In message <de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d044b1...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com>, dated Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jim Eichner <jim.eich...@xantrex.com> writes:
>I always thought it was the job of the QP detector to ignore "brief >isolated high readings". No? Well, it does. But are those the same 'bihrs' that can be disregarded? I think not, in logic, because if the detector response means that you can't detect them, you can't disregard them! Anyway, CISPR 16-1-1 gives the 'charge time' for the QP receiver as 45 ms for the 9 kHz to 150 kHz band and 1 ms above 150 kHz. A pulse shorter than the charge time gives a lower, but not infinitely lower, indication of its level. There is a lot of data about this in the standard. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Things can always get better. But that's not the only option. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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: <dhe...@gmail.com>
