recommended Posts

The one thing I'm seeing that I'm not too crazy about on Garmin's new OR is the fact that, I assume, it's using a patch antenna rather than a helix. I realize that with the new processors that perhaps this is not as big an issue as it once was, but if this is the case, looks like that's a step backwards in an otherwise cutting-edge new handheld GPS. Am I just reading this wrong somehow?

Link to comment

Patch is no worse than quad helix. They just perform differently and are better at different orientations.

I have worked in a large outdoor outfitter here in Western North Carolina as their "GPS Guy now for 22 years and have sold Garmin GPS units since the old 38's.

It has always been my experience that a helix or quadrifillar, would consistantly pick up better in difficult situations such as we have right here (heavy canopy in summer and the topography year around. I saw a marked improvement and somewhat of a leveling of the playing field when the SIRF Star 3 processors came out in the 60's three or four years ago, but I still find the helixs to be the overall winners.

Link to comment

Patch is no worse than quad helix. They just perform differently and are better at different orientations.

I have worked in a large outdoor outfitter here in Western North Carolina as their "GPS Guy now for 22 years and have sold Garmin GPS units since the old 38's.

It has always been my experience that a helix or quadrifillar, would consistantly pick up better in difficult situations such as we have right here (heavy canopy in summer and the topography year around. I saw a marked improvement and somewhat of a leveling of the playing field when the SIRF Star 3 processors came out in the 60's three or four years ago, but I still find the helixs to be the overall winners.

Granted the quad helix is generally considered a superior antenna but it is costlier. Cutting manufacturing costs is the name of the game these days.

Link to comment

There's nothing wrong with a good patch antenna. It's used in a lot of professional-level equipment. You actually don't want your elevation roll-off to be too low because it would let in more ground multipath. That, and a more predictable phase center (point on the antenna where the measurement applies) make it a better choice than quad-helix.

 

For consumers, the trade off may be that if the direct signal is too weak, sacrificing some accuracy by letting some extra multipath in could mean the quad-helix has better availability. But with high-sensitivity receivers, that isn't really necessary.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...