On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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".

Funny thing, when working parabolic antennas antenna efficiency and
aperture efficiency are used interchangeably.

Registered User wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:02Â*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".

Funny thing, when working parabolic antennas antenna efficiency and
aperture efficiency are used interchangeably.



Regisered User and some other guy arrive at a gas station at the same time.

Other guy: "Fill'er up."

Regisered User: "Remove the gas cap, that is the covering device on the gas
tank, that is the tank, which is an enclosure, which holds the gasoline for
this car, that is a private passenger vehicle, and dispense gasoline from
your pump, that is the mechanism that dispenses gasoline, into the tank,
that is the tank intended to hold gasoline, until the fluid, in this case
gasoline, level, which is the fluid air, which is 78.1% nitorgen, 20.9%
oxygen, 0.9% argon and less than .1% other trace gases, interface, which
forms because we are on a planet with positive gravity, reaches the top,
that is the uppper most part, of the gasoline tank which holds the gasoline."

This is followed by a 20 minute dissertation on which way to turn the gas
cap to get it on and off, an explanation of how the percentages of the
various gasses than make up air are measured, the origin and history of
the gallon, and the value of the dollar relative to a loaf of bread in 1937.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se. A definition
is provided for 'antenna efficiency of an aperture-type antenna' in
section 2.15 of the document. The definitions are in alphabetical
order so the definition describing the ratio of power radiated to
input power appears in section 2.308 which is titled 'radiation
efficiency' (notice the dimensional metadata).

These citations from IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas
clearly suggest claims of a universal formula and definition for
antenna efficiency are incorrect. Not everyone means the same although
they use the same name. This is why it is important to define or refer
to the definitions that are used.

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

The term is in common use and can by found in many textbooks on
electromagnetics in general and antennas in particular, several books by
the ARRL as well as on many technical web pages.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 15, 3:29*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

The term is in common use and can by found in many textbooks on
electromagnetics in general and antennas in particular, several books by
the ARRL as well as on many technical web pages.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

so what?

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:29Â*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

The term is in common use and can by found in many textbooks on
electromagnetics in general and antennas in particular, several books by
the ARRL as well as on many technical web pages.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

so what?

So the fact that a particular IEEE standard does not mention a term that
is in common use is irrelevant to the fact that the term is in common use.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?


Prognostication expressed as a blanket statement often fails to
consider possible/probable exceptions to the rule. When such blanket
statements are shown to be flawed the prognosticator starts
back-pedaling as to what was meant and should have been written.
Finally the prognosticator decides the blanket statement wasn't all
that important to begin with.

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

You took what may be a perfectly valid general rule, tried to convert
it to an absolute certainty, and failed. That's so what.

The term is in common use and can by found in many textbooks on
electromagnetics in general and antennas in particular, several books by
the ARRL as well as on many technical web pages.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:54:40 -0000, wrote:

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?


snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.


snip remaining long winded babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 15, 8:49*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. some of us help write and test those
standards. and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.

On Dec 15, 8:49*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:29:12 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:
The IEEE Standard Definitions Terms for Antennas (IEEE Std 145-1993)
provides no definition for 'antenna efficiency' per se.

So what?

snip babble

The post concerning "a unique and unambigous definition" which "can be
found in any textbook on electromagnetics" and subsequent
back-pedaling appears to fit that model. Your "So what?" provides the
meh.

Yeah, the "back-pedaling" which consisted of changing "any textbook" to
"many textbooks".

And nowhere did I reference any standard, IEEE, ISO, or any other standards
body.

well, maybe you should have... after all, some of us do use things
written by those bodies. some of us help write and test those
standards. and it sure would be nice if we could refer to a standard
way of describing antenna performance.