[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX
From: |
Marcus D. Leech |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:25:07 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 01/15/2010 12:39 PM, Matt Ettus wrote:
Yes, that one is actually designed by the same person as the one we
sell. We could carry it as well if there were enough demand.
Matt
Something I wonder about FR4-based patch antennae is the loss factor.
At the higher frequencies
(above 500Mhz or so) FR4 becomes quite lossy, and I wonder about
antenna structures
fabricated using it. Anyone have any good data on this?
Now, admittedly, I'm a weak-signals guy, and the loss for ordinary
communications applications
is negligible, I imagine. With the 15dB or better link margins in
comms applications, the additional
loss of a dB or two probably doesn't make that much difference.
- [Discuss-gnuradio] WBX, Matt Ettus, 2010/01/13
- Message not available
- Message not available
- [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Matt Ettus, 2010/01/13
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Veljko Pejovic, 2010/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Marcus D. Leech, 2010/01/14
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Matt Ettus, 2010/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Marcus D. Leech, 2010/01/15
- RE: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, John Ewan, 2010/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Mark Whittington, 2010/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Matt Ettus, 2010/01/15
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX,
Marcus D. Leech <=
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: WBX, Matt Ettus, 2010/01/15
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] WBX, adib_sairi, 2010/01/13
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] WBX, Firas Abbas, 2010/01/14
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] WBX, Piotr Swiatkiewicz, 2010/01/20