Doesn't sound like you're missing anything. We are just talking about
different things. Common disease, here! Certainly, for the same directive
gain, the aperture of an antenna is smaller at higher frequencies. However,
I'm not holding gain constant, but size.
If the two antennas are the same p
ssing?
--
>From: Cortland Richmond <72146@compuserve.com>
>To: Ken Javor , ieee pstc list
>Subject: Re: Clock frequencies
>Date: Wed, Sep 18, 2002, 8:34 PM
>
> An antenna of some physical size will indeed have gain increasing with
> frequency. There is some just
An antenna of some physical size will indeed have gain increasing with
frequency. There is some justification, a 1 GHz antenna being reasonably
small, for assuming that antennas will have similar sizes -- and increasing
gain -- above 960 MHz. However, I suspect that the original limit was
simply a
esn't seem terribly likely, either. Why doesn't the limit increase with
increasing frequency, or stair-step as it does below 960 MHz?
--
>From: "Pettit, Ghery"
>To: "'John Woodgate'" , emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: Clock fre
Neil,
Section 15.33 of FCC Part 15 "Frequency Range of Radiated Measurements"
provides you with this information.
Regards
Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems
from these products. What problem are we trying to fix with
limits tighter than the FCC's?
Ghery
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:53 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Clock frequencies
I re
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote
(in )
about 'Clock frequencies' on Wed, 18 Sep 2002:
>CISPR SC I meets next week in Christchurch, New Zealand and this will be a
>topic of discussion at the meetings. We on the US delegation will be trying
>to keep the voices for tighter limits from b
Neil,
Section 15.33 of FCC Part 15 "Frequency Range of Radiated Measurements"
provides you with this information.
Regards
Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems
Neil,
Work is progressing in CISPR SC I to generate limits above 1 GHz for CISPR
22. This would be a requirement in more than just the EU. There is much
disagreement as to what the limits should be. The latest proposal that was
out for comments used the FCC limits up to 18 GHz, but with a modi
Section 15.33
(b) For unintentional radiators:
(1) Except as otherwise indicated in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3), for an
unintentional
radiator, including a digital device, the spectrum shall be investigated from
the lowest radio frequency
signal generated or used in the device, without going bel
At 10:53 AM 9/18/02 +, Neil Helsby wrote:
I read somewhere, and now cannot
find, a reference to FCC requirements
with respect to the relationship between clock frequency and highest
emissions scan frequency.
Can anyone help, preferably pointing to the FCC document?
I also seem to rememb
11 matches
Mail list logo