I can backup the third bullet point as I saw it from an antenna vendor’s 
viewpoint.  The radios vendors forbid the antenna vendor from selling the 
interface plate.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 6:55 PM, Daniel White <dwh...@atheral.com> wrote:
> 
> So on the why... a few things I can add:
> Many manufacturers believed their direct connect interface was special, or 
> proprietary... and would not openly provide specifications (I seem to recall 
> a former employer zealous lawyers threatening to sue someone on this list... 
> :-)
> There was no advantage, on the manufacturer side, to standardize
> it would also inevitably prevent manufacturers from making other changes they 
> may see as beneficial
> Manufacturers want to sell antennas, and by creating a special interface they 
> control the supply chain of new antennas (since the antenna manufacturers 
> sign agreements to prevent it)
> The market didn't push back hard enough on proprietary interfaces.  
> 
>       
> Daniel White
> Co-Founder - Business Development & Operations
> phone: +1 (702) 470-2770
> direct: +1 (702) 470-2766
> 
> Mark Radabaugh wrote on 2/8/19 16:00:
>> To add to what Chuck said - 
>> 
>> The manufacturers don’t make the antenna’s specific to the various 
>> manufacturers other than adding an adapter plate.   You can remove the radio 
>> mount from a Andrew / Commscope antenna and replace it with the adapter kit 
>> for the radio brand.   The adapter kits can be ordered individually as 
>> needed - the hard part is finding the part numbers. Radiowaves is the same.  
>>  We have changed a number of antenna’s from Dragonwave, PTP800, and SAF to 
>> PTP820 or SAF over the years.   
>> 
>> If anyone wants Andrew Remec (PTP800) adapters we have a pile of them.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On rectangular waveguide, almost everyone conforms to the inside dimensions 
>>> of the waveguide for the frequency.  However for some frequencies there are 
>>> up to three different waveguide sizes that will work.  Lots of overlap in 
>>> the bandwidths of wavelengths.
>>>  
>>> But for dual pol antennas, the feeds all have a circular waveguide and 
>>> those are much less common and not standardized.  So they pick a diameter 
>>> that fits the center of their bandwidth.  .750”, .777” .780” are all common 
>>> sizes used for 11 GHz.  And really you can mate them with each other with 
>>> almost no return loss issues. 
>>>  
>>> My transgender / interspecies adapter products generally use the exact 
>>> diameter the antenna it mates with uses. 
>>>  
>>> Now, that is the inside of the waveguide.  The outside of the waveguide, 
>>> the “nose” of the antenna, that is a variety of inventions by the various 
>>> radio manufacturers.  The Remec design is most common.  A handful of radio 
>>> vendors used that form factor.  It is a bit larger than it needs to be with 
>>> the exception of 6 GHz rectangular.  That just barely fits in a Remec and 
>>> would not fit in a Dragonwave. 
>>>  
>>> Exalt is so close to Remec it is laughable.  I really wish they would have 
>>> just used the same dimensions, but everybody has to be different.  I think 
>>> they may have believe that if they had their own standard, it would 
>>> increase brand loyalty as nobody wants to change antennas.  But in reality, 
>>> I can make any radio work with any antenna if the frequencies are similar. 
>>>  
>>> From: Colin Stanners
>>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 2:56 PM
>>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Why hasn't there been a radio-antenna waveguide standard?
>>>  
>>> Probably more a question for Chuck then anyone else.
>>>  
>>> There's (ignoring frequency-related size) at least a dozen waveguide 
>>> connector standards to interface radios with antennas... when buying a 
>>> licensed backhaul radio, pretty much every physical and software interface 
>>> on the unit conforms to a standard, except the antenna interface. But it 
>>> seems that a physical-only interface like that would be the easiest to 
>>> standardize. Any idea why that has never happened in the industry?
>>>  
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to