When an engineer was conducting an on-site survey at a shopping mall, he found that a wall was covered with film. Therefore, the engineer could not estimate the attenuation according to common…

Question

Options

• ATrue
• BFalse

• A
  85% (23)
• B
  15% (4)

Explanation

A is correct because when a wall has an unknown or non-standard covering (like a film or reflective material), the engineer cannot rely on standard attenuation tables or typical wall-type assumptions. The obstacle attenuation test method involves performing an actual RF signal measurement through the obstacle to determine its real-world attenuation value - this is precisely the protocol designed for such unpredictable or uncommon materials.

B is incorrect because dismissing the need for on-site testing in this scenario would lead to inaccurate coverage predictions. Guessing or using generic values for a non-standard wall covering is unreliable and goes against proper site survey methodology.

Memory tip: Think of the rule "when in doubt, test it out." Any time a physical obstacle doesn't match a known material type (concrete, drywall, glass, etc.), the engineer must measure rather than assume - the obstacle attenuation test method exists exactly for these edge cases.

No community discussion yet for this question.