In message , dated Mon, 1
Dec 2008, Ken Javor writes:
>The clear and undeniable truth is that radiated emission limits are
>necessary to protect BCB radio reception, and only that.
This question is being studied by CENELEC. Let's see what they conclude.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.j
From: "Price, Edward"
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 06:18:32 -0800
To:
Conversation: EMI Receivers - Now Terminology
Subject: RE: EMI Receivers - Now T
In message
<384ddcf824e208478e2aba72f5fbeb4cefa...@etsmsg-lonexm01.etsmsg.org>,
dated Mon, 1 Dec 2008, michael.na...@emerson.com writes:
>An instrument, IMHO, should not primarily named by its application. In
>this case, I would call it a test receiver, not an EMI receiver (not
>good) or EMC
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Javor
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 8:08 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
Second, please folks, there is no
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Javor
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 8:08 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
With this sloppy terminology, rife in the
Well, yes. Not surprising. German terminology is quite exact.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From:
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:04:48 -
> To:
> Conversation: EMI Receivers
> Subject: RE: EMI Receivers
>
> There is something I do not understand about this discussio
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
> Of michael.na...@emerson.com
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:05 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: EMI Receivers
>
>
> An instrument, IMHO, should not primari
127472241
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Freitag, 28. November 2008 23:58
To: c...@prodigy.net; John Woodgate; Untitled
Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
Your point being? It's an important topic. And sound advice was provided
concerning EMI re
2008 14:53:50 -0800 (PST)
> To: John Woodgate , , Ken Javor
>
> Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
>
> Is this not getting far afield from the original topic?
>
>
> --- On Fri, 11/28/08, John Woodgate wrote:
>
>> From: John Woodgate
>> Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
&g
Is this not getting far afield from the original topic?
--- On Fri, 11/28/08, John Woodgate wrote:
> From: John Woodgate
> Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 2:13 PM
> In message
> , dated
> Fri, 28
> Nov 2
In message , dated Fri, 28
Nov 2008, Ken Javor writes:
>This paragraph also shows the corrosive influence of poor terminology.
>In fact, getting this from Mr. Woodgate, the pre-eminent sage of this
>very large forum - stated with the utmost respect - in my mind confirms
>the very real hypot
imultaneously imposing immunity requirements on the order of 1 V/m or above
is a total non-starter, and this very contradiction is the motivation for my
original comment about careful use of the EMI/EMC terminology.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: John Woodgate
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008
In message , dated Fri, 28
Nov 2008, Ken Javor writes:
>For instance, we control RE at three meters so that at typical BCB
>reception levels, we have clear reception. That is EMC. If we move the
>culprit emitter closer to the radio receiver than three meters we no
>longer have a legitimate
@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:50:18 -0800
To:
Conversation: EMI Receivers
Subject: RE: EMI Receivers
Many posts have addressed the calibration part of this question, but not the
make and model part. We have an aging HP rack that we are considering
relegating to spare status by purchasing a new or
Many posts have addressed the calibration part of this question, but not the
make and model part. We have an aging HP rack that we are considering
relegating to spare status by purchasing a new or nearly new spectrum analyzer
or EMC receiver (I think the line there is blurring a bit these days but
Tim,
Many members answered your questions. Regarding calibration, I attach R&S
response from the sales manager, who sold me an ESU40 early this year, for
your reference.
"
In spite of what you may have read or heard, the ESU40 is calibrated in our
Columbia Maryland facility unless you requir
...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receivers
Tim,
In the US, R&S calibrations are not accredited to ISO 17025. The reasons are
probably financial – they haven’t wanted to spend the $ to attain
accreditation.
We send our R&S receivers out for cal to a well-known accredited cal lab i
Tim,
I second Jim's caution about shipping of EMI Receivers. Make sure you buy
the hard transit cases to ship receivers, or better yet, rent or take a
van/truck and bring it to the lab yourself.
Larry Stillings
From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com]
S
org] On Behalf Of Luke Turnbull
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:01 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
Tim,
R&S receivers do not have to go back to the manufacturer. We have our
receivers calibrated on site by a UK calibration lab.
Luke Turnbull
>&g
Tim,
In the US, R&S calibrations are not accredited to ISO 17025. The reasons are
probably financial – they haven’t wanted to spend the $ to attain
accreditation.
We send our R&S receivers out for cal to a well-known accredited cal lab in
the US, but we have had an instance of damage by th
nderstand binary and
those who don't. J. Paxman
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Luke Turnbull
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:01 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMI Receivers
*** WARNING ***
Th
Tim,
R&S receivers do not have to go back to the manufacturer. We have our
receivers calibrated on site by a UK calibration lab.
Luke Turnbull
>>> 20 November 2008 19:39 >>>
Hello,
I'm looking to purchase an EMI receiver for use in a 5 meter chamber. Does
anyone recommend a certain model?
In message , dated Thu, 20 Nov 2008,
emcp...@aol.com writes:
>I'm looking to purchase an EMI receiver for use in a 5 meter chamber.
>Does anyone recommend a certain model? I would want one that has at
>least a frequency range from 150kHz to 18GHz so one unit can be used
>for radiated and con
23 matches
Mail list logo
