toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
It's a pyramid on its side and it fits in an ordinary lab.
Sorry, we're getting OT.
On 26 October 2019 at 12:38 Tom Crosbie G6PZZ <tom@...> wrote:
What is that pyramid shaped cell called? Fylingdales? 😊 Sorry to invade the interesting science. I’ve been in Icom’s as a visitor but never understood much about what I was told. Learning more now! Thanks
From: CrossCountryWireless@groups.io <CrossCountryWireless@groups.io> On Behalf Of David Cutter via Groups.Io
Sent: 26 October 2019 11:32
To: CrossCountryWireless@groups.io; Tim Hague M0AFJ via Groups.Io <m0afj@...>
Subject: Re: [CrossCountryWireless] Loop Antenna
Thanks, Tim, I see that emc science is constantly on the move. I remember the 461 standards.
What is that pyramid shaped cell called? That seemed to make it easier for some in-house testing.
On 26 October 2019 at 11:06 "Tim Hague M0AFJ via Groups.Io" <m0afj@...> wrote:
These days Radiated Susceptibility tests are carried out in a predefined area with a field uniformity of -0 /+6db in a 1.5 x 1.5M flat plane, see EN-ISO 61000-4-3 for more info. The old 801-3 standard called up the method you mentioned (closed loop) but really didn’t take into account field uniformity in the chamber.
Military standards (DO160/MIL STD 461 and DEF STD 461 do vary with a lot more testing being carried out at sub assembly level using Bulk Current Injection as the field levels called up in the standards are almost impossible to achieve using RI.
On 26 Oct 2019, at 09:50, David Cutter via Groups.Io <d.cutter@...> wrote:
Adding to your note. I did some work on systems using anechoic chambers for military gear years ago and I tried to get some correlation outside the lab, ie in the real world. It was simply impossible, though I'd hired very expensive, calibrated kit and took as much care as I could. I concluded that chamber measurements were strictly for those (eg military contracts, etc) that could afford it and not for the likes of us mere mortals. For instance - safe operating distance: do the calculation but don't bother trying to measure it in the real world, you could be out by 10dB up or down due to all the reflections/absorption.
Chamber measurements are done with a sensor located at the unit under test and this sends back a signal to the power amplifier so the UUT gets the specified dose. You then rotate the UUT to another face and put the sensor nearby and so on to get the best radiation on each face. Testing small equipment is one thing but when it is a vehicle, like a truck or a tank or a police car, just imagine the task of where to put the sensor and the size of the chamber. When I worked on ships I abandoned measurements and went with "can you hear me now?"
Antenna factor vs frequency: The amplifier performance is only a small part of the antenna factor. The diameter, thickness, material and shape of the loop used with the amplifier will have a far greater effect on the antenna factor. If someone wants to use the Loop Antenna Amplifier as part of an EMC test setup then they would have to have it calibrated with their own loop to generate the antenna factor. It's not something I intend to do. Antenna factor calibration in a RF anechoic chamber is an excellent way to waste money! I still have a specially calibrated antenna for 3G testing that I was forced to buy for some RF survey work 20 years ago. It cost £750 ($960) back then. As soon as it was taken out of the anechoic chamber and used in the real world the antenna pattern changed due to the reflections around it but the customer wanted to see the calibration certificate! Obviously the price was added to the cost of the job.