CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-18 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
, Scott Mee Johnson Controls Inc. Automotive Systems Group EMC Product Compliance 616.394.2565 scott@jci.com (See attached file: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions.ZIP) (See attached file: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions.zip) Title: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) All, One of

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-19 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that Ralph McDiarmid wrote (in <67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB60581A5EF@BCMAIL1>) about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)' on Fri, 19 Dec 2003: >In terms of power change in the system as a fuction of resistance (or scalor >of impedan

RE: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-19 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
n Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: December 18, 2003 2:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) I read in !emc-pstc that scott@jci.com wrote (in ) about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)' on Thu,

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-19 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Works for me. > From: John Woodgate > Reply-To: John Woodgate > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:29:14 + > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) > > > I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote > (in ) about 

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-19 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
t; > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:58:02 + > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Subject: Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) > > > > > > I read in !emc-pstc that scott....@jci.com wrote (in > > ) > > about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emission

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-19 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote (in ) about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)' on Thu, 18 Dec 2003: >It is true that the unit dB Ohm has to be interpreted in context. >However that does not change its utility. Current probe transfer >impedance and

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-18 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
probe transfer impedance from the manufacturer's curve. End of story. > From: scott@jci.com > Reply-To: scott@jci.com > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:48:45 -0500 > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) > > >

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-18 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:58:02 + > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method) > > > I read in !emc-pstc that scott@jci.com wrote (in > ) > about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)' on Thu, 18

Re: CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)

2003-12-18 Thread owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that scott@jci.com wrote (in ) about 'CISPR 25 Conducted Emissions (Current Method)' on Thu, 18 Dec 2003: >Please read the attached document that he assembled for the details. Not relevant to the question, but I'm very disappointed to see 'dB(ohm)&#