Re: Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking

2005-11-27 Thread emc-p...@ieee.org
I didn't know what the 20 H rule was either, just assumed everyone else did... From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:49:13 + To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking americo...@aol.com wrote (in

Re: Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking

2005-11-27 Thread emc-p...@ieee.org
americo...@aol.com wrote (in 26c.a77014.30bb4...@aol.com) about 'Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking', on Sun, 27 Nov 2005: Conformity and SI List I attended an electronic conference where a well-known EMI/EMC speaker/author stated that the 20 H rule is useless for

Re: Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking

2005-11-27 Thread emc-p...@ieee.org
Reply to second question only. In a limited sense it is correct that a spread spectrum clock doesn't decrease emissions, it spreads them out (in the frequency domain). The spread spectrum clock decreases the amount of time a signal is within the pass-band of the receiver, making it appear a

Suppression of radiated emissions and spread spectrum clocking

2005-11-27 Thread emc-p...@ieee.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Conformity and SI List I attended an electronic conference where a well-known EMI/EMC speaker/author stated that the 20 H rule is useless for suppression of radiated emissions. On the other hand, another well known EMI/EMC speaker/author