On Feb 18, 2013, at 3:07 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > On 2/18/13 1:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 17, 2013, at 21:12 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>>> Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. > > Along some dimensions sure, e.g. we have quite a lot of parameters we can > fiddle with. > > With respect to an istropic raditor and the same power level it is not. It's > about 6-7dB depending on which end of the bands we're comparing - e.g. friis > trasmission equation.
Show me a wifi access point for 802.11n that uses an isotropic radiator and I'll consider that more relevant. (Yes, I'm aware that an isotropic radiator is useful as a baseline comparison because it eliminates antenna issues, near-field/far field issues, and a host of other complications. However, the purpose of an isotropic radiator is, at its core, the very definition of oversimplification because it is a theoretical antenna which removes all of the real world complexities. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever actually built an isotropic radiator, though there are a couple of very complex antennas that come a little closer than a ΒΌ wave whip.) Owen
