On Dec 14, 5:02*am, Registered User wrote:


When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.
Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase
"antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different
people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is
calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna
efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required.

Sure it does. Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way,
so there is no need to add extra "metadata".
Like one said, it's redundant. In the real world, most will
calculate the efficiency of the antenna system as a whole.
Not just the radiating element/s. Even a very small dipole
vs wavelength will radiate nearly all power that is applied to it.
The trick is actually getting the power to it without it turning to
heat.
So most will calculate the whole system, otherwise it's
fairly pointless. But the efficiency of even a whole system is
still calculated the same way, and no extra "metadata" is
required to calculate. It's still the ratio between the output of the
transmitter, vs the RF actually radiated. It's been that way
since they invented dirt, so who needs metadata? I sure don't.

I'm starting to think it must be a full moon...
It's been getting pretty silly around here lately.. :/