Ed brings up a good point. This forum is designed to allow communications between EMC and Product Safety professionals who are looking to help each other in the interest of the advancement of the compliance industry. If there is a certain test house or equipment manufacturer that provides inadequite services or products, why shouldn't that be disclosed on this forum? Why would anyone want me to find out on my own that a certain manufacturer has probelms with Biconical Antennas? It seems to me that an open channel of communication would help convince the manufacturers or service providers in the industry who are lacking to shape up. Is it simply an issue of fear of litigation?
Regards, Randy Flinders EMC Test Engineer Emulex Network Systems Corporation Phone: (714) 513-8012 Fax: (714) 513-8265 E-Mail: r_flind...@emulex.com WebSite: www.emulex.com * opinions expressed herein are personal, and in no way reflect the position of Emulex Corporation. ---------- From: ed.price[SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 8:32 AM To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON Cc: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation ---------------------------------------------------- --- 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 --------------------------
