In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:
hath wroth:
John Navas wrote:
No radio engineer would agree.
I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I
agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz.
That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer
and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between
1.9 GHz and 3 GHz.
Baloney. See:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf
Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount
of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar,
military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and
others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services.
What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different
in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head?
There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's
plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by
trying to trivialize your mistake.
I agree there is a lot of stuff allocated between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz,
but FCC regulations wasn't the point.
Lemme try again.
Put up two transmitters with everything identical in terms of lambda,
one on 1.9 GHz, one on 3 GHz.
Run around all you want with a field strength meter.
There isn't going to be spit worth of difference.
Antenna sizes? A matter of millimeters.
Equipment construction techniques, part availability, etc? Negligable
differences.
There isn't much difference between 2 GHz radio and 3 GHz radio.
Do the above with 800 MHz and 3 GHz. Now you start seeing some
differences.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.