Regards
Tim
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: 13 June 2006 17:23
To: Grace Lin; Bob Richards
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner
ah yes, that was part of the solution. But the selectivity was still a bit
wide, so additional tech were needed.
Bob Richards wrote:
I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the
1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not required to
do other
As yes, it did require very arcane, exotic, and expensive, techniques for the
test lab to solve this one. The DUT was meant to be dirt cheap and so
could/would not put in the front end selectivity necessary to limit the
exposure to a very narrowband. ps. the immunity requirement was quite a bit
h
ility Green)"
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:46:46 +0100
To: "Bill Owsley" , "Grace Lin" ,
"Bob Richards"
Cc:
Subject: RE: RF Power Amplifiers
Hi All,
I think that there is something wrong in the set-up that you are using if th
flat system or frequency selective field
measurements will be needed.
Regards
Tim
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: 13 June 2006 17:23
To: Grace Lin; Bob Richards
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers
*** WARNING ***
In message , dated Tue, 13
Jun 2006, Ken Javor writes
>A quick calculation will show that if an immunity requirement of 10 V/m
>is imposed at 105 MHz on a 420 MHz tuned receiver with a sensitivity of
>100 dBm, the harmonic content at 420 MHz needs to be on the order of
>100 dB down from the ca
Richards
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers
I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the
1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not req
I'm not familiar with the specific test requirements for receivers, but the
1000-4-3 spec allows step sizes of 1% of the fundamental. If not required to
do otherwise, I would arrange the test frequencies so the subharmonic
frequencies are avoided, IOW, instead of testing at 105 MHz, test at 104.5 a
which 420
MHz is out-of-band, let alone a broadband amplifier and antenna combination
that covers (typically) 80 - 1000 MHz.
From: Bill Owsley
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Grace Lin , Bob Richards
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RF
The harmonic content mentioned adds quite a bit to the measured field strength.
As the harmonics are filtered out (a lower level), the field strength drops,
so the drive and/or output power is boosted to get the field strength back up,
and the harmonic content rises faster than the fundamental, so
Dear All,
Thank you very much for many members who has replied online and offline. I
value your expert comments. So far, I have learned that antenna's VSWR, cable
loss (at high frequency), and 80% AM modulation are the factors to count on.
The new requirements from the third edition of IEC6100
Hello
as all things said below, there is one more item to be added.
The formula is right for the power deliver to the antenna terminal and the
field probe sitting direct opposite the transmitting antenna with not influence
due to the chamber and antenna polarisaton and free space conditons.
Mac,
Yeah, good point, I forgot to mention that.
The the old 15dB requirement may not be enough. At a lab where I used to work,
we tested down to 26 MHz regularly. The difference in antenna factors between
26 and 52 MHz were terrible. When calibrating at 26 MHz at only 1/3 the rated
power of th
On Behalf Of Mowbray, John H
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:56 PM
To: Grace Lin; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: RF Power Amplifiers
Grace
For the 80-100 range the power sounds about right, but be careful many
amplifiers will ouptut reduced power if the VSWR at their output exceeds 2:1.
For the ot
: RF Power Amplifiers
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Grace
For the 80-100 range the power sounds about right, but be careful many
amplifiers will
Return Receipt
Your document:
RE: RF Power Amplifiers
was received by:
Jan Vercammen/AMEMV/AGFA
at:
2006-06-09 09:20:45
- This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Return Receipt
Your RE: RF Power Amplifiers
document
Return Receipt
Your RE: RF Power Amplifiers
document
Return Receipt
Your RE: RF Power Amplifiers
document
Grace
For the 80-100 range the power sounds about right, but be careful many
amplifiers will ouptut reduced power if the VSWR at their output exceeds 2:1.
For the other ranges the 75 W should be more like 25-50 W, again depending on
the amplifier and VSWR.
The high frequency amplifier should be a
Bob Richards wrote:
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Richards
Subject: Re: RF Power Amplifiers
To: Grace Lin
I don't believe that formula takes into account the need for 80% amplitude
modulation. This will require 5.1dB (abou
21 matches
Mail list logo
