In this case there is a need to use PPPR for improved bandwidth performance.
2.1 and 2.3 were applied to each of the panels of the PPPR in 3.1 and 3.2 respectively below for the electrically smaller WSOA type aperture (f/D = 1, D = 2.145 m, f = 13.285 GHz) so that the computational effort is substantially reduced.
For the reflectarray thus designed, radiation patterns and gain were computed using the transmit mode analysis and the gain values for different feed location and polarizations are shown in Table 5 for the 5-panel PPPR. The gain values for hpol and vpol feeds at O are similar to those in Table 1.
In the case of a fully planar reflectarray the contribution from each panel is nearly in phase whereas in the case of the 5-panel PPPR, there is a significant phase difference and they don't completely add up.
For the WSOA type geometry it was found that the fully planar reflectarray and symmetric PPPR exhibited good scan performance whereas the tilted PPPR had poor scan performance.
The gain values computed for these two antennas shown in Table 8 for the five-panel PPPR are found to be slightly better than those in Tables 2 and 3, thus validating the design technique for PPPR for dual-beam dual-polarization application.
Re M (Unreported Christchurch Family Court, PPPR 009/1/00, 27 March 2001).
(35) Unreported Christchurch Family Court PPPR 19/00, 15 Nov 2000.
(36) Re MJM, unreported Christchurch Family Court PPPR 19/00, 15 Nov 2000, 5-6.
(46) Eg, Re Tindall  NZFLR 373; Hansen v Blaikie (Unreported Christchurch District Court, PPPR 28/97, 28 October 1997).