the material from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday 1 February 2016 03:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Doug's
"
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:05:32 +0100
> To:
> Conversation: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
> As a rule of thumb the transfer impedance (Zt) is the load impedance of
016 03:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Doug's point is well taken. If you know the probe's transfer impedance, and you
know it works properly (is well-shielded) then instead of just "getting a
number" and trying t
h is the actual goal.
BTW, SAE ARP 6236 shows how you can measure your probe's transfer impedance.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Doug Smith
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:21:19 -0800
> To:
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for
metal shield to prevent capacitive coupling.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Amund Westin
> Reply-To: Amund Westin
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:21:48 +0100
> To:
> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> > A clamp-on ferrite with a
You needed a metal shield to prevent capacitive coupling.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: Amund Westin
> Reply-To: Amund Westin
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:21:48 +0100
> To:
> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
> A clamp-
arc-requ...@ieee.org
<mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> >
Reply-To: Bill Owsley mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com> >
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:26:08 +
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
If you can m
not affecting the
average current on the cable.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: John Allen
Reply-To: John Allen
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:30:10 -
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Richard & Folks (at least in the UK)
FWIW, I was at the
: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Just as Gert and Ralf say, ferrites used for EMC purposes are , if the
ferrite material is properly chosen for the frequency range concerned,
predominately RESISTIVE not inductive. Therefore they damp out reson
Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: 18 January 2016 22:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
" I have been experimenting with this and in several cases using a ferrite
clamp
at the end of cabling seems to "sta
fied testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,
Date:
01/16/2016 01:41 AM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Hi Doug et al,
If I understand well, the ferrite creates a virtual end of cable for EUT2,
allowing the cable to resonate ??
Interestin
any other experiences from members on this list.
Gert Gremmen
-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com]
Sent: zaterdag 16 januari 2016 1:52
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Hi Everone,
Here is an interesting case where
Sent: Friday,
January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
I think it is important to not lose sight of the original query that started
this thread. The query was about whether placing a current probe around a
cable perturbe
omething as
> obscure as cable bundle tightness.
>
> Ed Price
> WB6WSN
> Chula Vista, CA USA
>
>
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES
: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
I think it is important to not lose sight of the original query that started
this thread. The query was about wh
Owsley
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:26:08 +
To:
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
If you can measure common mode noise on a cable, you have a problem from the
port !!
Note the world famous Ott's math on this effect in his 1st edition. Might
be in his 2nd too.
e done it this way for over 25 years and so we are
not changing it now.
It works (I have to make it work) so don't change anything. Sucks to be me -
but I do like a challenge.
From: Ken Wyatt
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:24 PM
Subjec
Ken is correct. Near field probes are good for finding sources, but current
probes are better for characterizing the emissions from cables. However, if the
EUT has a leaky enclosure, or other radiating structures besides cables, you'll
really need to monitor the emissions from a distance while y
18 matches
Mail list logo
