this standard could be published is
2010.
Ghery S. Pettit
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:59 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Class A antenna distance
In message
<2a93eb060807311215h30f89a09r2c234
om; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Class A antenna distance
Note that the allowance for shorter measurement distances in CISPR 22
is for
small devices, too. And, as noted, is limited to Class B devices. Plus, some
regulators do not allow this option to be used and ins
In message
<2a93eb060807311215h30f89a09r2c23483501c76...@mail.gmail.com>, dated
Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Grace Lin writes:
>What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,
I don't know. Maybe Ghery could comment?
> unconditionally, for Class B devices? I feel 3m is more real
Greetings John,
What is the possibility to have CISPR accept 3m measurement distance,
unconditionally, for Class B devices? I feel 3m is more realistic in the
residential environment. I argue with (friendly) BSMI (Taiwan's authority).
The BSMI regulator tells me if CISPR accepts 3m uncondition
Boca
Raton, FL.
- Bill
You can say what you want about the South, but you never hear of anyone
retiring and moving North!!!
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, pat.law...@slpower.com wrote:
From: pat.law...@slpower.com
Subject: Re: Class A antenna distance
To: emc-p...@ieee.org, emcp
In message
,
dated Thu, 31 Jul 2008, pat.law...@slpower.com writes:
>Is it practical to get corresponding measurements in a 3m semi-anechoic
>chamber, let alone a fully-anechoic chamber?
This is an elephant in the EMC room at present, and I think my UK
colleagues and I are among the few tha
of fully anechoic chambers (Section
> > 10.4) & (CISPR 16.1.4)
> >
> > All test sites must meet vertical and horizontal theoretical Site
> > Attenuation.
> >
> > Bill Stumpf
> > ----
> > *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> &g
---
> *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pettit, Ghery
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:06 PM
> *To:* Rudd, Adam; emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> *Subject:* RE: Class A antenna distance
>
> Note that the a
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Class A antenna distance
Note that the allowance for shorter measurement distances in CISPR 22 is for
small devices, too. And, as noted, is limited to Class B devices. Plus, some
regulators do not allow this option to be used and insist on 10 meter data.
G
: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Class A antenna distance
47CFR 15.31(f)(1) allows measurements at distances other than specified and
details the extrapolation factor
47CFR 15.31(f)(1) allows measurements at distances other than specified and
details the extrapolation factor.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/octqtr/47cfr15.31.htm
EN 55022 Section 10.2.1 has a note that specifically makes an allowance for
Class B devices to be measured at 3m. I tend t
11 matches
Mail list logo
