I have a little different experience than the other respondents to date, who pretty much said no extrapolation is possible from one band to another.
My experience and analytical training tell me that if field intensity and modulation are held constant, then above 1 GHz coupling to wires running between equipments will decrease with increasing frequency. If the circuitry interfacing the equipments is slow with respect to 1 GHz, and it passed below 1 GHz, I would also expect it to pass above 1 GHz. If however the modulation scheme changes or the wires picking up the rf energy are electrically short just below 1 GHz, then the immunity could decrease with increasing frequency. A final consideration is how rf tight the equipment enclosure is. A rule of thumb of rf enclosure design is that slots and apertures should be held to a tenth wavelength long for good EMI performance. At 1 GHz, a tenth wavelength is 3 cm. It is likely that as frequency increases above 1 GHz that imperfections in equipment enclosure homogeneity will impact shielding effectiveness. Ken Javor on 1/10/02 6:06 AM, am...@westin-emission.no at am...@westin-emission.no wrote: > > RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU > for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz > band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) > > We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the > EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never > managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). > > What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT > fail? > > On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission > testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). > With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass > the immunity 1-2GHz test ? > The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that > this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience > with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach ..... so be > aware, this is just a question. > > Best regards > Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages > are imported into the new server. > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
