So you're saying this is more marketing than innovation? -Ty
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > Angle is pretty much solely dependent upon gain. So a typical horn is > about as good as the best patch array or a smaller parabolic reflector. > But they are worse than both in the mechanical sense. > > The higher the frequency the more practical horns become. > > *From:* Stefan Englhardt via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:51 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [AFMUG] Rflelements announcement > > > This is realy something I did not expect: They announce Systems with Horn > antennas. > > A quite different approach. Their sectors are directional antennas so > coverage is not as good > > as with traditional antennas (Their marketing argues the opposite). But > horn antennas > > should have very low sidelobes, a good FB-Ratio and allow small angles. So > it should be possible > > to make a more dense deployment. > > What make me scare is the big opening where water and ice may cause damage. > > > > >
