eve...@comcast.net
> Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:01:05 +0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
>
>
> Thanks Ken.
>
> I would expect that 300+ MHz isn't much of a problem. I know that lower
> frequencies a
> From: neve...@comcast.net
> > Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 +
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Cc: npis...@broadcom.com
> > Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
> >
> >
> > Has anyone inv
net
> Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 +
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Cc: npis...@broadcom.com
> Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
>
>
> Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber
> size
Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber
sizes when performing the radiated immunity (-3) test at low frequencies
(e.g.,
between 80 MHz and 100-150 MHz)? The field uniformity is calibrated in
E-field,
but I would expect the total EM field (E and H components) t
4 matches
Mail list logo
