2.4Ghz antennas work with 802.11a 5.8Ghz signal?

Given the wavelength is x2, are antennas compatible?

thanks

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
Stephen Gutknecht RoundSparrow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:Given the wavelength is x2, are antennas compatible?

twice 2.4 GHz is 4.8 Ghz, not 5.8 GHz.
--
"Meme" is self-referential; memes exist if and only if the "meme" meme
exists. "Meme" is thus logically a meta-meme; but until the existance
of meta-memes is more widely recognized, "meta-meme" is not a meme.
-- A Child's Garden Of Memes

"Stephen Gutknecht RoundSparrow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Given the wavelength is x2, are antennas compatible?
>
> thanks

Yes and No. At short ranges, I think the the antenna for one freq would
work OK with the other freq, but in theory, you will have poor efficiency,
and will most likely not get optimum range. I know that's not a very
scientific answer. Some of the antenna theory gurus here can certainly do
better. In any event, why not just use the correct wavelength antennas?
It's not like they cost that much, unless you want high gain antennas and
long distance performance, in which case, it makes no sense to use anything
but the correct antenna.

Steve H.

Yes and surley we should say it is a division of the wave. Less than alf as
big???

"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bqj9gb$74n$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> Stephen Gutknecht RoundSparrow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :Given the wavelength is x2, are antennas compatible?
>
> twice 2.4 GHz is 4.8 Ghz, not 5.8 GHz.
> --
> "Meme" is self-referential; memes exist if and only if the "meme" meme
> exists. "Meme" is thus logically a meta-meme; but until the existance
> of meta-memes is more widely recognized, "meta-meme" is not a meme.
> -- A Child's Garden Of Memes

In article <bqkfo1$bhh$1$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Steven Chandler <(E-Mail Removed)> top-posted:

|"Walter Roberson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
|news:bqj9gb$74n$(E-Mail Removed)...
|> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
|> Stephen Gutknecht RoundSparrow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|> :Given the wavelength is x2, are antennas compatible?

|> twice 2.4 GHz is 4.8 Ghz, not 5.8 GHz.

|Yes and surley we should say it is a division of the wave. Less than alf as
|big???

By that logic, this small little paperclip I have here should make a
fine antenna over an enourmous frequency range.

The higher the frequency, the -shorter- the antenna you want. If
your antenna for a 2.4 GHz signal were used for the 5.725 to 5.825 GHz
range, and if the 2.4 GHz antenna is a quarter-wavelength antenna,
then the antenna would be about 20% too large for the best
half-wavelength antenna size. And that means you are going to get
phase cancellation Which Is Not Good.
--
Usenet is one of those "Good News/Bad News" comedy routines.