Good comment, Ed. We all depend on our reputations as competent technical
people that we can deliver the best product or service reasonable. Proper or
deficient equipment can make or break (respectively) the quality of our
well-intended work. Hence, knowledge of any weaknesses in a particular pi
Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic
--
From: ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON
Cc: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 1997 12:32PM
--- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:12:00 -0400
x.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/S
--- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:12:00 -0400 "UMBDENSTOCK, DON"
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
The common bicon balun (the traditional long-neck variety) may explain the
differences encountered between V & H. If my feeble memory is correct, the
balun is only marginally "balanced". Consequently, it could be sensitive
to cable length and routing. (An easy test for imbalance would be to sl
minor variations with polarizations and geometries" where
geometries is understood to mean test distances.
Don Umbdenstock
Sensormatic
--
From: chasgra...@aol.com
To: 72146@compuserve.com; chris_dup...@compuserve.com;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenu
***MESSAGE #2***
Ignore first message!!
***
This has turned into an interesting discussion.
1. On the question of Class A vs Class B etc.. I vaguely remember that the
genesis of the FCC
This has turned into an interesting discussion.
1. On the question of Class A vs Class B etc.. I vaguely remember that the
genesis of the FCC limits for Class A & Class B were indeed derived from the
concerns of installation. As I recall, extensive research went into
examination of the sensitiviti
: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
> From: Cortland Richmond <72146@compuserve.com>
> To: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" ; ieee pstc
list
> Subject: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
> Date: Monday, August
es
Subj: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
Hi Cortland.
You asked:
<(As an aside, can anyone here say if the COmmission has ever specifically ruled
on how far away from residences Class A equipment must be kept? >
I
> From: Cortland Richmond <72146@compuserve.com>
> To: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" ; ieee pstc
list
> Subject: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
> Date: Monday, August 25, 1997 11:19 AM
>
> If it's mutual coupling... sure. But if it's a surface
Hi Cortland.
You asked:
<(As an aside, can anyone here say if the COmmission has ever specifically
ruled
on how far away from residences Class A equipment must be kept? >
In my meanderings around the Compliance Biosphere, I've spoken to many
enforcement people, competent bodies, even Government
.@louisville.stortek.com
Subj: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
Hi,
Yes I attended that presentation.
In ANSI C63.4 Methods for SA there is a "fudge factor" for taking out
the mutual coupling between antennas for 3
l:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
>--
>From: Cortland Richmond[SMTP:72146@compuserve.com]
>Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:53 PM
>To:Thomas Donnelly; ieee pstc list
>Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
>
>Tom,
>
>Did you get to the
14 matches
Mail list logo
