-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Aycock <billaycock@centurytel.net>
>Sent: Nov 3, 2009 7:23 PM
>To: AD5VJ Bob <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>, "\"'Tower Talk'\""
><towertalk@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Dbi vs DBd
>
>Bob-- In the design process, it does not matter, so long as the designer
>understands and uses a consistent set of methods and units. Only the
>designer must be satisfied.
>>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "AD5VJ Bob" <rtnmi@sbcglobal.net>
>To: "'Roger (K8RI)'" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; "'Tower Talk'"
><towertalk@contesting.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Dbi vs DBd
>
>
>> What about antenna design applications, do they give you a choice or one
>> or the other as a standard?
I would venture that the only substantial users of dBd are hams and possibly
marketeers. The pro modeling tools (NEC and it's ilk, the FDTD programs, etc.)
all use dBi.
The problem comes with defining the "d" in the "relative to a dipole".. do you
mean relative to the gain in the same direction, or relative to 2.15dBi, the
peak dipole gain? At least the isotropic antenna (while impossible to actually
realize) has a uniform definition.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|