Ken Javor wrote >> The only practical solution is to use a probe that looks like the one the victim of rfi is going to be using, connected to a receiver of equal to or greater sensitivity than the victim, and similar bandwidth, and verify that the level of rfi at a particular separation is sufficiently low as to not interfere with a predetermined level of broadcast reception. And the measurement is made in such a way as to maximize emissions, in the traditional manner.
And you cannot of course extrapolate the near field from the far field; not that anyone is trying. << Yes, my rant does fall into the realm of "significant oversimplification" (grin). In _practice_, as you say, using a transducer similar to the expected victims', we end up with a useful number. It's not what the label says it is, but it'll do. (I eat no-fat cheese food, too.) Near field/far field extrapolation is useful when there's too little room to get into the far field of high-gain antennas; I've seen papers in the APS journal on this. Antenna designers do start knowing a lot about their radiating structures. Should we know more about our EUT's considered as antennas? Cortland Richmond KA5S This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 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: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
