Understanding 5G Beamforming Using Phased Arrays

  • Thread starter Thread starter kevinisfrom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arrays
Click For Summary
5G beamforming using phased arrays involves challenges such as side lobes and beam spreading. It is not possible to completely suppress side lobes; however, they can be reduced through specific weighting of antenna elements, albeit at the cost of main beam gain. The size of the receiving antenna does not need to be larger than the transmitting antenna, as the energy received is a function of the entire communication chain. The main beam width is influenced by antenna size, and while side lobes can theoretically be minimized, this often broadens the main lobe. Ultimately, the optimal antenna design depends on the specific requirements of the service being provided.
kevinisfrom
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
My hypothetical question is, is it possible to suppress all side lobes (side lobes -->0) and create a beam with a very small angle (theta -->0) with antennas -->infinity? A more practical question, if the beam always spreads as it travels, does this mean the receiving antenna must be much larger than the transmitting antenna?
The general concept of 5G beamforming using phased arrays makes sense from the videos I've seen. Something I've noticed was that there are always side lobes and also the beam spreads as it travels. My hypothetical question is, is it possible to suppress all side lobes (side lobes -->0) and create a beam with a very small angle (theta -->0) with antennas -->infinity? A more practical question, if the beam always spreads as it travels, does this mean the receiving antenna must be much larger than the transmitting antenna?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
kevinisfrom said:
is it possible to suppress all side lobes (side lobes -->0)
No, the best you can do is what is called diffraction-limited. The larger your source the less diffraction you will have, but it will always be present.

kevinisfrom said:
if the beam always spreads as it travels, does this mean the receiving antenna must be much larger than the transmitting antenna?
No, it means that the transmitting antenna will transmit a lot of energy and the receiving antenna will receive very little energy.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G
The simple rule of thumb is that the beamwidth of the main lobe will be 360°/ 2Pi = 57°, divided by the width (measured in wavelengths) of the antenna, or array of elements.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Tom.G and Dale
kevinisfrom said:
does this mean the receiving antenna must be much larger than the transmitting antenna?
Just re-read what you wrote. It would imply that every home TV aerial would need to be the same height as the cylinder at the top of the transmitting mast. How big is your antenna? Do you know of any localised radar systems that use different sizes for Tx and Rx? How could it be better to use a wider Tx beam than Rx beam? A shared antenna makes total sense in pretty much any radar system you would want to instal on a ship.
You could have made the time to read around about this topic and avoid asking some really flawed questions. The strength of received signal depends on every link in the comms chain. But a very small amount of reading around would have made all this sort of thing clear to you. There is no point in trying to reverse engineer in an attempt to learn about a subject.

On the subject of sidelobes. The rules of thumb formulae which give an idea of the width of an antenna beam are only approximate. Sidelobes can easily be suppressed by altering the weighting of the element feed powers. This will be slightly at the expense of the width of the main beam but it can fill in the nulls, too. Depending on what you actually want from the array, that can be an excellent solution for the available aperture. Weighting of array elements is dealt with in many textbooks and this link is an up to date paper which shows how sidelines can be dealt with, usefully.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Dale said:
No, the best you can do is what is called diffraction-limited. The larger your source the less diffraction you will have, but it will always be present.
I think there is a subtlety here. The width of the main beam of an antenna is dependent on antenna size, but the side lobes lie outside this beam. By using a binomial distribution of energy across the antenna, sidelobes can be theoretically reduced to zero but at the expense of gain (ie broadening) of the main lobe. There are other distributions across the antenna which allow us to trade forward gain for sidelobe level.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur and Dale
tech99 said:
There are other distributions across the antenna which allow us to trade forward gain for sidelobe level.
Indeed. In the case of a service like 5G (which is just the same as broadcast TV and other systems, the nulls can be a worse embarrassment than the sidelobes as the vertical radiation pattern in particular will need to have a main beam slightly tilted to the ground (a max that points just short of the wanted service area limit - sometimes the horizon) and all the nulls filled so 'everyone gets a bit' in the service area.
The 'best' antenna depends entirely on the requirement.
 
Thread 'I thought it was only Amazon that sold unsafe junk'
I grabbed an under cabinet LED light today at a big box store. Nothing special. 18 inches in length and made to plug several lights together. Here is a pic of the power cord: The drawing on the box led me to believe that it would accept a standard IEC cord which surprised me. But it's a variation of it. I didn't try it, but I would assume you could plug a standard IEC cord into this and have a double male cord AKA suicide cord. And to boot, it's likely going to reverse the hot and...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
14K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K