[mmaimcal] Re: [Almasci] Two antennas

[Bryan Butler]

if it really *is* only 0.3%, then the nearly obvious conclusion would be that 
the antenna-to-antenna variation will be almost that large anyway, so nothing 
need be done.  i don't think we can even measure the beam (polarized or not) to 
0.3% in any case.

i'd be surprised if it really *were* only 0.3%, though, theoretically or in 
practice.  how much do we trust the beam simulation?  has anybody put it through 
GRASP yet?  if it's only 0.3% difference between the two designs, then this 
means that the entire effect of the feed legs on the polarization beam is only 
0.3% (peak), and that the differences between the two designs have little to no 
area where they give opposite effects.  seems a bit small to me - if you 
simulate the polarization beam with and without the feed legs, you only get 0.3% 
difference?  and is that absolute or relative difference?

	-bryan


On 11/7/05 11:35, Richard Hills wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> It would certainly be good to get a definite statement from the software 
> IPT as to what is presently planned and budgeted in this area.  
> Meanwhile, could we go back to the original issue please, which was 
> whether anyone thinks that the 0.3% (peak) difference between the 
> patterns caused by the different blockage patterns requires that we 
> implement special data processing and/or makes a case for having the 
> legs rotated.
> 
> Best Richard