## 4 Comparison between Simulation and Measurement
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref.** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Multi-** \\ **Layered?** \\ \end{tabular} & **Directionality** & \begin{tabular}{c} **-10 dB** \\ **Bandwidth** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Overall Size** \\ **(m)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Electrical** \\ **Size (\(k\)r)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Peak Gain** \\ **(dBi)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Peak Realized** \\ **Gain (dBi)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[7] & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 47.0\% \\ (2.30-3.70 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.280\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.146\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.006\(\lambda\) & 0.99 & 2.6 & - \\
[9] & Yes & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 117.6\% \\ (2.75-10.60 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.330\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.330\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.012\(\lambda\) & 1.47 & 3.4 & - \\
[10] & Yes & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 114.3\% \\ (3.00-11.00 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.360\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.360\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.013\(\lambda\) & 1.60 & 5.2 & - \\
[11] a & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 71.4\% \\ (2.70-5.70 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.656\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.380\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.014\(\lambda\) & 2.38 & - & 7.0 \\
[11] b & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 90.3\% \\ (1.70-4.50 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.516\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.301\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.009\(\lambda\) & 1.88 & - & 6.0 \\
[12] & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 54.0\% \\ (4.67-8.13 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.203\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.697\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.001\(\lambda\) & 4.37 & 7.7 & - \\
[13] & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 98.3\% \\ (2.76-51.40 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.488\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.232\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.015\(\lambda\) & 1.69 & 5.5 & - \\
[14] & Yes & Uni-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 51.4\% \\ (5.98-10.12 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.558\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.897\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.016\(\lambda\) & 3.32 & 5.3 & - \\
[15] & Yes & Uni-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 33.7\% \\ (36.60-51.54 \\ GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.233\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 2.183\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.063\(\lambda\) & 7.88 & 12.5 & - \\
[20] & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 57.7\% \\ (2.20-3.99 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.587\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.440\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.002\(\lambda\) & 2.30 & 6.9 & - \\
[21] & Yes & Uni-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 171.2\% \\ (3.10-40.00 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.620\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.444\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.016\(\lambda\) & 2.40 & 7.1 c & - \\
[22] & Yes & Uni-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 40.0\% \\ (3.80-5.70 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.926\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 1.089\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.020\(\lambda\) & 4.49 & 5.0 & - \\
[23] & Yes & Uni-directional & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 35.0\% \\ (7.26-10.34 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.095\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.973\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.012\(\lambda\) & 4.60 & 6.1 & - \\ Proposed & No & Bi-directional &
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.3\% \\ (1.26-29.79 GHz) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.350\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.330\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.001\(\lambda\) & 1.10 & 3.8 & 3.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: All the values are from the simulations since some references do not include measurement results. The overall size and electrical size are calculated using the lowest frequency in the \(-10\) dB bandwidth. a Smaller physical size version. However, since it has a higher frequency than the wider bandwidth version, the electrical size is larger. b Wider bandwidth version. c The value is from a measurement since the value from a simulation is not provided.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of wideband, planar, bow-tie antennas. Figure 12: Simulated and measured radiation patterns of the proposed wideband, planar, bow-tie antenna in the XZ, YZ, and XY planes at **(a)** 1.26 GHz, **(b)** 1.84 GHz, **(c)** 2.41 GHz, and **(d)** 2.97 GHz.