I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen <[email protected]> wrote (in
<[email protected]>) about 'What is wrong in
my 3 meters FAC measurement' on Sun, 21 Mar 2004:
>I hope I made clear that FAR and OATS measurements cannot be compared at
>all, but for strictly theoretical isotope receivers and transmitters
>that behave as single points.
I agree with the substance of your explanation, but I am puzzled by the
word 'isotope', which is undoubtedly not the intended word. I thought
about 'isotropic', but that is not usually applied to receivers
('omnidirectional'), and it isn't strictly necessary for the receiver to
be omnidirectional for the comparison to be computable: it only needs to
have a beamwidth great enough to accommodate the rather simple pattern
of emissions from the point-source transmitter and reflections from the
ground-plane. A cardioid directional response, for example, appears
satisfactory.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Ron Pickard: [email protected]
Dave Heald: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
