I think what ever standard, dbi or dbd, one can interupt the differences. The main problem is the number in front...is it real. Most Ham antennas it is not and only db should be stated and can be interuped as dbwn...db with respect to a wet noodle :)
I prefer the dbd just because it give a reference I would hope as actually measured...that is the test antenna compared to a good reference dipole in the test. Don't know how one gets dbi except getting dbd and then adding the theorical 1.5 db(?) I think difference.
73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 9:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 5/10/2008 17:58, you wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. The isotropic radiator is what's theoretical. The TIA-329-C standard provides instructions for creating a real-world reference dipole radiator, upon which real-world measurements can be based.. There are many antenna experts who disagree with some of Cebik's allegations. The isotropic radiator makes sense at frequencies above 1 GHz, and that is why the contemporary antenna experts settled on that as a break point. It seems pointless to debate this issue, since a standard has been published which reflects a worldwide consensus. Let's move on.
A standard that is largely ignored is not much of a standard. I'll continue to use dBi. Bob NO6B
