I'm not sure if the RF Elements horns are rated at 3db or 6db, but I know
RF Elements list the beamwidth at both points for their normal sectors
(which is the best way to do it, if you ask me). It seems to be a lot more
common these days to use the 6db beamwidth for marketing purposes, but I
think there are actually some valid reasons for doing that - if the
manufacturer is recommended that you use antennas that are 90 degrees at
-6db, rather than -3db for an ABAB deployment, for example (which is the
case, with some of them, if I remember correctly), then it makes sense to
sell those as a 90 degree antenna, so that the people that don't bother to
check things like that don't buy the wrong antenna.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:21 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Speaking generally here, not about this product specifically:
> A 30 is a 30 at some dB down from peak.  Most reputable antenna
> manufacturers cite the beamwidth at the 3 dB down points on each side of
> the main lobe.  That is called HPBW or half power beam width.
> Some go out farther to the 6 dB point to make their beam width seem wider
> than their competitors.  Personally I believe that is false advertising.
> But I am sure they do not share my opinion.
> Look at the type of beamwidth.  Should state how many dB down somewhere on
> the spec sheet.
> Other than that, horn antennas are very well characterized.  They are used
> as lab standard calibration antennas.  Other than the point where they
> choose to specify the beamwidth I think you can totally trust the specs.
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:01 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rfelements
> so if im getting the right feel, here, I CAN trust these spec sheets? a 30
> is actually 30 and not 90? FB is real?
> Ive had two in play on EPMP1000 for some time but i keep pulling them and
> moving them elsewhere because of changes, so Ive never had one up long
> enough to see. I have use case for narrower patterns and more APs at some
> sites because the uplinks are getting more interference than id prefer, my
> only other option is to add the secondary antenna on the 2000, im not a fan
> of adding windload with no net capacity gain
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> we have a substantial garbage dump
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>> There's mountains near Steve's WISP footprint?
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 7:45 AM Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>>> You have that the other way around. A horn would be ideal in a mountain
>>>> area.
>>>> -----
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From: *"Sean Heskett" <af...@zirkel.us>
>>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:49:19 PM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Rfelements
>>>> I Totally agree with josh.
>>>> They have a specific purpose so if you can deploy within those
>>>> parameters they are great.
>>>> Unfortunately our area isn’t conducive to that type of deployment
>>>> because of terrain.  In the mountains you need antennas with a wider
>>>> vertical beam because your towers are on mtn peaks and some clients are
>>>> same height as the tower and other clients are on the valley floor.  It’s
>>>> hard to use a spot beam to cover all that.
>>>> In the Midwest or other flat areas I could see them being useful to
>>>> spot beam the population centers.
>>>> -Sean
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:29 PM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> They are great for stuff like 30/40Mhz wide, gps sync, put 4-6 on a
>>>>> pole in a subdivision  or on a tower leg kinda thing.
>>>>> If anybody thought they were for something else (ie long range), they
>>>>> didn't read the data sheets.
>>>>> Lightweight, low size, low wind load, perfectly circular pattern -
>>>>> great spot beams. Good F/B ratio.
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 9:12 PM Robert <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I recently did a couple of tests with RF horns.   I was hoping for a
>>>>>> lot
>>>>>> and was disappointed.   I was hoping that they could be colocated
>>>>>> closer than regular sectors that I use and the crosstalk signal levels
>>>>>> were just about the same as the shielded sectors.   As far as the
>>>>>> signals at the CPE's they were pretty good but not amazingly better
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> as small as the target area got reduced to.
>>>>>> On 4/10/18 6:43 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>>>> > Can i get some non fanboy real world on these guys? Btw, i hate
>>>>>> facebook
>>>>>> > groups almost as much as dslreports or the ubnt forums, this is
>>>>>> > literally the only place to get legitimate product info.

Reply via email to