Supplemental Information

5695-EX-PL-1997 Text Documents

EMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

1999-08-02ELS_12575

PIPER & MARBUrRY t.L.m® . I 200 MNINETEENTH STREET, n.w. wWASHINGTON. D.C. 200306—24:30 202—m6 |—3SO0 Fax: 202—22:3—2 0005 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET To: Mr. William Jacobs Company:— EMS Technologies, Inc. Phone: Fax: 770—447—4387 From: Marni Shapiro Company : PIiPER 35. MARBURY L..L..F=. Phone: (202) 861—3987 Fax: (202) ?723—2085 Date: December 20, 1996 Pages Including this cover page: 3 Client/Matter Number 1—10 — 5746/mxs Comments: & Information contained in ln facsimile mensage is confidential and. if addresseod to our cllent or certain counsel, is subject to the attorney—client or work product privilege, and ts intencded only for the use of the individual or entity named above. iKf the reader of this message is not the intended reciplent, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dietribution or copying of this communication in strictly prohlibited. If you heve recelved this communication in error, please notify us Iimmediately by telephons, and return the orilginal message to us at the sbove addrese via the U. 8. Postal Service. TRANSMISSION REPORT _THIS DOCUMENT WAS CONFIRMED (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE — SEE DETAILS BELOW) * COUNT * TOTAL PAGES SCANNED 3 TOTAL PAGES CONFIRMED 3 Aoick SEND *k No. REMOTE STATION START TIME DURAT ION #PAGES MODE RESULTS 1 7704474397 |12—20—96 16 :41 1‘04" 3/ 3 COMPLETED 9600 TOTAL 0: 01 ‘04" 3 No.¢/ No.: QPERATION NUMBER 48 : 4800BPS SELECTED EC : ERROR CORRECT | G2 : G2 COMMUNICATION PD : POLLED BY REMOTE SF : STORE & FORWARD RI : RELAY INITIATE RS : RELAY STATION MB : SEND TO MAILBOX PG : POLLING A REMOTE MP : MULTI—POLLING RM _: RECEIVE TO MEMORY

PIPER & MARBURY L.LP. I 200 NINETEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036—2430 202—861—3900 FAx: 202—223—2085 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET To: Mr. William Jacobs Company: EMS Technologies, Inc. Phone: Fax: 770—447—4397 From: Marni Shapiro Company: PIPER &. MARBURY LLP. Phone: (202) 861—3987 Fax: (202) 223—2085 Date: December 20, 1996 Pages including this cover page: 3 Client/Matter Number 1—10 — 5746/mxs Comments: The information contained in this facsimile message is confidential and, if addressed to our client or certain counsel, is subject to the attorney—client or work product privilege, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U. S. Postal Service.

Marmni, Here are the answers to Doug‘s questions. Please do not hesitate to call me if further clarification or addition is necessary. 1 will also be glad to talk with Doug if either he or you so desire. I would like to get his response so we can be sure we are modifying the application properly. Question 1. Upon further review, it was determined that transmission at 1 watt should be sufficient. I have recalculated the link budgets and included them at the end of the fax. Hopefully. this eliminates the need to answer questions 2—7. I have included answers to the other questions in case it does not. If it does not, we will need some idea of what is an acceptable power level. Question 2. This question seems to be part of question 1. Ifit is not, I will need some clarification. 1 am not sure how beamwidth affects ERP in addition to or differently from the antenna gain. Question 3. The last sentence in exhibit 1 outlines our original procedure. Upon further review, we have determined that this procedure will only be useful for the Cell band (800—1000 MHz). We know the arithmetic for allocating the channels normally used in this band, so we can find frequencies where interference should not happen. The use of spread spectrum communications in the PCS band (1500—2000 MHz) places extreme limits on the effectiveness ofthis procedure in this band. . This procedure was intended for the 10 watt transmission power to ease concerns about interference. Other techniques we will employ to eliminate or reduce interference include limiting the dwell time at each frequency as discussed in exhibit 1 and reducing transmitting power to 1 watt. If this question goes away in the change to 1 watt, we would like to omit this. It might be a good idea to see how Doug feels about this omission for the 1 watt case. Question 4. This is the procedure in question 3. It is subject to the limits I discussed in question 3. 99/20‘d I6F0 892 OL4 *INIL ‘S319070NHOTL SW3 8T:8T L661T—60—NHC

Question 5. The diffraction fence reduces the transmitting antenna energy reflected from the parking lot. The diffraction fence is constructed from metal hardware cloth stretched over a metal frame. The hardware cloth is commonly available at hardware stores. It is 8.5 ft. high by 32 ft. wide. Question 6. I am not sure if he means the horizontal direction or horizontal polarization. The diffraction fence keeps energy (both horizontal and vertical polarizations) from radiating in the horizontal direction (i.e. across the ground in Exhibit 1, Fig. 1). It does not keep the horizontal polarization from radiating toward the antenna under test. Question 7. If this question does not go away with the 1 watt change, we will have to look in the FCC allocation table to determine this. From the information we already have, we do not think this will be a problem in the Cell and PCS bands. 9@£D‘d S6P0 BIE OLL "*INI ‘S319070NHDGL SW3 8T:81T L661T—60—NHULC

Attachment 3 Limk The power received a horn of tested on our 160) or at the of EMS is he en 1 the source a recieve antenna Power = EIRP/(4 0.8.1.6 Band Gain of Standard Power at amplifier= at 0.800 GHz R o 10 15.98986/dBm_ 0.017449|mWicm**2 160 —8.09254|dBm at 0.900 GHz Space Loss _ Recyv SGH | 10 u.l 412132 _ 17.51881}aBm mWicm**2 160 ~€85.2956 —6.56359|dBm mWicm**2 —74.838/4B —16.1 45.84|dBm . =_ 38.37072 .. Recv SGH 42.1283|dB 1 1 mWiem**2 —86.2107 /4B . 4 dBm 28| mWiem**2 —75.7532|dB —14, dBm lar Page 1 %0—/P0‘d I6P0 39£€ ALL ‘ONL ‘S31I9070NHOTL SW3 BT:8T £4661—60—NUC

Attachment 4 Range Link Budgeot | [ _ j [The power received by a standard gain horn of specified gam being tested — on our ran%e (R=160) ]orat the boundary of EMS property (R=480). | m | R is the separation distance between the source and a recieve antenna _ | I L. _ Power density = EIRP/(4*PI*R**2) ~—| s [1.4—1.7 GHz Band Gain of Standard Gain Hom (SGH) = 16.94|dBi for _1.4|Ghz __ ~ ues . 16.58 dBi for _ 1.55 |GHz 0___| 17.06|dBifor 1.7)GHz___|____ Power at amplifier= _ 1|wW = ..\ * —_30/dBm ~COCJ_ at 1.4 GHz EIRP= _ 45.04|dBm = 30.26449|w _ R _____|. . _|Space Loss _ [Power Reev by SGH |PowerDensity _ 10 ~4§5.0509|dB 16.8291}dBm 0.033633| mWiem**2 160 —69.1333|dB _ —7.2533|dEBm |0.000131)mW/om**2 480 —78.6757 |dB | 16.7957]dbm 1.46E—05)mWem**2) [at 1.55 GHz _ EIRP= 48.58] Bm = 45.49881|W R______ Space Loss Power Recy by SGH Power Dengity 10 45.935 |dB 17.22502|dBm 0.038973 mW/em**2 _ 160 —70.0174 dB —6.85738)}dBm 0.000152|mWi/cm**2 480| _ —79.5598/dB —18.3998|dBm 1.69E—08)mWioem*2 at1.Yonz) _____"~~(EIRP=__| _47.08/d&m—_|@ 50.69007 W AR_ SpaceLoss Power Recyby SGH Power Density 10 —46.7373 4B 17.36268 dBm 0.043427] mwicm**2 160| —70.8197 |dB —8.71072 abm 0.00017 mW/icm**2 480 —80.3621 |dB —16.2621|dBm "1.88E—06|mWiem**2 Page 2 9@~SP‘d S6PO 89£ diLL4 ‘ONI ‘S319070NHO3L SW3 6T:8T £4661T—60—NHLC

90°d MLOL Attachment 5 Link :power a standard gain hom ofsp gain being tested on our (R= or at the boundary of EMS property (R=480). | R isthe separation distance between the source and a recieve antenna _ 7—2.0 GHz Ba: Gain Ste | 14.48|dBi for _—. J 2 1811 62 28.05434| W Power [ 0.02403)mW/cm* mWicm**2 at 1.85 GHz ~ 45.11 .. R 102 5 Power ._ |Power 10 Lo & 12.74822‘ 027782\ mWicm**2 —11.3342 de 0.000108 C 1.21E—05 45.62|dBm = 7539 W Power Recy Power 13.09106 /d , 0.031 ~10.9913)¢ 0.0( —20.5338 : 1.36E Page 3 39—90‘d 36F0 89£ ALL *ONIL ‘S319070NHOFL SW34 6T:8T £4661—60—NYF


Document Created: 2001-08-20 09:34:16
Document Modified: 2001-08-20 09:34:16
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC