CISPR 22 refers to CISPR 16-2 for the test method, so they should be identical.
Not sure where TDK gets the 30 cm limitation for floor mounted EUTs, but it may be their interpretation of the third paragraph of Section 8.2 of CISPR 16-1-4, Edition 2.0. No height scan, the antenna is positioned so that the EUT is in the beam width of the antenna. (CISPR) The FCC does not use the CISPR test methods. They use ANSI C63.4 which uses height scans for the receive antenna. Thus the major reason they do not accept the CISPR test methods. Ghery _____ From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:45 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Setup for Emissions Over 1GHz Ghery, How does the test method in CISPR 22 and the method in CISPR 16-2 differ or do they concur with one another? I was told by TDK that the floor absorber cannot be any taller than 30cm (12 inches) for testing emissions on floor mounted EUTs but the most common absorber for Immunity testing is 18 inches tall and sits on ferrite tile. ETS-Lindgren confirmed this and said that the 30cm absorber is designed to sit directly on the floor (not on the ferrite tile) so I would have to change the floor absorber between Immunity and Emissions. This is what I'm trying to avoid. If there is no height scan, at what height is the antenna set? In the recent posted FCC notice, they referred to a bore-sight mast. Why would they reference a bore-sight mast if the antenna height is not scanned? Is it just so you can point the antenna directly at the EUT but at one height? The picture is getting a little bit clearer. Thanks, The Other Brian _____ From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:00 PM To: Kunde, Brian; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Setup for Emissions Over 1GHz The Other Brian, CISPR 22, Edition 5.0, Amendment 1 was published in 2005. It added limits for radiated emissions from 1 GHz to 6 GHz, along with the test method. The test method differs from ANSI C63.4. No height scan of the antenna is performed unless the EUT is taller than the 3 dB beam width of the antenna. RF absorbers are placed on the floor between the antenna and the EUT. As long as the absorbers work over the entire 80 MHz to 6 GHz frequency range I would see no problem in using them for both emissions and immunity testing. Also, I personally don’t see a problem with their being installed when testing for the FCC above 1 GHz. ANSI C63.4 makes the statement that reflected emissions >from the floor will not be measured due to the beam width of horn antennas. We know this isn’t really true, but if the standard assumes you won’t see the reflected waves then suppressing them shouldn’t be an issue, now should it? :-) Ghery S. Pettit _____ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kunde, Brian Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Setup for Emissions Over 1GHz Group, In a large chamber, is emissions testing over 1GHz performed in a "Free Space" setup with absorbers on the floor or it is performed with a reflective floor as has been the method for FCC for years now? What is the current status in this regards? Has a set test setup been established? I am not an expert in CISPR22 or the latest CISPR16 standards. We exclusively use CISPR11 to test ISM equipment which currently state that "Limits are intended to be identical to the limits currently under Consideration for ITE above 1GHz". Are these limits still under consideration and does the test setup require absorbers on the floor? In other words, is emissions testing performed in a Semi-Anechoic Chamber (SAC) or a Fully-Anechoic Chamber (FAC) setup? If floor absorber is required for emissions above 1Ghz, can the same material be used for emissions AND immunity? If not, why? If so, what material do you recommend and where can I buy it? I need to order absorber material for immunity and I would prefer to use something I can also use for emissions if required. Thanks in advance for all replies and any other information that will help me understand the set setup requirements. The Other Brian _________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/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: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc _________________________ LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/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: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
