Immunity to broadband transient noise from machines is controlled (e.g.,
showering arc fast transient requirement). I think that would be more
representative of broadband machine noise than a swept cw test such as
61000-4-3. In my opinion, an instantaneous field perhaps much higher than 3
V/m but
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in ) about 'RADIATED
IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326' on Tue, 4 Mar 2003:
>I don't understand Mr. Allen's response. If the bands originally cited are
>reserved for broadcast, then no equipment, including industrial, should
>intentionally transmit at th
se field" - rather than Class B.
>
> Regards
>
> John Allen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Provost, Norm [mailto:nprov...@foxboro.com]
> Sent: 04 March 2003 13:43
> To: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQU
ndards.
Best Regards,
Norm Provost
> -Original Message-
> From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [SMTP:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
>
>
>
>
[mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
Sent: March 4, 2003 7:53 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
Has anyone answered the question of whether or not 61326 has provisions for
a reduction in the field strength at those frequencies?
Lisa
ot;Gordon,Ian"
> o.com>
, "'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'"
> Sent by: cc:
>
sa_cef...@mksinst.com [SMTP:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
>
>
>
> Has anyone answered the question of whether or not 61326 has provisions
> for
>
Sent by: cc:
owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: RE: RADIATED
IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
>-Original Message-
>From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:michael.hopk...@thermo.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:32 PM
>To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
>
>
>
>Sorry, but I must be
I read in !emc-pstc that Mike Hopkins wrote
(in <49CD487E8BA9D31181190060081C6B8FA26CA7@COMSERVER>) about 'RADIATED
IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326' on Mon, 3 Mar 2003:
>The only thing I can think of is that maybe it isn't expected that one would
>be close enough to a broadcast antenna at thes
41 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian wrote
(in ) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
EN61326' on Mon, 3 Mar 2003:
>Furthermore, I have never been able to work out why there is a relaxation
I believe the other bands are television broadcast
M. Hopkins
Thermo KeyTek
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:03 AM
To: Gordon,Ian; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC GROUP'
Subject: Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
Hazarding a gu
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian wrote
(in ) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
EN61326' on Mon, 3 Mar 2003:
>Furthermore, I have never been able to work out why there is a relaxation at
>these freqs. The wording from table 1 of EN61000-6-2 is 10V/m
>"Except for the ITU bro
Hazarding a guess. I am not near a spectrum usage chart, but clearly 87-108
is the FM broadcast band, and therefore no one else is transmitting at these
frequencies, except at very low power. If the other bands listed are also
restricted to broadcasters of a certain power, and you can calculate
My guess for the reductions: Since the frequency bands are for broadcast
television and FM radio, the sources are not portable, and the field
strength levels at the boarders of the broadcast transmitter location are
regulated and thus known to be at the lower level.
The biggest hazards for radia
15 matches
Mail list logo
