LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old April 30th 05, 04:27 AM
Ed Price
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Frank" wrote in message
news:VPqbe.902$0X6.797@edtnps90...
Thanks again Ed. From everyone of your posts I learn something new.

The MIL-STD-461E requirement for absorbed is a 10 dB return loss at 250
MHz.


Assume you would test the chamber return loss with a tuned dipole having
free space return loss 10dB.


Again, the 250 MHz verification of return loss is measured with a horn
antenna, typically a double-ridged model like the ARA 2020 or the EMCO 3106.

A newer technique is to use ferrite tiles, especially on the floor. They
are less than a half-inch thick, and perform much better at low
frequencies. And the cost is about $100 / sq ft. I like to think of my
walls and ceiling as covered with $5 bills, and the floor carpeted with
$10's.

Your anechoic chamber is never really perfect; however, it becomes "good
enough" when you run out of money.


I have heard of the ferrite floor tiles, and are probably a much better
solution than inverted pyamids fitted into the floor mounted pyramids.


Before I installed the ferrite floor tiles, I had considerable problems with
resonances, starting around 7 MHz and continuing through about 150 MHz,
associated with the chamber XYZ dimensions. After the ferrite installation,
the resonances have nearly disappeared.


I did a lot of analysis to figure out what was required, but never got to
finish it, on account of being laid-off! Nobody ever seems to want to
spend the money to get it right.


You can write that on your chamber wall (but management will be ****ed).

OK, just for trivia's sake. If the antenna base was cylindrical, painted
grey crinkle, had a 6-position range switch and a brown bakelite top
insulator, it was an Empire VA-105.


Describes it perfectly

But, if it was almost a cube, painted battleship grey, had a black front
panel and an 8-position range switch, it was a Stoddart 92138-1 (that
number is a hazy memory). Both were passive antennas. The Empire was used
with the NF-105 receiver,


That was the one I used, now you mention it I remember the model number as
the NF-105



So you're older than dirt too? g


--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA


 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imax ground plane question Vinnie S. CB 151 April 15th 05 05:21 AM
Testing for gain/loss in an antenna Buck Antenna 7 February 8th 05 05:52 AM
Questions -?- Considering a 'small' Shortwave Listener's (SWLs) Antenna RHF Shortwave 1 January 24th 05 09:37 PM
The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} RHF Shortwave 23 November 3rd 04 01:38 PM
EH Antenna Revisited Walter Maxwell Antenna 47 January 16th 04 04:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017