RE: cost effective EMC facility
My lab is just 90Km from the world's largest salt mine (Cary Salt, Hutchinson Kansas, U.S.A.). The mine is 0.9Km underground. We send our records there for permanent archival. -I'll suggest this to my superiors as a possible OATS relocation site. [yeah, right!!] Imagine: negligible RF and acoustic ambients (other than your lab instruments and computers), constant temperature and humidity. Kyle - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
This goes back to the geek syndrome. That is: What did the circle say to the tangent line? Stop touching me! I think the salt mine was a tangent. -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 7:17 AM To: 'roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com'; Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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
Re: cost effective EMC facility
Matt, The salt mine is not so absurb, having visited it I can assure you it does exist. Also the company concerned only rent a small corner in what is a working salt mine, they have not bought the whole mine. To throw another thought in a different direction, another prosecution has taken place in the UK under the EMC Directive. Again a computer, however what has made this interesting is that two firms were have been prosecuted over the same product. Company A designed and built and were found guilty and fined. Company B rebadged it and sold it and were also found quilty and fined. So it would appear that other than the designer/manufacturer can be prosecuted. RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
There is a nice picture of the underground facility at http://www.celesticades.com/conformance/conformance.htm I have been told that it has the characteristics of an ambient-free OATS, but if you need to go back to your car to get a screwdriver, it can take some time. Regards, Geoff Lister From: Aschenberg, Mat matt.aschenb...@echostar.com To:'roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com' roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com, Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com Cc:'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com, 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:16:54 -0600 Reply-to: Aschenberg, Mat matt.aschenb...@echostar.com I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single
RE: cost effective EMC facility
So you are saying I should go into buisness, open a salt mine, and hey! I could make some side cash doing EMC testing Cool Any takers? I wonder is gold mines are good.. There are a lot of old abandoned gold mines in Colorado. :) Mat -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 10:26 AM To: Aschenberg, Mat; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility It could be very cost effective if EMC testing is a by-product of the salt mine :-). === Aschenberg, Mat matt.aschenb...@echostar.com on 08/05/99 08:16:54 AM Please respond to Aschenberg, Mat matt.aschenb...@echostar.com To: 'roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com' roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com cc: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
RE: cost effective EMC facility
The one I work in seems inexpensive enough Gary -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 6:17 AM To: 'roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com'; Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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). - This message is coming
RE: cost effective EMC facility
Matt: Agreed that digging your own hole in the ground is a tad costly for creating RF shielding. OTOH, when the salt is removed from a mine, they don't back-fill it to delete the insult to Mother Earth. So, as the miners extract their economic interest, they move on, leaving access and big, relatively useless holes. To paraphrase Dire Straits; Shielding for nothing and your holes for free. Obviously, a hole in the ground may yield shielding, but it's very echoic. It's a long correlation to OATS conditions. My flash on the subject had to do with the myriad problems we have with the darn ground plane. We want it big but cheap, highly conductive but exposed to the weather, made up of repairable (or replaceable) pieces but electrically smooth and flat. There's not much cheaper in this world than water and salt. Combined into a conductive fluid, gravity (and the fact that the Earth is flat) pulls the fluid into a nice flat, smooth surface. Maybe the conductivity of the near-saturated solution is good enough to use by itself. Or possibly the salt water could be used to flood the existing mesh or plate ground plane to just a half-inch or so, where it would function to smooth the surface roughness of the underlying conductive metal. (We might need to provide some type of active galvanic protection to prevent corrosion.) I don't have any current need to investigate this idea, as I'm primarily involved in Military related EMC. But the cost/benefits seem very interesting, and someone may be able to follow up on it. (I'm visualizing those big, shallow salt marshes at the south end of San Francisco Bay. Or maybe someone has a computer routine for investigating OATS performance.) Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [SMTP:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 6:17 AM To: 'roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com'; Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based
RE: cost effective EMC facility
I was under the impression that we were discussion the Cost-effective emc testing solutions, not the cost-absurd solutions. Maybe salt mines are going for a lot less these days. -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 2:28 AM To: Lacey,Scott Cc: 'Price, Ed'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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). - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
A very large EMC test site has been operating underground in England for some years. This is in Cheshire where salt is mined, leaving large underground open spaces surrounded by absorbing salt-laden walls. The reduction in ambient emissions is another benefit of this site. As an article in the UK EMC Journal reports (http://www.emc-journal.co.uk/archive1/980402.html) , it is now run by Celestica. Roger Viles WWG Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 04/08/99 16:37:09 Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
Ed, I find your idea of a salt water ground plane very intriguing. I imagine the salts used would involve more than just table salt, and the chemistry would have to be checked and adjusted regularly, similar to a swimming pool. The problem of stratification could easily be solved with circulator pumps, which would be turned off just prior to actual use (those of you near fault lines might take advantage of natural agitation, your salt water pools would be shaken, not stirred). : ) On a related note, does anyone have any experience doing EMC scans below ground? It seems that the earth would be about the lowest cost shielding material available. Perhaps an updated and enlarged version of the early pioneers soddie (sod hut) might be just the ticket. It might even incorporate a salt water ground plane. A side benefit would be that EMC engineers might gain some useful exercise by swimming a few laps at lunch time (how many laps around the turntable/raft equals one mile?). : ) Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, August 02, 1999 5:35 PM To: 'Arun Kaore'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
Arun: I was just struck by what you said about setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site . Has anyone ever set up an OATS using salt water as the ground plane? Talk about excellent surface smoothness, easy to level and cheap material, plus simple repair! (Uhh, could we say it fixes itself?) Just what conductivity would be enough? Could we get enough conductivity before we reach salt saturation? I suppose the upper limit on surface area would be when we get to the point of the wind causing surface ripples. Or gravitational tides. Turntables might be a lot cheaper, too. Just a thin raft that floats. Seriously, has anyone tried this for an OATS? (I seem to recall the US Navy had a really big ship simulator here in San Diego, where they placed scale models of ships on a sheet-steel sea in order to model HF wire antennas.) Regards, Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-): -):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Arun Kaore [SMTP:kao...@sg.adi-limited.com.au] Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999 6:05 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: FW: cost effective EMC facility IMHO, there is no cost effective EMC facility, but you don't have to spend all your bucks all in the one day. A sound and well managed EMC business growth program could see you through. Start off with pre compliance and eventually branch off into formal compliance (by drafting up a Quality System to ISO 25 or whatever, a few test procedures and a few Quality and third party Technical Audits) Buy a 2nd hand shielded room today with a view to lining it with ferrite tiles and/or RAM material such that you meet the Radiated Immunity 16 point check for immunity and alternative sites 3 m NSA for emissions. Initial RE prescans could be done here. Buy a 26 GHz cheap ($25000/-!!) analyser (without preselector) driven by software for now and then go for a $10/- preselectable receiver suitable for formal CISPR measurements and also MIL 462 related work. Start off with a chicken wire mesh car park OATS and improve later; not much hope in Singapore because of the ambients, but you could always go to Malaysia or setup a Sea Plane or a salt water based site (you will get very good NSA, probably won't need NSA). Lastly, performing ESD, EFT and Surge tests in a shielded room/ anechoic chamber will make you very popular among your colleagues because of the additional filtering within the shielded room. Regards Arun Kaore EMC Engineer ADI Limited Systems Group Test Evaluation Centre Forrester Road, St Marys NSW 2760 P O Box: 315, St Marys NSW 1790 Tel: 61 2 9673 8375 Fax: 61 2 9673 8321 Email: kao...@sg.adi-limited.com.au mailto:kao...@sg.adi-limited.com.au -Original Message- From: Qu Pingyu [SMTP:pin...@ime.org.sg] mailto:[SMTP:pin...@ime.org.sg] Sent: Friday, 30 July, 1999 18:38 To: 'emc' Subject: cost effective EMC facility Hello, everyone: I posted an question several weeks ago asking about GTEM. Thanks those who share with me your experience. I may not address my problem very clearly thus I would like to come back to you one more time. We are a R D orgnization in Singapore mainly dealing with semiconductor industry. Since there are some requirements from our industry partners in the area of EMC design, we are considering setting up some EMC measurement capabilities. At the intial stage, we will only consider equipment for radiated emission/susceptibility testing. Our objective is to evaluate the EMC performance of the product from our customers, being of PCB level or system level. Based on those results, we can help our customers to improve their product EMC design so that their product can pass the final compliance testing. The EUT could be small, such as integrated circuits on PCB, but it can also be large such as a PC. Due to our budget constraint, I think GTEM maybe a good choice. Do you guys agree ? If not, any other suggestions ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards Qu Pingyu - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org mailto:majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com , jim_bac...@monarch.com mailto:jim_bac...@monarch.com , ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com , or roger.volgst...@compaq.com mailto:roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This
RE: cost effective EMC facility
Please, Let me jump in. A Low Cost Pre-Compliance Test Area (LCPCTA) can give results almost as good as an Open Air Test Area (OATS) if you know three things 1.) The test area is free of metal and is large enough. 2.) The test area is STABLE, as in no metal moves, ground conditions do not change or are minimum, etc. 3.) How your test area compares with your commercial EMC lab. What I have done in the past is set up a test area in a warehouse (32x32 ft. with a 22 ft. high metal roof) purchased a battery powered comb generator that provided an output at 5 MHz. and every 5 MHz up to 1.5 GHz. Scanned the warehouse picking at least one frequency in each octave, like the site attenuation frequencies (80, 100, 200, etc.). Then sent the comb generator to a commercial EMC lab and have them scan the same frequencies. Now you have two sets of numbers, and from there you can determine have far off your test area is. You will need to rework the difference back into your correction factors for each lab you use. This is a simple explanation but it works and as long as there are no large changes in response at your site, you should be able to correlate. Also, use the EMC lab where you sent the comb generator for your testing. Using this method I was able to correlate with four commercial labs (OATS) and one Anechoic chamber to within 2 dB. P.S. My test area had No ground plane. I set up this pre-compliance lab for a large semiconductor company's remote design group and it is still in use today. Al Patrick, Sr. EMC Engineer - EMC lab Manager Scientific-Atlanta Inc. -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@packetengines.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 11:21 AM To: 'Green, Henry'; 'Qu Pingyu'; 'emc' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility TEM cells large enough for a very small computer are, I believe, available. I don't have the sales literature in front of me and I haven't seen it for awhile, but in my opinion you would be better served if you invest in pre-compliance equipment, a small ground screen etc, even with a less than ideal site. Both units will take time for you to learn how to interpret the data and how it compares with the OATS you'll eventually have to us. The TEM cell will required constant manipulation of the unit to expose the various fronts to the antenna. The pre-compliance equipment is going to have some problems because of ambient noises and lack of a proper environment, ground screen, full antenna mast height, etc. But I think you can get closer to the OATS with this equipment if you can control the electrical ambient at all, and you have considerably more flexibility at working on the EUT etc during this phase of testing. Either of these methods are only going to give you an A/B type test with just enough information to make a good educated guess as to when you are ready to go for a formal test, but having used both methods - the TEM cell much less - I'd much prefer the small parking lot type of pre-compliance system. That obviously is a personal opinion. Neither my wife or children listen to it so maybe you shouldn't either. Thanks Gary -Original Message- From: Green, Henry [SMTP:henry.gr...@gateway.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:08 AM To: 'Qu Pingyu'; 'emc' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility I do not believe that the GTEM is a suitable option for testing a PC due to the size limitations of the GTEM. The GTEM has, for lack of a better term, a sweet spot that the EUT has to occupy for optimum results. Although you might be able to place your EUT in the GTEM, it would not necessarily be confined to this sweet spot. This being the case, the repeatability, and accuracy of your measurements would be questionable. Another consideration is the requirement that you have correlation to an OATS. Just my 2-cents worth. Henry E. Green Gateway Regulatory Compliance -Original Message- From: Qu Pingyu [mailto:pin...@ime.org.sg] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 3:38 AM To: 'emc' Subject:cost effective EMC facility Hello, everyone: I posted an question several weeks ago asking about GTEM. Thanks those who share with me your experience. I may not address my problem very clearly thus I would like to come back to you one more time. We are a R D orgnization in Singapore mainly dealing with semiconductor industry. Since there are some requirements from our industry partners in the area of EMC design, we are considering setting up some EMC
RE: cost effective EMC facility
Is this an oxymoron? I sometimes wish we had a GTEM, but our anechoic screen room has just started to be used for pre-compliance testing and troubleshooting. The workstation consists of a Braden CFC (3000 cu.ft Compact Ferrite Chamber), AR FM2000 isotropic probe, AR 1Kw log periodic, AR 25W1000M7 amp, HP 8648B, HP 8564E, Rhode Schwarz ESCS30 and a PC w/labview /HP applications. With this rig we can perform both RF emissions pre-scan, troubleshooting and susceptibility up to the host level. For PCB's alone I suggest an EMSCAN or an EPS 3000 tablet based scanner. The EMSCAN rather sucked because of repeatability, but the EPS 3000 might be much better because it couples a CCD imager with the RF scanner to provide visual grids of the PCB's spatial profile. Problem is, with either you still need a screen room to prevent ambients from washing out your data. And then you have to wrangle with hosts, card extenders, cable toss, etc.. At the time, the EMSCAN was less than $50K and I don't know how much the EPS 3000 is going for. The CFC approach came in at around $400K or so (I built the turntable for it to $ave) but the bottom line is this work is always expensive in both hardware and headcount. It depends on how far you need to go and how badly management wants it... Kyle Ehler kyle.eh...@lsil.com mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com Assistant Design Engineer LSI Logic - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
TEM cells large enough for a very small computer are, I believe, available. I don't have the sales literature in front of me and I haven't seen it for awhile, but in my opinion you would be better served if you invest in pre-compliance equipment, a small ground screen etc, even with a less than ideal site. Both units will take time for you to learn how to interpret the data and how it compares with the OATS you'll eventually have to us. The TEM cell will required constant manipulation of the unit to expose the various fronts to the antenna. The pre-compliance equipment is going to have some problems because of ambient noises and lack of a proper environment, ground screen, full antenna mast height, etc. But I think you can get closer to the OATS with this equipment if you can control the electrical ambient at all, and you have considerably more flexibility at working on the EUT etc during this phase of testing. Either of these methods are only going to give you an A/B type test with just enough information to make a good educated guess as to when you are ready to go for a formal test, but having used both methods - the TEM cell much less - I'd much prefer the small parking lot type of pre-compliance system. That obviously is a personal opinion. Neither my wife or children listen to it so maybe you shouldn't either. Thanks Gary -Original Message- From: Green, Henry [SMTP:henry.gr...@gateway.com] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 6:08 AM To: 'Qu Pingyu'; 'emc' Subject:RE: cost effective EMC facility I do not believe that the GTEM is a suitable option for testing a PC due to the size limitations of the GTEM. The GTEM has, for lack of a better term, a sweet spot that the EUT has to occupy for optimum results. Although you might be able to place your EUT in the GTEM, it would not necessarily be confined to this sweet spot. This being the case, the repeatability, and accuracy of your measurements would be questionable. Another consideration is the requirement that you have correlation to an OATS. Just my 2-cents worth. Henry E. Green Gateway Regulatory Compliance -Original Message- From: Qu Pingyu [mailto:pin...@ime.org.sg] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 3:38 AM To: 'emc' Subject:cost effective EMC facility Hello, everyone: I posted an question several weeks ago asking about GTEM. Thanks those who share with me your experience. I may not address my problem very clearly thus I would like to come back to you one more time. We are a R D orgnization in Singapore mainly dealing with semiconductor industry. Since there are some requirements from our industry partners in the area of EMC design, we are considering setting up some EMC measurement capabilities. At the intial stage, we will only consider equipment for radiated emission/susceptibility testing. Our objective is to evaluate the EMC performance of the product from our customers, being of PCB level or system level. Based on those results, we can help our customers to improve their product EMC design so that their product can pass the final compliance testing. The EUT could be small, such as integrated circuits on PCB, but it can also be large such as a PC. Due to our budget constraint, I think GTEM maybe a good choice. Do you guys agree ? If not, any other suggestions ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards Qu Pingyu - 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
Re: cost effective EMC facility
Hi, I've got to hedge against testing objects with wiring in a GTEM. They are great for Cell Phones and the like. Attach wiring and results can differ greatly from a shield room test. Derek Walton - 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).
RE: cost effective EMC facility
I do not believe that the GTEM is a suitable option for testing a PC due to the size limitations of the GTEM. The GTEM has, for lack of a better term, a sweet spot that the EUT has to occupy for optimum results. Although you might be able to place your EUT in the GTEM, it would not necessarily be confined to this sweet spot. This being the case, the repeatability, and accuracy of your measurements would be questionable. Another consideration is the requirement that you have correlation to an OATS. Just my 2-cents worth. Henry E. Green Gateway Regulatory Compliance -Original Message- From: Qu Pingyu [mailto:pin...@ime.org.sg] Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 3:38 AM To: 'emc' Subject:cost effective EMC facility Hello, everyone: I posted an question several weeks ago asking about GTEM. Thanks those who share with me your experience. I may not address my problem very clearly thus I would like to come back to you one more time. We are a R D orgnization in Singapore mainly dealing with semiconductor industry. Since there are some requirements from our industry partners in the area of EMC design, we are considering setting up some EMC measurement capabilities. At the intial stage, we will only consider equipment for radiated emission/susceptibility testing. Our objective is to evaluate the EMC performance of the product from our customers, being of PCB level or system level. Based on those results, we can help our customers to improve their product EMC design so that their product can pass the final compliance testing. The EUT could be small, such as integrated circuits on PCB, but it can also be large such as a PC. Due to our budget constraint, I think GTEM maybe a good choice. Do you guys agree ? If not, any other suggestions ? Thanks in advance. Best Regards Qu Pingyu - 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).
