Leslie, Thanks for the valuable info. You mentioned two articles in EMC'99 Seattle Symposium Record. Actually, right before them on pp. 1-6 of Vol. 1 is "Reverberation Chamber Relationship: Corrections and Improvements" by John Ladbury and Galen Koepke, which won the award of the best Symposium technical paper at Seattle.
Barry Ma Morgan Hill, CA ---------- Original Text ---------- From: "Leslie Bai" <leslie_...@yahoo.com>, on 8/15/99 7:16 PM: I have studied Reverberation Chambers for some time, refer to recent EMC'99 Seattle Symposium Record Vol. 1, Page 7 to page 16. Measurement comparison will be published in the near future. Cost: RC is about 20 to 30% of an equivalent AC. Standards: There is a joint CISPR (emissions) and IEC (immunity) committee working to produce a common standard for RCs. Immunity standard can be found in IEC 61000-4-3, Anex I. I have no doubt there will eventually be an emissions standard which permits RC use. However, it is unlikely that an operative standard will be available in 2 years. Technology: RC uses statistical analysis to perform EMC measurement. It is realized by changing the boundary conditions using stirring paddle(s). However, the restriction of the Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF) may be a problem which is under study in the community. General comments: If you need to do emission and immunity certification testing in the near term, my recommendation would be for AC. It is the most expensive solution but it is acceptable today and if used properly (i.e., robust, many aspect angle tests) will provide detailed information on EUT characteristics. A RC will be a cost effective approach to a test facility for some test objectives (e.g., identifying emission frequencies very quickly and positively) and in the longer term will be the most cost effective. Rgds, Leslie --- Ray Levasseur <ray_levass...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Barry for the suggestion but I know nothing > about reverberation > chambers, possibly somone could comment on the > merits of RC over AC. > > Ray Levasseur > EMC Compliance > Creo Products > > > >From: <b...@anritsu.com> (Bailin Ma) > >Reply-To: <b...@anritsu.com> (Bailin Ma) > >To: <emc-p...@ieee.org> > >Subject: EMC test chamber -- Reverberation and > Others > >Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 9:13:21 PDT > > > > > >Ray, > > > >Did you consider using Reverberation Chamber (RC) > instead of semi-anechoic > >chamber for pre-compliance? > >It seems to me that RC technique has become > practically applicable for both > >emission and immunity tests. It's less expensive. > Official EMC standards > >would accept it in a couple of years. "IEC > 61000-4-21: Reverberation > >Chamber" > >is circulating for comments. > > > >I know little about RC and expect some > knowledgeable colleagues to make > >comments. > > > >Barry Ma > >Anritsu Company > > > >-----Original Message----- > > From: Ray Levasseur > [mailto:ray_levass...@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:44 PM > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Subject: Wanted:EMC test chamber > > > > Hi Group, > > I am setting up pre-compliance EMC testing at our > facility and need some > >equipment to complete my setup. I was planning on a > 3m shielded room with > >the > >possibility of making it semi-anechoic when the > budget allows. Our products > >are large (relative to normal ITE equipment) with > the largest that would be > >tested in the chamber 10ft wide X 6ft long X 3ft > high. I have most of the > >equipment I need to do the tests for EN 55022 and > EN 50082. I need a > >motorized antenna mast that goes from 1-4m and a > chamber. If anyone could > >direct me to a person or company selling the > chamber or antenna mast I > >would > >greatly appreciate it. Also I would like to get > some feedback on the > >Cassper > >virtual chamber and if anyone has used it or has > comments on the usability > >of such a system. > > > > Thanks, > > Ray Levasseur > > EMC Compliance, > > Creo Products > > > > > >--------- > >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, > >jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > administrators). > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at > http://www.hotmail.com > > --------- > 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, > jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or > roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list > administrators). > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com --------- 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). --------- 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
