Nigel -

There are lots of lots of reasons ...

1. All link budgets use a path loss calculation that's also referenced to an 
isotropic radiator. If you use antenna gain referenced to a dipole, you'll have 
to add back the gain of the dipole (referenced to the isotropic radiator).

2. It's the standard way of calculating gain for virtually all professionals in 
the satellite, radar, deep space, avionics, microwave and many other fields. 

3. Arguably, dBi is less ambiguous that dBd. By definition, an isotropic 
reference has the same gain (0 dB) in all directions. A dipole has a 
directional pattern, so dBd only makes sense if you also define the direction. 
I believe the assumption is gain broadside to the antenna, but that is still an 
assumption.

4. If you don't want to actually do link budgets, so you say reason #1 above is 
irrelevant, then your only real purpose is to compare two different antennas. 
And then the difference is always going to be dB, whether the two antennas are 
specified in dBi or dBd. So I still say to use the universal, unambiguous 
standard.

5. Finally, and most significantly, your statement "Why would I believe, or 
want to use, something I can neither have, use or measure? An isotropic antenna 
doesn't exist." is just as applicable to the ideal dipole that is your 
reference for dBd as it is to an isotropic radiator. You can't build a dipole 
that has zero resistance along its physical length, you can't build a dipole 
that has zero interaction with its feedline, and you certainly can't achieve 
any placement that perfectly represents the "dipole in free space" assumption 
upon which the dBd reference is based.  

In summary, there are plenty of reasons whay virtually anyone who builds or 
uses antennas for a living, does it in dBi

Steve
W3HF


> Apr 22, 2010 09:15:04 AM, [email protected] wrote:

> I guess because it's impossible to build an isotropic radiator and therefore 
> just as impossible to measure it.
> Why would I believe, or want to use, something I can neither have, use or 
> measure?
>
> An isotropic antenna doesn't exist.
> 
> > In fact, the amateur community is the only place where there is a 
> > fascination with the dipole reference.
_______________________________________________
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

Reply via email to