> There will always be sidle-lobes.

Right, and anybody who knows enough to ask you about sidelobes likely also knows enough to know that too.

That's why, if you reply that "there are no sidelobes" you're only harming your own credibility.

A good reply is something like "there are sidelobes, but they peak at -{believable number} dB and are contained to within {small area}. We believe this is more than sufficient to address sidelobe concerns because of {standards}".

That's a reply that earns trust.

You are right of course. Point taken. Thanks :)

Reads more like he doesn't want to tell you what he's doing with the sidelobes, in case you DO get it.

Whereas the question-train you're on is at a pretty interrogative clip ..

"I'm not disclosing basic performance metrics because you might reverse engineer my secret sauce from the basic performance metrics"? Really? Seems unlikely.

"I'm not gonna discuss the finer details with people on HN who are more than likely able to exploit the same discoveries if I share too much .."

Very feasible.

These aren't finer details, they're basic metrics.

Hypothesis A: they don't want to share basic performance metrics because they contain special secret sauce!

Hypothesis B: they don't want to share basic performance metrics because they suck.

We'll see!

A few comments above you said:

> There are no sidelobes