Hi John, Thanks, not sure this post deserved to be called spam, lol. Ironically, the list server rejected Derek@lfresearch, because I registered so long ago with my aol address. These days aol.com <http://aol.com/> is automatically assumed to be spam. Oh well.
So, to your point, Frankonia ( I believe ) make a chamber with a Gambrel roof. They claim it’s better than the usual rectangular box, but I haven’t seen the data. On my travels I have seen coffin shaped chambers too, they met NSA so that was as deep as I looked. I wish we could just agree to use reverb chambers. Cheers, Derek. > On Oct 9, 2024, at 3:17 PM, John Woodgate <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reply to Derek @ LF Research, because his post is labelled as SPAM. > > Yes, adding OATS is always healthy.😉 > > Is there an accepted explanation for the '3 m excess'? The published results > are consistent with the field being diffuse (that term is from acoustics: I'm > not sure how widely it's used in EMC circles), i.e the resultant of a large > number of direct, reflected and diffracted rays. It is hardly surprising: a > cuboid space is 'ideal' for producing a diffuse field above 'eigentone' > wavelengths. This might create at least a 3 dB increase over 'inverse square' > and maybe more. I suppose things get complicated at wavelengths that cannot > be called 'short'. > > Has anyone tried a spherical chamber? If that's too difficult, a 'quartic > sphere [(x,y,z)^4 = r^4, like a Swedish traffic circle] has noticeably > rounded corners and edges, so might be close enough for a useful improvement. > > > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only > Best Wishes > John Woodgate > Keep trying > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free.www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > <x-msg://4/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> > Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> > List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Mike Sherman at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Rick Linford at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher at: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: > https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: [email protected] Rick Linford at: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> _________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
