test with my Spectran HF-6080 from Aaronia

Hello,

Today I went to the National Spectrum Control Service (NCS) of the
Belgian Institute for Postal services and Telecommunications (BIPT)
in Brussels (the official service who performs the control measures
from GSM and UMTS base stations in Belgium), to do some first
comparative tests with my new Spectran HF-6080 Spectrum analyser and
HL-6080 log-per antenna. The language from the people there is
French, and my French is not that good ... but I managed to
understand some results.
I couldn't take notes at the moment itself (right after), the people
there were busy, we only performed some quick tests, so the tests
were not super accurate. Next time we might go in the field if there
is time, the people there had no problem with that if it is after
next month.

The first technical test problem: they didn't have a portable
Spectrum Analyser with log-per directional antenna or omni-isotropic
probe in the building at the moment (I expect, all in the field),
but they settled their big expensive Rohde & Schwarz FSH Spectrum
analyser on the table before a window.

Test 1.
We first tested the real GSM 900 and 1800 bands of antennas nearby
the building (measured from inside & couldn't see the GSM antennas
from there), in dBuV, with RBW and VBW at 100 kHz and sweeptime
10 ms.
First with my Spectran and HL-6080 antenna, and immediately after
this we switched the cable with the HL-6080 antenna to the R&S
analyser.
The difference between the analysers ranged from 2 to about 6 dBuV.
So we were quite happy with these results.
Additional note: after the test, I saw that I forget to settle
the "antenna type" in the menu of my Spectran. This was switched
back at "none", instead of "HL 6080" antenna, because of the
software update (beta 33)
that I performed last weekend. So I expect the results could have
been even better with that.
Of course, one needs to take into account the problem of measuring
from inside and reflections from buildings, and the important fact
that the measurement was not at the "same" time (but close) because
we had to switch the cable.

We also tried to switch a normal antenna (not omni-isotropic, not
directional) to the R&S, in comparison with Spectran and his HL
antenna. The difference was quite the same for that also.

Test 2.
To test the Spectran with a known frequency and radiation, they
switched the Spectran with the cable also to a generator. With the
generator, we made some radiation at certain vast frequencies (100
to 1800, 2000 MHz and a little above).
The difference of radiations from 36 dBuV (approx. 0,002 V/m) to
about 70 dBuV (approx. 0,3 V/m) was about 5-6 dBuV ("always" 5-6
higher on the Spectran), so a little bit more than expected but not
very bad.
Maybe there is an explanation for this, I don't know. I hope the
menu settings on the Spectran were good, as I don't have the
Spectran for a long time.
The difference in the higher radiation levels from around 70 dBuV
(approx. 0,3 V/m) to 100 dBuV (approx. 12 V/m)) was better (lower),
about 2-3 dBuV.
We had to perform these test quite fast, but the allround
impressions from the technicians there were not bad.

Note: When we closed the cable (50 Ohm), as expected, the Spectran
didn't detect signals in the normal GSM range (I forget to change
the span to complete for that).

So these are the first impressions.
In the near future, I will try to make some tests with other
portable analysers in the field, ans also for DECT if I can find
someone with a DECT telephone.

Best regards,

Joris Everaert
Biologist
Belgium

Thank you, Joris, for that info!
So, as I thought, Spectran is not perfect but it does more than it costs!
Although, the most problematic part are radars and possibly Dects as well,
that is what I suspect to be erroneus due to very short pulses... Also, what
should have been checked as well are very low signals and peak readings
(data hold regime, I don't know how they call it at Spectran, opposite of
averaging).

Drasko



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joris Everaert" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: [eSens] test with my Spectran HF-6080 from Aaronia

Good idea to do this. Maybe you approach the

http://www.verband-baubiologie.de/wir.htm

They did already tests with broadband indicators.

but this is in Germany.

Randolf Weinand


--- In [hidden email], "Joris Everaert" <joris.everaert@b...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Today I went to the National Spectrum Control Service (NCS) of the
> Belgian Institute for Postal services and Telecommunications (BIPT)
> in Brussels (the official service who performs the control measures
> from GSM and UMTS base stations in Belgium), to do some first
> comparative tests with my new Spectran HF-6080 Spectrum analyser
and

In the Oekotest forum I got the following reply
" Hello Joris,

nice to see your fine results.
For GSM you should allways use the hotkey settings for GSM900 and
GSM1800 (Key7 and 8 ) then you get even better results

If you want to measure a known frequency from a genarator allways
use RBW=3MHz, Sweeptime=0.1 and SPAN=20 then you get the best
results. Even better if you activate HOLD!!!

Compared with my FSH6 i get about +/- 1,5dB accuracy [with my
Spectran HF-6080]. Thats better then the expected +/- 3dB.
""
end message.
See http://www.oekotest.de/cgi/yabb/YaBB.cgi?
board=oet_freitech;action=display;num=1117446063;start=40


About radar question from Drasko,
Think I have no problem detecting Radar (RBW/VBW has to be good),
I have clear signals in for example the 2700 to 2900 MHz
and 5650 to 5850 MHz range. But I still have to do a test near
an airport or military installation. Will let you know.

One strange thing (to me) is that I get high levels in the
6-7 GHz range, 2-3 peaks of over 26 V/m. I don't know if this
is right (with RBW/VBW 1 MHz or smaller), but I need to do these
measures again as I did this only in a fast way.

Best regards,
Joris Everaert



--- In [hidden email], "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...> wrote:
> Thank you, Joris, for that info!
> So, as I thought, Spectran is not perfect but it does more than it
costs!
> Although, the most problematic part are radars and possibly Dects
as well,
> that is what I suspect to be erroneus due to very short pulses...
Also, what
> should have been checked as well are very low signals and peak
readings
> (data hold regime, I don't know how they call it at Spectran,
opposite of the
> > Belgian Institute for Postal services and Telecommunications
(BIPT)
> > in Brussels (the official service who performs the control
measures
> > from GSM and UMTS base stations in Belgium), to do some first
> > comparative tests with my new Spectran HF-6080 Spectrum analyser
and
> > HL-6080 log-per antenna. The language from the people there is
> > French, and my French is not that good ... but I managed to
> > understand some results.
> > I couldn't take notes at the moment itself (right after), the
people
> > there were busy, we only performed some quick tests, so the tests
> > were not super accurate. Next time we might go in the field if
there
> > is time, the people there had no problem with that if it is after
> > next month.
> >
> > The first technical test problem: they didn't have a portable
> > Spectrum Analyser with log-per directional antenna or omni-
isotropic
> > probe in the building at the moment (I expect, all in the field),
> > but they settled their big expensive Rohde & Schwarz FSH Spectrum
> > analyser on the table before a window.
> >
> > Test 1.
> > We first tested the real GSM 900 and 1800 bands of antennas
nearby
> > the building (measured from inside & couldn't see the GSM
antennas
> > from there), in dBuV, with RBW and VBW at 100 kHz and sweeptime
> > 10 ms.
> > First with my Spectran and HL-6080 antenna, and immediately after
> > this we switched the cable with the HL-6080 antenna to the R&S
> > analyser.
> > The difference between the analysers ranged from 2 to about 6
dBuV.
> > So we were quite happy with these results.
> > Additional note: after the test, I saw that I forget to settle
> > the "antenna type" in the menu of my Spectran. This was switched
> > back at "none", instead of "HL 6080" antenna, because of the
> > software update (beta 33)
> > that I performed last weekend. So I expect the results could have
> > been even better with that.
> > Of course, one needs to take into account the problem of
measuring
> > from inside and reflections from buildings, and the important
fact
> > that the measurement was not at the "same" time (but close)
because
> > we had to switch the cable.
> >
> > We also tried to switch a normal antenna (not omni-isotropic, not
> > directional) to the R&S, in comparison with Spectran and his HL
> > antenna. The difference was quite the same for that also.
> >
> > Test 2.
> > To test the Spectran with a known frequency and radiation, they
> > switched the Spectran with the cable also to a generator. With
the
> > generator, we made some radiation at certain vast frequencies
(100
> > to 1800, 2000 MHz and a little above).
> > The difference of radiations from 36 dBuV (approx. 0,002 V/m) to
> > about 70 dBuV (approx. 0,3 V/m) was about 5-6 dBuV ("always" 5-6
> > higher on the Spectran), so a little bit more than expected but
not
> > very bad.
> > Maybe there is an explanation for this, I don't know. I hope the
> > menu settings on the Spectran were good, as I don't have the
> > Spectran for a long time.
> > The difference in the higher radiation levels from around 70 dBuV
> > (approx. 0,3 V/m) to 100 dBuV (approx. 12 V/m)) was better
(lower),
> > about 2-3 dBuV.
> > We had to perform these test quite fast, but the allround
> > impressions from the technicians there were not bad.
> >
> > Note: When we closed the cable (50 Ohm), as expected, the
Spectran

guys,
I am thinking about moving into an apartment temporarily while we look
for a house. there is WiFi in the pool house which is about 50-75 feet
away. they said the WiFi will cover 300 feet. I can feel it in the
apartment though it is not as bad as what I have now and other
apartments.
Is WiFi easily shielded with Copper Paint? I am thinking of painting
that wall if it blocks that wavelength.
Andrew
On Sep 28, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Joris Everaert wrote:

Hello,


http://www.verband-baubiologie.de/wir.htm


on this site you find tests done by specialists with indicators.
They are able to do complete tests and publish them.
Would be good to get tests from such a source. Maybe you offer them
your device to do tests.
Wolfgang Maes supported one test with his journalistic work.
When priate persons publish tests you cannot be completely sure what it
is about.

When you offer them to do tests with your device maybe they do that.

--- In [hidden email], "randolf_everywhere"
<walkingthe@a...> wrote: <joris.everaert@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Today I went to the National Spectrum Control Service (NCS) of the
> > Belgian Institute for Postal services and Telecommunications (BIPT)
> > in Brussels (the official service who performs the control measures
> > from GSM and UMTS base stations in Belgium), to do some first
> > comparative tests with my new Spectran HF-6080 Spectrum
analyser isotropic
> > probe in the building at the moment (I expect, all in the field),
> > but they settled their big expensive Rohde & Schwarz FSH
Spectrum
> > analyser on the table before a window.
> >
> > Test 1.
> > We first tested the real GSM 900 and 1800 bands of antennas
nearby
> > the building (measured from inside & couldn't see the GSM
antennas
> > from there), in dBuV, with RBW and VBW at 100 kHz and
sweeptime
> > 10 ms.
> > First with my Spectran and HL-6080 antenna, and immediately after
> > this we switched the cable with the HL-6080 antenna to the R&S
> > analyser.
> > The difference between the analysers ranged from 2 to about 6
dBuV. because (100 (lower),
> > about 2-3 dBuV.
> > We had to perform these test quite fast, but the allround
> > impressions from the technicians there were not bad.
> >
> > Note: When we closed the cable (50 Ohm), as expected, the
Spectran