ail.com>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:37 AM
*To:* Edward Price
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Hello Ed -
Good morning!
You are correct - the factors stored in the probe correct for
the non-linearities of the diode detector.
( as a side n
as obvious that this conductive
> mass (not to mention the shielded, multi-conductor power & signal cable)
> would distort the measured field and degrade the isotropicity.*
>
>
>
>
> *Ed Price **WB6WSN*
> *Chula Vista, CA USA*
>
>
>
> *From:* Patrick [mailt
Price
Reply-To: Edward Price
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:57:28 +
To:
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Patrick:
The probe manufacturer says something like ³keep the probe box away or out
of the field² or ³best results are obtained with
sday, March 06, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Edward Price
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Hello Ed -
Good morning!
You are correct - the factors stored in the probe correct for the
non-linearities of the diode detector.
( as a side note- hearing a presentation live, and asking/answe
Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
It is clear that any correction table built into the field probe
hardware/firmware/software is time domain only, so linearity correction factors
bas
avor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Edward Price
Reply-To: Edward Price
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:27:07 +
To:
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
This is interesting, as Mr. Chen stated in ³Practical Considerations on EMC
Measurements u
rice
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
From: Patrick [mailto:conwa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
The author is Zhong Chen, an engineer with one of
: (256) 650-5261
From: Patrick
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:26:03 -0700
To: Ken Javor
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
http://ieee.rackoneup.net/rrvs/10/Zhong%20Probe.pdf
Look at the last slide, the last bullet.
The detail analysis can be found within the slides themselves, but that
S-Lindgren EMC Probes,” with nothing about frequency dependence
> corrections.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *Patrick
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:36:11 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor
> *Cc: *
> *Subject: *R
Probes,² with nothing about frequency dependence
corrections.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Patrick
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:36:11 -0700
To: Ken Javor
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
The author is Zhong Chen
neer, its always better to have the data, then
> to operate in the blind?”
>
> The answer is, “Not only no, but hell no, if I know beforehand that the
> numbers don’t matter.”
>
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *P
, if I know beforehand that the
numbers don¹t matter.²
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Patrick
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:10:52 -0700
To: Ken Javor
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Well, some of us have to consider other requirements, not just EN's.
What if the te
elay between when I email the
listserve, and when it is delivered.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
<mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LIS
See below.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-03-05 18:10, Patrick wrote:
Well, some of us have to consider other requirements, not just EN's.
What if the test is -461, or DO-160 ?
And what if the requirement is 200 V/m ?
st - at least until I get a new probe. The calibrations
>> don't seem to mean that much based on my data, so with a composite reading
>> whichever probe orientation gives me the highest field should be ok.
>>
>> Also, any replies I make may be delayed. It seems like I usually
-
> *From: *John Woodgate
> *Reply-To: *John Woodgate
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:19:10 +
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
>
>
> +/- 20% doesn't seem to be enough to explain the reported result. After
> all, assum
-To: John Woodgate
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:19:10 +
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
+/- 20% doesn't seem to be enough to explain the reported result. After all,
assuming the +/- 20% is off the spectrum analyser, 1.2 is +1.6 dB and 0.8 is
-1.9 dB. These are small, bu
David Schaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
<mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I
delay between when I email the listserve, and when it is delivered.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Schaefer
>
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibra
l the listserve, and when it is delivered.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
In turn:
It is not surprising at all that it takes less power
: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:16:41 -0600
To:
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
In turn:
It is not surprising at all that it takes less power to generate the
vertical field than the horizontal field. That¹s the effect of the
conducting ground plane
frequency range.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: "Schaefer, David"
Reply-To: "Schaefer, David"
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 14:05:06 +
To:
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
All,
Thanks for your all your input.
d
equipment, but your actual field could be +/- 3dB due to just probe error.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 7:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I'm with Gert.
Anything
Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Cortland Richmond
Reply-To: Cortland Richmond
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 08:01:31 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I'm with Gert.
Anything "antennas" is checked in the far-field -- especially if testing
for accuracy.
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Field probe calibration
I took data with 4 field probes, 3 different models. All calibrated.
Two calibrations by the manufacturer, two by a reputable cal house.
200-1000 MHz data, 10 MHz step size, 60 V/m level. I recorded the
forward power, and al
*From:*Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
*Sent:* 04 March 2018 05:22
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Field probe calibration
I took data with 4 field probes, 3 different models. All calibrated.
Two calibrations by the manufacturer, two by a reputable cal house.
20
Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: 04 March 2018 05:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I took data with 4 field probes, 3 different models. All calibrated. Two
calibrations by the manufacturer, two by a reputable cal house.
200-1000 MHz data,
I took data with 4 field probes, 3 different models. All calibrated. Two
calibrations by the manufacturer, two by a reputable cal house.
200-1000 MHz data, 10 MHz step size, 60 V/m level. I recorded the forward
power, and all equipment and software in the setup was the same, barring only
the me
28 matches
Mail list logo
