--- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:12:00 -0400 "UMBDENSTOCK, DON"
<umbdenst...@sensormatic.com> wrote:
>
> Great dialog, just the path that I was hoping would develop.
>
> One thing I have learned since the question was first asked, all
> biconical antennas are not made equal. The original antenna calibrated
> at an outside test organization, exhibited a 5 dB difference between the
> vertical and horizontal polarizations at 3 meters in the frequency range
> of 30 - 50 MHz.
>
> Another antenna subsequently calibrated at the same organization had
> less than 1 dB difference between v and h, 1m and 10 m. This outcome
> was more in line with the expected outcome of the calibration per C63.5
> which stated "minor variations with polarizations and geometries" where
> geometries is understood to mean test distances.
>
> Don Umbdenstock
> Sensormatic
---------------End of Original Message-----------------
Don:
Not meaning to single you out, but your post tweaked a concern of mine.
Are we all operating in a sense of fear in this forum? Do we really
have to obfuscate the facts by referring to an "original antenna" and "another
antenna"?
Or am I the only one who would like to know exactly which antenna and
test lab that you're talking about?
Ed
--------------------------
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA. USA
619-505-2780
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 08/26/97
Time: 08:32:35
--------------------------
