7
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Noise floor (dBm) = -174 dBm + 10*log (BW) + F (dB)
At room temperature, where F is noise figure.
If F isn’t given, but a noise floor is given with a stated BW, then using the
above equation, you ca
: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:43:27 +0200
To: Ken Javor ,
Conversation: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Subject: RE: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Hi Ken, and Collegues
Thanks for elaborating,
Now I remember, you wrote that 50 dB
specialist , so I can use some tips…
A lot of questions, but as usual, any answer creates more questions…
Gert Gremmen
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ken Javor
Verzonden: woensdag 26 mei 2010 19:37
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: Radiated emission testing
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 13:24:43 +0200
To:
Conversation: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Subject: RE: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Hello Friends, Collegues,
Thanks to all of you for help,
comforting words en correcting some
misconceptions
zonden: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:56 PM
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: RE: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Good day, Gert.
The straightforward answer is an antenna with enough gain to provide the
margin needed for a valid test. Gain required can be reduced by
Good day, Gert.
The straightforward answer is an antenna with enough gain to provide the
margin needed for a valid test. Gain required can be reduced by using lower
loss coax and up-front preamplification. Add 8 dB antenna gain, cut cable
loss in half, and add a low-noise preamp with 10 dB gain
g bv - Gert Gremmen" ,
Conversation: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Subject: RE: Radiated emission testing for automotive at low levels.
Gert:
Here are some numbers from my test equipment.
An Agilent E4404B analyzer, set to 1.5 GHz and using a 120 kHz RBW, has
Gert:
Here are some numbers from my test equipment.
An Agilent E4404B analyzer, set to 1.5 GHz and using a 120 kHz RBW, has a
noise floor of -72 dBm.
An HP-8566B analyzer, set to 1.5 GHz and using a 100 kHz RBW, has a noise
floor of -73.3 dBm.
Both of those are similar to what yo
You don’t say what receiver you are using, but the numbers you quote imply a
nearly 50 dB noise figure. That seems high. That being said, proper
pre-amplification can reduce the noise figure to approach 0 dB noise figure.
Also, you can use an antenna with better antenna factor than the 3115. But
Hi Ian,
I had the unfortunate opportunity to attempt in-situ measurements of a
large telecom system about 12 years ago.
We found that getting useful measurements was very, very difficult. As
Bob notes, power-cycling the EUT helps to differentiate the noise source
but that may not always be possib
In message
<5d39f9c94199f64fa82e5809c702aa7c590...@z-160-100-30-229.est.ibm.com>,
dated Wed, 2 Jan 2008, "Gordon,Ian"
writes:
>Clause 6.1 of CISPR 11 requires that ambient noise levels to be 6dB
>below the specified limit. However for testing at a customer site i.e.
>not on an OATS or in a c
In message <001301c84d5b$92427250$1dfca8c0@Toshibanotepad>, dated Wed, 2
Jan 2008, Derek Walton writes:
>This is interesting, in fact it's news to me that CISPR 11 is not for
>in-situ testing. A significant proportion of products I test are
>industrial equipments that would not fit in a shield
n did that change happen, and what are we supposed to use now?
Thanks,
Derek Walton
- Original Message -
From: "John Woodgate"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Radiated emission testing "in the real world"
> In message
> <5d39f9
In message
<08bfa5ada9462e4f96e4a31a270fc86b04da4...@usa0300ms02.na.xerox.net>,
dated Wed, 2 Jan 2008, "Spencer, David H"
writes:
>However, I'm not sure if it's applicable as a valid reference for the
>EU market place.
Under the new EMC Directive, 'alien' standards can be used and
documente
e for the EU
market place.
Regards
Dave
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
Gordon,Ian
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:36 AM
To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated emission testing "in the real world"
John et al
Is there a
John et al
Is there a standard which is applicable to this sort of work?
Ian Gordon
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 02 January 2008 13:24
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated emission testing "in the real world"
In message
<5d39f9c94199f64fa82e5809c702aa7c590...@z-160-100-30-229.est.ibm.com>,
dated Wed, 2 Jan 2008, "Gordon,Ian"
writes:
>Clause 6.1 of CISPR 11 requires that ambient noise levels to be 6dB
>below the specified limit. However for testing at a customer site i.e.
>not on an OATS or in a c
Geetha,
A sad but understandable response.
> Radiated emission testing is rather political / commercial
> than technical. This means if a commercial lab want to please the
> customer the tested device will be declared as a compliant device
> without any modifications or if the lab w
h 22, 2005 2:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: t...@elmac.co.uk
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
The subject of non-repeatability in radiated emissions (and its lesser
brother, non-repeatability in radiated immunity) provides perennial
entertainment. IMHO none of the posts to date
tserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of t...@elmac.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: t...@elmac.co.uk
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
The subject of non-repeatability in radiated emissions (and its lesser
brother, non
Charles Grasso posted:
>>I would offer a "light at the end of the tunnel" <<
Exit, stage left, singing Hosannas, curtain.
Take Bows.
Or in NewYorkese:
The lied at the end of the tummel.
Cortland Richmond
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list
>The light at the end of the tunnel?
>Tim Williams
Let's talk about putting a 1,200 lb telco rack in a GTEM ...
Where I now work, an extensive study was done trying to see something
between a gtem, a three meter oats, and a three meter chamber and a
10 meter oats. I did a similar study over the c
rch 22, 2005 2:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: t...@elmac.co.uk
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
The subject of non-repeatability in radiated emissions (and its lesser
brother, non-repeatability in radiated immunity) provides perennial
entertainment. IMHO none of the posts to date
ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing uncertainty
I have watched this subject unfold with interest. However it seems the one
key element at the heart of this interchange has been left out of the
discussion. That being Uncertainty of measurement.
We are assuming that the lab in question
In article
,
ravinder.ajm...@hitachigst.com writes
>Times have changed. Back in late Eighties when I was working at an EMI
>lab, considerable time was spent in maximizing cable related emissions,
>just to make sure that the EUT does not fail. Some of our key
>customers also encouraged this practi
Hi Bob,
Don't you ALWAYS maximize cables. I found that
with cable maximization my test repeatabilty
improved dramatically.
HAs cable maximization fallen out of favour?
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: 3/22/2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Radiate
x27;Bob Richards '; 'owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org ';
'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG '
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
Hi Gurus,
As per the US lab report, the frequency at which the device had
minimum pass margin is 68 MHz. At 68 MHz in vertical polaris
Of Price, Ed
Sent: den 22 mars 2005 20:56
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
> > Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in >
<20050322155158.40355.qm...@web53703.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated >
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
the
other sections of the IC.
Brent DeWitt
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:50 AM
> To: John Woodgate
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
'Bob Richards ';
'owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org '; 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG '
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
Geetha,
FCC routinely accepts anechoic chamber measurements so long as the chamber has
been tested and shown to meet theoretical site attenuation withi
John Woodgate wrote:
> Well, apart form the 'sets of interests', do you agree that it is
> technically unsound? At least, in specifying only the insertion loss of
> the ferrite, leaving open the question of whether the ferrite is
> absorbing the incident energy (good) or reflecting it back to the
and WG3 is working on CISPR 22 (with no work going on to
change CISPR 24 for the time being). Yes, indeed, SC I is busy!
Ghery
From: Tim Williams [mailto:t...@elmac.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:58 PM
To: Pettit, Ghery; j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated
> A 2m long cable is a quarter wavelength at 75MHz.
Oops! Slip of the keyboard there, not enough water in the bloodstream. Should
of
course read
> A 1m long cable is a quarter wavelength at 75MHz.
Doesn't alter the argument though.
Tim Williams
Elmac Services, Chichester, UK
http://www.elmac.co
g] On Behalf Of Tim Williams
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: t...@elmac.co.uk
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
The subject of non-repeatability in radiated emissions (and its lesser
brother,
non-repeatability in radiated immunity) provides pere
Ghery Pettit noted
>> For example, ringing on an improperly terminated transmission line will
be related to the length of the line and the <<
Regarding non-clock related frequencies, I remember a 105 MHz 5 volt
rail-to-rail oscillation on a 33 MHz computer's card slot bus. Turned out
that when th
Tim Williams wrote (in
) about 'Radiated Emission
Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
> The ferrite clamps amendment (A1 to CISPR22:1998) did try to address
>the problem and was roundly condemned by just about all parties, each
>of which had their own set of interests to defend.
Well, apart form the
Hi John,
You misunderstand. I do not work in a public
compliance lab. I work for a company that designs the
products being tested -- they want to know that they
pass.
Bob Richards
Square D.
--- John Woodgate wrote:
> In article
>
<20050322164856.58216.qm...@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
> Bob
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [ mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:23 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
In article <20050322164856.58216.qm...@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Bob
Richards writes
>The la
PM
To
emc-p...@ieee.org
cc
Subject
Re: Radiated Emission Testing
In article <20050322164856.58216.qm...@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Bob
Richards writes
>The lab where I work now, I was pleasently surprised to see that they
>work very hard trying to fail a produc
The subject of non-repeatability in radiated emissions (and its lesser brother,
non-repeatability in radiated immunity) provides perennial entertainment. IMHO
none of
the posts to date has put a finger on the number 1 source of variability: cable
termination.
A 2m long cable is a quarter wavelengt
"Stone, Richard" wrote (in
<656be56e7d48f6419054cc1c8111492704609...@exch01.corp.xl.com>) about
'Radiated Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
>Is there a guidelins somewhere youve read about when to stop the normal
>spinning of the table and start the maximization of cables?
Not that I've re
-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of McInturff Gary
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:49 PM
To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
Change labs. They should be working with you not against you. John states it
well.
A big difference between doing th
: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
In article <20050322164856.58216.qm...@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Bob
Richards writes
>The lab where I work now, I was pleasently surprised to see that they
>work very hard trying to fail a product under test.
Well, they are NOT supposed to, at lea
In article <20050322164856.58216.qm...@web30308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, Bob
Richards writes
>The lab where I work now, I was pleasently surprised to see that they
>work very hard trying to fail a product under test.
Well, they are NOT supposed to, at least in Europe. This is
over-zealous. It is req
"Pettit, Ghery" wrote (in
<468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E04A73671@orsmsx408>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
>Emissions may be harmonically related to clocks, they may be
>intermodulation products or they may be non-harmonically related to any
>of the above.
I asked the
> > Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in >
<20050322155158.40355.qm...@web53703.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated >
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
>>
> > > There are 2 clock sources in the device, one runs at 12 MHz and the >
>other runs at 4 MHz. Frequencies showing up in the US
-p...@listserv.ieee.org
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit, Ghery
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:20 AM
To: Geetha Balasubramanian; Grasso, Charles; Bob Richards ;
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
wrote:
Hi Bob,
Don't you ALWAYS maximize cables. I found that
with cable maximization my test repeatabilty
improved dramatically.
HAs cable maximization fallen out of favour?
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: 3/22/2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Radiate
: Pettit, Ghery
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
"Pettit, Ghery" wrote (in
<468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E04A3E1C5@orsmsx408>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
> You question the frequencies from the lab
"Pettit, Ghery" wrote (in
<468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E04A3E1C5@orsmsx408>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
> You question the frequencies from the lab in Taiwan, but not the
>frequencies from the lab in the US. How would 43 MHz and 52.38 MHz
>come from 4 MHz and 12 MH
Or the classic, cables through the room wall...
Derek Walton
John Woodgate wrote on 3/22/2005, 11:24 AM:
> Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in
> <20050322155158.40355.qm...@web53703.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated
> Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
>
> > There are 2 clock sources in t
t; From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Sent: 3/22/2005 6:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
>
> It is not an unusual occurance. This is one good
> reason why you want a good margin under the limit.
> Most people like to see a margin of at least 6
Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in
<20050322155158.40355.qm...@web53703.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
> There are 2 clock sources in the device, one runs at 12 MHz and the
>other runs at 4 MHz. Frequencies showing up in the US lab report are
>atleast the h
rg ';
'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG '
Subject: RE: Radiated Emission Testing
Hi Gurus,
As per the US lab report, the frequency at which the device had
minimum pass margin is 68 MHz. At 68 MHz in vertical polarisation the margin
is 4.7 dB & in horizontal polarisation the marg
LWAYS maximize cables. I found that
with cable maximization my test repeatabilty
improved dramatically.
HAs cable maximization fallen out of favour?
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: 3/22/2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Radiated Emission Testing
It is not an
I feel your pain!.
This is not an unusual condition. There are a couple of things to bear in
mind:
1) If you originally passed with minimal margin - then
the chances are VERY high that if you retest your product
you will fail.
2) How much margin? You need at least >the measurement uncertainty
o
Hi Bob,
Don't you ALWAYS maximize cables. I found that
with cable maximization my test repeatabilty
improved dramatically.
HAs cable maximization fallen out of favour?
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: 3/22/2005 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: Radiated Emi
It is not an unusual occurance. This is one good
reason why you want a good margin under the limit.
Most people like to see a margin of at least 6dB.
One variable is the site itself. A good OATS is the
best. Sites can have up to 4dB variation from
theoretical, and one chamber I've been involved wi
Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in
<20050322095508.20273.qm...@web53702.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Tue, 22 Mar 2005:
> I am more confused with the replies which I receieved. What will
>happen if VCCI or FCC is being notified that a product is being
>marketed in their geo
Dear All,
I am more confused with the replies which I receieved. What will
happen if VCCI or FCC is being notified that a product is being marketed in
their geography without a ferrite core in the cable but the same product is
being marketed in the Taiwan market with a ferrite core i
gate
>cc:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent by: Subject: Re: Radiated
Emission Testing
owner-emc-pstc@LISTSE
RV.IEEE.ORG
03/22/2005 0
Geetha Balasubramanian wrote (in
<20050322041828.88988.qm...@web53701.mail.yahoo.com>) about 'Radiated
Emission Testing', on Mon, 21 Mar 2005:
> One of our products had been tested by an accredited lab at US
>on May 2004 and found to be compliant with FCC, CE & VCCI. We started
>mass manufac
Hi,
The 7000 miles (1 kilometers) distance between Taiwan and US may be the
reason for this. I have seen major differences between 2 labs which are
just a mile apart. Just joking..
By the way how much is the difference in emission levels? 6 dB difference
between 2 labs is acceptable.
Folks,
Standards writing is a strange thing, you often have to pay to participate in
the organisations that write standards (I'm sure ETSI would love to add Nettest
to their list of members), you have to pay to attend meetings, you give your
time and expertise for free, and when you've finish
In article <39f7060a00b5e946b516261c077441c02eb...@utexch1w.gnnettest.co
m>, Chris Maxwell writes
>I'm sure that there are numerous people who would volunteer to proofread
>some standards, myself included.
The copyright restrictions mean that:
a) you need to be a member of the relevant BSI comm
In article <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0480B730@orsmsx408>, Pettit,
Ghery writes
>Well, you won't allow a Yank on your CENELEC committees, so I'm out. ;-)
>
>Now, if you'd just quit making common modifications to CISPR
>standards...
I can't, because I've never started! In a few cases, the CM
arch 09, 2005 8:16 AM
To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated emission testing acc. to ETSI EN 301 489
Touche' John,
I realize how thankless standard writing is, especially with sarcastic
engineers, such as myself splitting hairs over wording.
I'm sure that there are
1:46 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated emission testing acc. to ETSI EN 301 489
In article <39f7060a00b5e946b516261c077441c02eb...@utexch1w.gnnettest.co
m>, Chris Maxwell writes
>Based upon the circuitous wording of some compliance standards, I
always
>suspected that
Michael Mertinooke wrote (in ) about 'Radiated emission testing
acc. to ETSI EN 301 489', on Tue, 8 Mar 2005:
>I suggest reviewing "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy", on Bistro
>Mathics. It is entirely possible that public beaneries define a
>spacetime singularity of a sort. When removed to a sect
In article <39f7060a00b5e946b516261c077441c02eb...@utexch1w.gnnettest.co
m>, Chris Maxwell writes
>Based upon the circuitous wording of some compliance standards, I always
>suspected that most CENELEC committee meetings took place in a pub
Actually, we often get much better results in the pub af
> Just out of curiosity, who would you sell a portable RF doorbell to?
Transients, of course!
Ed
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-5
08, 2005 11:22 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated emission testing acc. to ETSI EN 301 489
In article , rehel...@mmm.com writes
>Just out of curiosity, who would you sell a portable RF doorbell to?
Me! I attend a committee meeting in a room in a pub, while it is closed,
and for secur
In article , rehel...@mmm.com writes
>Just out of curiosity, who would you sell a portable RF doorbell to?
Me! I attend a committee meeting in a room in a pub, while it is closed,
and for security reasons the access door has to be kept locked. So I
want to temporarily hang a push-button on the doo
Michael,
The transmitter/receiver is not tested to this standard, but must be tested to
the appropriate standard(s) listed under the R&TTE Directive, likely EN 300
220.
Bill
_
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
micha...@poczta.onet.pl
Sent: T
m
> To : kbalasubraman...@scmmicro.co.in
> Copy to : emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject : Re: Radiated emission testing acc. to ETSI EN 301 489
> Nothing is missing. In this case, 301 489-3 and -1 are testing for spurious
> emissions from the transmitter and ancillary equipment from 30 MHz t
,
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
Subject
Re: Radiated emission testing acc.
to ETSI EN 301 489
Dear Bob & Don,
Somet
cc
AMemc-p...@ieee.org,
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
Subject
Re: Radiated
mc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated emission
testing acc. to ETSI EN 301
489
03/08/2005 07:56
PM
Michal, the second paragraph in clause 4.3 of 301
Michal, the second paragraph in clause 4.3 of 301-489-3 states "The
frequencies on which the SRD transmitters are intended to operate shall be
excluded from conducted and radiated emissions measurements when performed
in transmit mode of operation".
If you are testing without the standards availab
79 matches
Mail list logo
