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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
