## 5 Discussion  
The size of an antenna used in Internet of Things (IoT) devices is relevant since these devices are commonly compact and low-profile. The antenna booster, in this instance, was up to \(\sim\)42 times smaller in volume than the microstrip antenna. The difference was \(\sim\)13.8 times larger than the antenna booster when measured in the area they occupied (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Circular Pol.: Microstrip** & **Linear Pol.: Antenna Booster** \\  & **Patch Antenna** & **Linear Pol.: Antenna Booster** \\ \hline  & \(\blacksquare\)\(\sim\) & **—** \\ \hline Volume of the antenna part & 17.0 \(\times\) 17.0 \(\times\) 6.1 mm\({}^{3}\) & 7.0 \(\times\) 3.0 \(\times\) 2.0 mm\({}^{3}\) \\ \hline Automatic pick and place & No & Yes \\ \hline TTFF average in a static ideal & & \\ position & 29 s & 27.9 s \\ \hline TTFF total average & 64.9 s & 57.8 s \\ \hline Omnidirectional radiation & No & Yes \\ pattern & & \\ \hline BoM & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Ceramic patch, LNA, coaxial \\ line, and receptacles at the \\ microstrip antenna and PCB \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Antenna booster, LNA, and a \\ matching network are all \\ placed on the PCB \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of the microstrip patch antenna with antenna booster technology. Schemes of the microstrip patch antenna and antenna booster have the same scale. Figure 17: Summary of all the results of TTFF measured with the cold start method when moving following the path in Figure 4. For TTFF, the lower the value, the better. In terms of the ideal TTFF measured in the front dashboard position, with the car stopped away from any obstructions such as trees or buildings, we can see in Table 3 that the antenna booster performed 1.1 s faster. According to the bill of materials, the matching network for the antenna booster technology requires lumped SMD components, an LNA, and an antenna booster. On the other hand, a ceramic patch, LNA, coaxial cable, and receptacles at the microstrip antenna are necessary for the microstrip patch antenna. Figure 18 shows a general summary of all the TTFF averages performed with a warm start. This was an average of the eleven results obtained in the different positions and orientations of the devices (Figure 11). The middle line shows the average of all results, the top line shows the maximum, and the bottom line indicates the minimum. As can be seen, the linearly polarized antenna booster had a more robust behavior since its deviation was lower than that of circularly polarized devices. The device with the circularly polarized patch antenna had a deviation of 61.4 s, whereas those with a linearly polarized antenna booster had a variation of 47.9 s, 13.5 s less. Figure 18 further reveals that the overall average of all positions and orientations was 57.8 s for devices with linear polarization and 64.9 s for devices with circular polarization. As seen in Section 3.2.1, these locations and orientations resulted in a total of 11 distinct scenarios divided across the car into four locations. This demonstrates that the linearly polarized antenna booster performed the fix 7.1 s faster on average across all scenarios. If we assume a low-power GPS receiver where 50% of power consumption is due to the position fix, this 7.1 s difference results in ~6% more battery life on average for the device embedding linearly polarized antenna boosters. If we examine the other results in Section 4.2, we can observe that the data obtained exhibited a consistent pattern depending on where the devices were placed in the car. A circularly polarized patch antenna performed better than a linearly polarized antenna booster only when the device was mounted on the front dashboard of the car and pointed skyward, which is the best location for this sort of antenna, given the radiation pattern. However, the device behaved better in all the other positions within the car when using the linearly polarized antenna booster.