## 6 Fabrication and Experimental Verification  
The dual-band CP with parasitic patch through a single feed mechanism was fabricated and measured. The dielectric resonator is fabricated of Al2O3 ceramic material \(\xi\)dr = 10), which is placed on the PEC ground plane. An agilent network analyzer AV3672E was utilized for quantifying scattering parameters (\(\mid\)S11\(\mid\) measuring), and far-field parameter performance, i.e., AR, radiation pattern, and realized gain was computed by EMT-24 SATIMO measuring system in microwave chamber traditional feeds (probe feed, coaxial, and microstrip, etc. ), which have more disadvantages than conformal metal strips, which is why conformal strips can be used to replace them. Coaxial feeding has issues such as air gaps, which create frequency irregularities. On the other hand, conformal strips may be simply glued to the SMA connector's coaxial feed line [21]. Furthermore, conformal strips eliminate air gaps since they are constructed of conductive adhesive copper tape that adheres to the DRA wall quickly and tightly. Figure 10 illustrates the measured and simulated return loss and AR of the suggested RDRA. The measured return loss bandwidths are 6.4% (3.47-3.61 GHz) and 22.26% (4.0-4.90 GHz), respectively. While on the other hand, the proposed antenna has an extra advantage of dual-band circular polarization. For the measurement, the dual-liner pattern method was used to the measured 3-dB AR bandwidths of the proposed antenna. It can be concluded from Figure 10 that the 3-dB axial ratio bandwidth (measured) of the proposed antenna in the lower and upper-frequency band is about 12.6% (3.40-3.95 GHz) and 27.82% (4.03-4.97 GHz) respectively. It has been observed that floating metal strips had less of an impact on measured antenna performance, and the results matched the predictions. The main reason for the disparity in performance between measured and simulated results is higher substrate loss, and reasonable agreement is attained among the simulated and measured results, and the slight discrepancy is mostly triggered by the measurement restrictions and fabrication error. In the zone of 4.4 GHz, the difference in simulated and fabricated frequencies is significant because of the air gap between the conformal metal strip and DRA, which shifts the resonance frequency upward. Pressing the feed may produce the same result as shown in the simulation but removing the finger may cause this issue. It is not possible to put a finger on the feed in anechoic chamber. The concept will be clear from Figure 11b by using transparent tape to reduce the air gap between RDRA and pec ground plane. However, removing the air between the strip and RDRA is a bit \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Ref**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DRA Shape**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CP Tech**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Lower-Band**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Upper-Band**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Single Fed**} \\  & & & **3-dB ARBW** & **3-dB ARBW** & **Dual Band** & **Structure** \\  & & & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **Dual CP** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[3]} & \multirow{3}{*}{CDRA} & A Pair Of Symmetrical & & & & \\  & & Notches Are & & & & \\  & & Carved Out From The & & & & \\  & & Cylindrical Dra & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[5]} & Hybrid & DRA Corners Along The & & & & \\  & DRA & Diagonal Are Cut Off From & 20 & 21 & YES & Complicated \\  & & The Rectangular DRA. & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[7]} & \multirow{3}{*}{RDRA} & Parasitic patch/Triangular & & & & \\  & & Ring shape aperture & 2.29 & 3.04 & YES & Simple \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[8]} & \multirow{3}{*}{RDRA} & Multi layering/metallic strip & & & & \\  & & on top & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{[9]} & \multirow{3}{*}{FSS} & FSS-Integrated Polarization & & & & \\  & & Rotation AMC & 2.4 & 4.8 & YES & Complicated \\ \hline Proposed \multirow{3}{*}{RDRA} & \multirow{3}{*}{RDRA} & Cross-shape/Floating parasitic & & & & \\  & & metallic patch on top & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}