Hi Paolo, I am interested in this topic, but don't have much available time to participate the discussion. You mentioned the far-field in item 3 of your message below. You might be interested in an article "The Fer-Field: How Far is Far Enough?" http://www.noblepub.com/archives2/1999/November1999/nov1999-p58.pdf That would support what you said: "you can be in the near field even at 3+ meters distance."
Thank you. Best Regards and nice weekend, Barry Ma [email protected] ------------- On Fri, 17 March 2000, [email protected] wrote: > 3." There are substantial difference in the antenna factors (and site > attenuation) values at various range distances." > I agree that it's always better to calibrate antennas at the test distance. On > the other end, within the range of 3-10 m distance my experience with > broadband > antennas (biconicals and log-periodic) between 30 and 1000 MHz tells me that > the > error is well within 1 dB, as long as you are in the far-field at 3 m (which > is > the case most of the times using biconicals). I have not direct experience but > my guess is that you may have non-negligible errors for distances < 3m and/or > highly directional antennas (horns & freq.> 1GHz), whereby you can be in the > near field even at 3+ meters distance. ____________________________________________________________________ For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
