Bill Turner wrote:

SNIP

Not at all. They are arguments for using common language. Your attempt
to redefine antenna gain - a term in use for decades - clouds an issue
which is actually straightforward. Naughty boy!

--
Bill, W6WRT
QSLs via LoTW


Hold on Bill!! I posit a 6 element long john yagi in free space with
1500 watts at the feedpoint.

If I assume 100% efficiency, no losses in the antenna and antenna
materials, and then calculate the power in the surface of the resulting
pattern do I not get 1500 watts?? That's 0 dB gain!!!

This is common language and correct Physics.

THE ANTENNA HAS NO GAIN !!!!!!!

Now, for the sake of accuracy the antenna PATTERN will have a different
pattern from a dipole or an isotropic antenna. The antenna pattern
yields a field intensity that is greater than the reference antenna's
pattern.

So, the correct gain terminology must speak in terms of resulting
PATTERN not the antenna.

'Antenna gain' is both loose and incorrect language notwithstanding
advertising and marketing claims. 'Antenna Pattern Gain' or 'Directional
Gain' is correct language.