.2001emcmtl.org
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of rehel...@mmm.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 07:34
To: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration
At least
At least once a year. This is mandated by our accreditation (NVLAP). We
also have to
use a nationally accreditated calibration lab (we use Liberty Labs).
Bob Heller
3M Product Safety, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
I am not sure if anyone has already posted an answer to this question,
but we use NPL. The contact details are:
Mr M Alexander
Antenna Calibration Dept.
National Physical Laboratory
Queens Road
Teddington
Middlesex
TW11 0LW
Tel: 0181 943 7175
Fax: 0181 943 6458
I hope this is of use.
Regards
-
All
Thanks to all of you for the information. I have a lead to get a quote.
Regards
Dan
- This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To
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
.@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
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
> 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
the FCC) to the introduction into or near a residential
neighborhood of equipment only verified to meet Class A.
Cortland
== Original Message Follows
>> Date: 25-Aug-97 13:20:16 MsgID: 1054-3884 ToID: 72146,373
From: Chris Dupres chris_dupr
: 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
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
***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
18 matches
Mail list logo
