This message concerns an antenna used for EMC measurements but I am
sure you will be able to reply.

We are setting up an EMC testing laboratory, one of the (very
impressive!) antennas that will be used is a "Stacked
Logarithmic-Periodic Test-Antenna", the details of which are in
http://www.schwarzbeck.de/k9128e.pdf.

The antenna has been assembled, but the elements were not placed as in
the photo (see pdf). Let me try to explain:

The elements were not placed diagonally opposite, as I imagine is
required. (If the uppermost longest element is on the right, the next
lower longest element should be on the left, as far as I can
understand.)

I imagine that this will affect the directional 'balance' of the
antenna, although I have no prior knowledge of EMC testing, just a
basic understanding of antenna theory.

+
|
| +
| |
| | + Top "layer" of antenna shown.
| | | next "layer" should be mirror image...
| | | + (or should it?)
| | | |
.+-----+-----+-----+----.
'---+-----+-----+-----+-'
| | | +
| | |
| | +
| |
| +
|
+

created by Andy´s ASCII-Circuit v1.23.080803 Beta www.tech-chat.de

On 20 Aug 2003 05:27:15 -0700, (Abdullah Eyles)
wrote:

The antenna has been assembled, but the elements were not placed as in
the photo (see pdf). Let me try to explain:

The short answer: start over and do it right.

The elements were not placed diagonally opposite, as I imagine is
required. (If the uppermost longest element is on the right, the next
lower longest element should be on the left, as far as I can
understand.)

Description is vague at best. You are starting off with a presumption
that may be faulty as you infer.


I imagine that this will affect the directional 'balance' of the
antenna, although I have no prior knowledge of EMC testing, just a
basic understanding of antenna theory.

Guessing aside, and taking a clue from this "diagonally" expression, I
would offer that you look at the antenna from above as you attempted
in your picture and see if it looks like:


+
|
| +
| |
| | +
| | |
| | | +
| | | |
.---+-----+-----+-----+----. two rails, one hidden by top
| | | |
| | | +
| | |
| | +
| |
| +
|
+

And confirm that each element, in order on one side, alternates
between the two rails that hold them. This is equivalent to:

+ element 4-B
|
| + element 3-A
| |
| | + element 2-B
| | |
| | | + element 1-A
| | | |
.---O-----+-----O-----+----. rail A
.---O-----+-----O-----+----. rail B
| | | |
| | | + element 1-B
| | |
| | + element 2-A
| |
| + element 3-B
|
+ element 4-A

Where the connections of elements denoted by "O" pass to the OTHER
rail. Both sides (common elements of any dipole pair) swap at each
step down the progression.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Don't you consider it a little frightening that this is a guy setting up a
lab to do EMC measurements, probably for EU certification, and asks a
question like this?

--
Crazy George
Remove NO and SPAM from return address

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:46:21 -0500, "Crazy George"
wrote:

Richard:

Don't you consider it a little frightening that this is a guy setting up a
lab to do EMC measurements, probably for EU certification, and asks a
question like this?

Hi George,

Dunno, a lot of the recent postings seem just as off kilter. Maybe
it's the proximity of Mars.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The short answer: start over and do it right.
Yes! I agree!

Guessing aside, and taking a clue from this "diagonally" expression, I
would offer that you look at the antenna from above as you attempted
in your picture and see if it looks like:


+
|
| +
| |
| | +
| | |
| | | +
| | | |
.---+-----+-----+-----+----. two rails, one hidden by top
| | | |
| | | +
| | |
| | +
| |
| +
|
+

And confirm that each element, in order on one side, alternates
between the two rails that hold them.

This is what I think, but how can I explain to our managers, who got
the lab set up by a contractor, that they (the 'experts') assembled
the antenna wrongly? what are the possible effects on the measurements
to be made?

As you may have seen in the pdf, the antenna consists of four beams,
in two pairs, meeting at the front (feed point?)

All the longest dipoles are on the right-hand side!

On 21 Aug 2003 00:37:42 -0700, (Abdullah Eyles)
wrote:


This is what I think, but how can I explain to our managers, who got
the lab set up by a contractor, that they (the 'experts') assembled
the antenna wrongly? what are the possible effects on the measurements
to be made?


Hi Abdullah,

Ask them for a refund, and drop them from your vendors list.

What effect did it have? Sorry to say this, but it sounds like you
are going to spend far more money doing it yourself than if you had
simply farmed out the job to a real lab that was registered with the
FCC.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 21 Aug 2003 22:50:17 -0700, (Abdullah Eyles)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in message . ..

Ask them for a refund, and drop them from your vendors list.

What effect did it have? Sorry to say this, but it sounds like you
are going to spend far more money doing it yourself than if you had
simply farmed out the job to a real lab that was registered with the
FCC.


Our company is *setting up* a lab that will provide an EMC testing
service for other companies. We are in Turkey, so I don't think FCC
covers here... (and it's not as easy as "drop them from your vendor
list", there aren't that many companies or specialists that we can
"pick and choose")

Someone, I am sure, would deliver equal performance for less. How
much did the right answer cost here?


I wish someone would answer the question "what would the effect of
this mistake be?" If there is no effect, then I'm wasting my (and
your) time... Thanks!

Hi Abdullah,

That's about the gist of it. Yes, you are wasting your time trying to
obtain that specific answer. For one, you haven't really offered any
data. What is there to answer for? A general yes or no would be
useless as a response.

You have no FCC. A point well taken. But you do have a Standards
Laboratory in Turkey. Consult:
Dr. Huseyin Ugur, Director of National Metrology Institute,
Kocaeli, Turkey
P.O. Box 21 41470 Gebze-Kocaeli Phone: +90 262 643 6093

I am sure they have a list of qualified vendors, and labs performing
your sort of work.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Abdullah Eyles wrote:
"What would the effect of this mistake be?"

Detrimental. There is no way the antenna can perform as expected if the
elements are different and misplaced. So, you should demand as-built be
as-designed. Then, if it doesn`t perform, take it up with the supplier
and designer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Abdullah:

I appreciate that you are not an EMC expert, nor a top expert in antennas.
However, I would expect anyone with a basic electrical engineering,
electronics, or physics education to recognize the following: The antenna
is not assembled according to any known design. Thus, it will not exhibit
performance necessary to conduct and document traceable measurements.
Neither the forward gain nor the shape of the pattern is known to the
necessary accuracy. Characterizing what amounts to a random collection of
metal will be more expensive and time consuming than to simply discard the
incorrect antenna and purchase one which is correctly assembled. Will your
lab be required to pass an inspection by a National Agency before your
measurements will be accepted? With the antenna assembled as you describe,
it will not pass inspection.

All of the above comments are based on information which should be available
to and known by an undergraduate engineer in any of the several disciplines,
and that is the reason for my original comment.

--
Crazy George
Remove NO and SPAM from return address
"Abdullah Eyles" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote in message
. ..

Ask them for a refund, and drop them from your vendors list.

What effect did it have? Sorry to say this, but it sounds like you
are going to spend far more money doing it yourself than if you had
simply farmed out the job to a real lab that was registered with the
FCC.


Our company is *setting up* a lab that will provide an EMC testing
service for other companies. We are in Turkey, so I don't think FCC
covers here... (and it's not as easy as "drop them from your vendor
list", there aren't that many companies or specialists that we can
"pick and choose")

I wish someone would answer the question "what would the effect of
this mistake be?" If there is no effect, then I'm wasting my (and
your) time... Thanks!

(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Abdullah Eyles wrote:
"The antenna has been assembled, but the elements were not placed as in
the photo (see pdf."

I can`t see a pdf, but from the ASCII diagram, the antenna is similar to
log periodic antennas Kraus shous in "Antennas", 3rd edition, on page
397. Borrow a copy and read all about it.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hmm...
If the instruction stated that they shoul;d be assembled
"diagonaly" opposite as opposed to "directly" opposite
I would surmise that they are assembled correctly.
Actualy I see nothing wrong with such an assembly and in
fact have seen a military configuration such as this
where two such antennas were used in V shaped form
where the narrow ends were placed together and enclosing
an approx 30 degree angle, all elements being horizontal.
Art