enarios or topics. All these contributions contain data on temporal and angular dispersion of mobile radio channels. The choice is made not to remove this data from the context in which it was gathered. That leads to an organisation of Time t (s) this section into subsections on comparisons of environ- Delay time T (ns) ments and frequency bands, respectively, on modelling- (a) Static environment. based characterisation, on characteristics of clusters, on x 105 diffusely scattered power, on presumed static environ- ments and on some special cases. Comparisons between mobile radio environments A number of COST 273 participants reported large to very large measurement campaigns that range over diverse propagation environments. This enables the study of the similarities and differences between environments. Time (s) Salous and Hinostroza conducted extensive measure- Delay time T (ns) ment campaigns in seven indoor and outdoor-to-indoor (b) Moving scatterers. environments in Manchester, UK, including a gymna- Figure 4.7-39 Time-variant impulse response at 1.8 GHz with sium, a laboratory, and floor-to-floor and building-to- antennas moving [KaFr01]. building links [SaHi03]. The measurements were done at 2.35 GHz in 300 MHz bandwidth with the pro- by furniture and laboratory equipment. For most of the prietary UMIST chirp sounder; overall dynamics were measurements, three persons acted as moving scatterers. stated to be better than 40 dB. From the measure- Systematic measurements at 1.8, 5.2 and 17.2 GHz ments, path loss, power delay profiles, delay spread, have been performed with a bandwidth of 600 MHz. The and coherence bandwidth were determined. The co- results from measurements have shown that, for the case herence bandwidth ranged from 20 to 250 MHz, the of moving antennas, there is a fundamentally different RMS delay spread from 25 to 150 ns for a maximum fading behaviour and also a fundamentally different excess delay of 800 ns. For rooms, halls, and floor-to- shape of the time-variant impulse response. This fu