Dave,
Thank you for the clarification, and for confirming my points:
* dBi is always referenced to an isotropic radiator *in free space*
* EZNEC is consistent with the industry definition and is not 3dB in error
I think it was misleading of Jerry to talk about inflated gain figures
from EZNEC. If he wants to embark on a crusade he needs to get industry
to change the standard definition, not to get Roy to modify his
software; but as you have noted, the concept of a "dBi" which produces
differing power densities depending on the environment is likely a
non-starter.
I understand the point you and Jerry are making, although the concept of
"fairness" escapes me in this context. For me "dBi" is just a shorthand
way of defining a reference power density at a particular range and
input power level; viewed that way, there are no "conundrums" and the
hemisphere issue doesn't arise.
73,
Steve G3TXQ
On 09/01/2011 00:14, Dave Kelley wrote:
> Dear Steve and Jerry,
>
> I think I might not have been clear in my original post about the 3 dB
> gain "error" in NEC. The moment method codes like NEC, EZNEC, Mininec,
> and all of their variants are calculating gain in dBi correctly. I
> cannot access the "IEEE Standard Definitions of Terms for Antennas"
> right now, but I am sure that it states or implies that gain measured
> in dBi is always referenced to an isotropic radiator in free space
> whether the antenna being modeled is over a ground plane or not. It
> has to be this way; otherwise, it could create untold confusion. What
> I was saying in my original post (and I think Jerry agrees) is that to
> be "fair," one should compare an antenna mounted over ground to an
> isotropic radiator radiating into a half-space (a "hemi-isotropic"
> radiator?). However, there is no standard gain unit defined this way.
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|