Muriel,

If an ambient (interfering) signal is strong enough, you will be unable to
make accurate readings of emissions on or near its frequency. "Subtracting"
the ambient's trace merely moves the place where it is displayed so that it
LOOKS like it's gone. It does not cancel out the received signal. The plot
looks better -- but you still can't measure near the ambient.

Another problem with strong ambients is, from my experience, that mixing
products inside your equipment may give rise to what look like product
emissions.  This is easily detected, but eliminating this problem calls for
a site (at least an area) specific _system_ design when setting up the
equipment site, and this is rarely, of ever done.  Determining if an
emission is "real" may be done by switching in an attenuator (perhaps 10
dB) and seeing if the "emission" being measured decreases by 10 dB; if it
is a product, it will go down by 20 or more dB and you can ignore it.
However, if it's strong enough to be a concern,it can cover up a real
emission.  If mixing products are a problem, it is sometimes possible to
eliminate them by filtering the input to reduce their sources.  A good
high-pass filter will work wonders above 120MHz or so if you are bothered
by strong FM broadcast signals.

(In order to make this a non-issue from the beginning,one must know what
the strong signals are before putting the system together, and insure that
the analyzer or receiver, preamplifier and antenna, and so on, are designed
and configured to be able to handle the strong ambients without overload or
mixing.  Although it is preached everywhere, a low-gain amplifier at the
antenna end of a site is a good way to begin,but rarely done.  Most folks,
it seems, opt for inexpensive coax and a high-gain, broadband preamplifier,
which invites such problems. However, that is properly another thread.)

To truly cancel out an ambient -- this, from an article that appeared long
ago -- one can set up an antenna some distance away, and combine its output
with that from the measurement site in such a way that the ambient -- but
not the emissions being measured -- are equal in amplitude and 180 degrees
out of phase.  This does work, and is used by the military and ham
operators. I began to build a setup of this type at my former employer, but
moved on before I got it done.  You may easily experiment with this by
using two antennas, connected by approximately equal length feedlines to a
"T" fitting at your analyzer input.  One is the normal measurement antenna;
the other is a similar antenna on a tripod, so it may be moved around.  By
moving the antenna and reorienting it, amplitude and phase may be adjusted
so that an ambient is cancelled. However, if the cancellation antenna is
reasonably close to the site, it affects accuracy of measurements. It
should be at least ten times further away from the EUT than the measurement
antenna. You can see that kind of experimental setup is impractical for
normal use!  A real cancellation controller would have phase and level
controls, probably pre-marked for particular sources at each site where one
was used.

Good hunting!

Cortland Richmond


====================== Original Message Follows ====================


Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote:

Hello all,

I'm doing my measurements of conducted emissions using a Spectrum
Analyser, but my site isn't shielded, i.e. some interferences ( radio
stations ) appear at the screen of the SA. So, i'm doing this: i record
the signal with the product tested at "off" and when i turn the product
"on", i subtract the signal of "on" minus the signal of "off". this
means that i subtract the "ambient noise" from the noise being generated
by the product itself.

What i really want to know is: is this procedure correct? am i doing a
nonsense thing?

---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Reply via email to