HI Grace,
EN61000-4-3 is being referenced by others too. We completed a 200 v/m version
of EN61000-4-3 from 1 GHz to 18 GHz for the US Coast Guard.
Sincerely,
Derek Walton
L F Research
On 9/2/2010 1:36 PM, Mark Gandler wrote:
Grace,
there are some service providers specs, for
Grace,
there are some service providers specs, for example Comcast, which requires RI
up to 6Ghz.
Mark
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:27:10 -0400
> Subject: Radiated Immunity Frequency Range
> From: graceli...@gmail.com
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> Dear Members,
>
> Is there any product standard(s)
IEC/EN 61000-6-1 up to 2.7GHz
IEC/EN 61000-6-2 up to 2.7GHz
IEC/EN 61326-1 up to 2.7GHz
None are going up to 6GHz yet but I heard rumors that medical and/or the
IT product standards are working on this.
Thank you,
Jason H. Smith
Manager Applications Engineer
ar rf/microwave instrumentation
IEC/EN 61000-6-1 up to 2.7GHz
IEC/EN 61000-6-2 up to 2.7GHz
IEC/EN 61326-1 up to 2.7GHz
None are going up to 6GHz yet but I heard rumors that medical and/or the
IT product standards are working on this.
Thank you,
Jason H. Smith
Manager Applications Engineer
ar rf/microwave instrumentation
see any problems above 1Ghz.
The Other Brian
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Elliott
Mac-FME001
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Grace Lin; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Frequency Range
Hi
see any problems above 1Ghz.
The Other Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Elliott
Mac-FME001
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Grace Lin; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Frequency Range
Hi Grace
EN 301 489
Hi Grace
EN 301 489 [Standard for demonstrating compliance for EMC requirements
for R&TTE Directive] calls for tests up to 2.7 GHz using 61000-4-3 as
the test method.
Best regards,
Mac Elliott
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR),
[ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[] General P
Hi Grace
EN 301 489 [Standard for demonstrating compliance for EMC requirements
for R&TTE Directive] calls for tests up to 2.7 GHz using 61000-4-3 as
the test method.
Best regards,
Mac Elliott
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR),
[ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[] General P
Grace
EN50121-4 Railway Signalling equipment requires testing to 2.4 GHz.
EN50121-3-2 for rolling stock contains the same tests.
Introduced to prevent mobile phones carried by the technicians interfering
with safety critical systems.
Regards
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Grace Lin [mail
Grace
EN50121-4 Railway Signalling equipment requires testing to 2.4 GHz.
EN50121-3-2 for rolling stock contains the same tests.
Introduced to prevent mobile phones carried by the technicians interfering
with safety critical systems.
Regards
Andy
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Hi Grace,
There are a few standards I know of that require immunity to radiated
frequencies above 1GHz. Some of them up to 2GHz and some up to 2.4GHz.
Best Regards,
John
Grace Lin
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org
09/02/2010 07:27 AM To
emc-p...@ieee.org
cc
Subject
Radiated Immunity Freque
Hi Grace,
There are a few standards I know of that require immunity to radiated
frequencies above 1GHz. Some of them up to 2GHz and some up to 2.4GHz.
Best Regards,
John
Grace Lin
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org
09/02/2010 07:27 AM To
emc-p...@ieee.org
cc
Subject
Radiated Immunity Freque
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:04 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
Really? What possible jurisdiction does the FCC have over anything besides
the broadcast industry? The whole concept of
Well ,that’s not such a bad suggestion, after all what’s happened lately
;<)))
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ken Javor
Verzonden: donderdag 11 maart 2010 7:04
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Re: Radiated Immunity
Really? What possible jurisdiction d
From: Bill Owsley
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:26:12 -0800 (PST)
To: Derek Walton , Ken Javor
Cc: "emc-p...@ieee.org"
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
Sorry I wasn't ver
use.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
From: Derek Walton
To: Ken Javor
Cc: "emc-p...@ieee.org"
Sent: Wed, March 10, 2010 12:00:56 AM
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
I'd just like to enforce
quot;emc-p...@ieee.org"
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
As I recall, Pate, German, and Smith came out with the NSA +/- 4 dB
paper in
1982. The FCC had been using tuned dipoles at 3 meters for Class B and
, "emc-p...@ieee.org"
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
As I recall, Pate, German, and Smith came out with the NSA +/- 4 dB paper in
1982. The FCC had been using tuned dipoles at 3 meters for Class B and 10
meters for Class A for quite awhile, but would accept "other" antennas if
pr
.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
or...
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
From: Ken Javor
To: "emc-p...@ieee.org"
Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 1:19:39 PM
Subject
Just to add to what has already been said.
Any reasonably sized transmit antenna gets very inefficient below 80 MHz at
the desired distance of 3m. Sometimes the antenna has to be moved closer to
reduce the power, but then you start getting into the near field. As mentioned
previously, the lower f
, March 09, 2010 12:32 PM
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity
Traditions are sometimes malleable over time and morph into something not
originally envisioned. Think about Halloween trick-or-treating or the Easter
Bunny
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Pettit, Ghery
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 maart 2010 19:14
Aan: americo...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: Radiated Immunity
Conducted immunity is done up to 80 MHz in place of radiated immunity. It is
difficult to generate a
large
Time span in EMC-world….
Gert Gremmen
Ce-test, qualified testing bv
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Pettit, Ghery
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 maart 2010 19:14
Aan: americo...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: Radiated Immunity
Conducted immunity is done
: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:13:32 -0800
To: "americo...@aol.com" , "emc-p...@ieee.org"
Conversation: Radiated Immunity
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity
Conducted immunity is done up to 80 MHz
Conducted immunity is done up to 80 MHz in place of radiated immunity. It is
difficult to generate a uniform field at lower frequencies in the space
available in a typical lab with reasonable power requirements for the
amplifier. As to why the break point for radiated emissions is 30 MHz? To
quo
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:40 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Radiated Immunity
Because there is no good way to establish a radiated immunity field between
30-80 MHz at the level of accuracy required by EN61000-4-3. Consider both
antenna and
Because there is no good way to establish a radiated immunity field between
30-80 MHz at the level of accuracy required by EN61000-4-3. Consider both
antenna and absorber performance in this frequency range, and at higher field
intensities, required amplifier power.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-52
Rohde Schwarz EMC32 is an excellent package.
Rob Kado
Supervisor, Component EMC
Engineering & Laboratory
Chrysler
800 Chrysler Drive
CIMS 481-47-20
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
(248) 467-0639
Sent from my Blackberry Smartphone
From: Ted Eckert [te
Brian,
Calibrations steps of 10% were part of edition 1. That was changed to 1% with
edition 2 which was previous to the present edition 3. Once you perform the
calibration at 1% steps and compare it with a calibration with 10% steps, you
will see the fallacy of linearly interpolating between the
Brian,
We've always done the calibration at 1% steps. Yes, it stinks. Although
for a full run, both polarities it'll take us only around 3.5 hrs to take
all the data. Why do you need to run both 3V/m and 10V/m? We do the
constant power method and just use a forward power high enough to capture
Return Receipt
Your document:
RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
was received by:
Jan Vercammen/AMEMV/AGFA
at:
2006-11-06 09:36:18
__
This email has been
Return Receipt
Your RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
document
m: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Barbara Judge
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Elliott Mac-FME001; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
Hi Mac,
It may have been Don Heirman that mentioned it, but the artifact w
Return Receipt
Your RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
document
Return Receipt
Your RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
document
Return Receipt
Your RE: Radiated Immunity Proficiency Testing Artifact
document
Hi Mac,
It may have been Don Heirman that mentioned it, but the artifact will be
available through ACIL (American Council of Independent Laboratories) their
phone number is 202-877-5872. I hope that you find this helpful.
Best Regards,
Barbara
___
HI Mac,
Not sure about Don H's Artifact, but we have on as part of our proficiency
program. I can let you know more off line for fear of being seen as commercial
( which of course we all are :-) )
Cheers,
Derek Walton
L F Research
Elliott Mac-FME001 wrote on 10/31/2006, 2:12 PM:
Hello collea
Jeff,
The calibration procedure will not change. The equipment requirements WILL
change.
You will still need all of the same type of equipment (field probe, amps,
signal generator, power meter, etc.) but the power requirements will go up as
a squared function of the field level, and the cost o
to 200 V/m, but if you are trying to get to
26 MHz, you can't get to 200 V/m with a biconical or similar type antenna.
From: jeff collins
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Testing B
_
From: jeff collins [mailto:jeffcollin...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:58 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Testing Beyond 61000-4-3
Group,
I need to perform Radiated Immunity testing beyond the 61000- 4-3 limits.
Section 5 of 61000-4-3
...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Testing Beyond 61000-4-3
Group,
I need to perform Radiated Immunity testing beyond the 61000- 4-3 limits.
Section 5 of 61000-4-3 , Table 1 refers to this as the "Open Test Level" where
the field strength may be any value.
The question
In message <20060411175734.78227.qm...@web30113.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
dated Tue, 11 Apr 2006, jeff collins writes
>I need to perform Radiated Immunity testing beyond the 61000- 4-3
>limits.
Although this was not the subject of your enquiry, the 'limits' in Basic
EMC standards in the IEC/EN 6100
Group,
I need to perform Radiated Immunity testing beyond the 61000- 4-3 limits.
Section 5 of 61000-4-3 , Table 1 refers to this as the "Open Test Level" where
the field strength may be any value.
The question I have is: How do you calibrate and measure the field strength at
levels above the 61
f Cortland
Richmond
Sent: 14 March 2006 20:42
To: Young-Sik Kim; ieee pstc list
Subject: Re: Radiated immunity testing
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer th
>> Hi. All
I have some question
Radiated Immunity( IEC 61000-4-3 ) testing dwell time is 1.5 * 10^-3
decades/s .
We are Almost testing dwell time 3 s.
- What is that meaning?
- How to calculation?
please reply to me.
**
Kim, Young-sik
*
Dwell time and sweep rate are entirely different functions. Dwell time "shall
not be less than the time necessary for the EUT to be exercised and be able to
respond." (1000-4-3, 1995)
Sweep rate is given as you say for an analog sweep, or alternately as no
greater than a 1% step size if using a s
a Ari (Nokia-NET/Espoo); emc-p...@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity Higher than 2 GHz?
>
>Ari
>Unfortunately I only have access to BS EN 61000-6-1 & 2 which
>are only the
>2001 versions and limit testing to 1GHz. I'm sure the EN will
>follow the IEC
>versio
Ari
Unfortunately I only have access to BS EN 61000-6-1 & 2 which are only the
2001 versions and limit testing to 1GHz. I'm sure the EN will follow the IEC
version eventually but for now are you able to tell me whether the testing
above 1 and 2GHz is required throughout the range or at spot frequen
The next step in many standards will be 2.7 GHz, so covering 3G mobile
frequencies.
It is already in place in the latest Generic standards IEC 61000-6-1 and
61000-6-2 (2005 editions).
Cheers,
Ari Honkala
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org
This is REAL RF Engineering!
And yes, I work 160 meters too.
Regards,
Jim Ericson (KG6EK)
Acme Testing Company
Acme, Washington
j...@acmetesting.com
From: "drcuthbert"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:05 AM
Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY - Some Actual Measurements of FS
>
>
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
I read in !emc-pstc that drcuthbert wrote (in
)
about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY - Some Actual Measurements of FS' on Tue, 4 Mar
2003:
>Just remember, in words of N6SU "if you can't see it it can't hurt you".
Doesn't work for gamma rays.(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://w
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
Why not blast the DUT with 10V/m at all frequencies? If it misbehaves in the
3V/m bands then 3V/m could be tried. If you want some high E-field try my
house (or another ham's house). I often run fields to the FCC safety limit in
my house. When operating 160 meters I can light a 40 watt fluorescent
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
>
Subject: Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY - Some Actual Measurements of FS
I read in !emc-pstc that Jacob Schanker wrote
(in <006d01c2e1fa$7f0060c0$6401a8c0@net1>) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY -
Some Actual Measurements of FS' on Mon, 3 Mar 2003:
>I hope this lengthy response was enlighteni
Sent by: cc:
owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: RE: RADIATED
IMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EN61326
I read in !emc-pstc that Jacob Schanker wrote
(in <006d01c2e1fa$7f0060c0$6401a8c0@net1>) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY -
Some Actual Measurements of FS' on Mon, 3 Mar 2003:
>I hope this lengthy response was enlightening.
It's extremely useful confirmation of the basis for the '3 V/m' reduced
test le
On the issue of broadcast field strengths, I can provide some input based on
a TV/FM field strength study I completed last December for a local
municipality.
The Town of Brighton and the City of Rochester New York are somewhat unique
in having the main broadcast tower cluster located on a hill in
>-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
Richard,
My previous experience with TWT amplifiers is that as you say they do
not like excessive VSWR's. Chamber efects is one thing that would cause bad
VSWR. Another way is turning them on before the antenna is attached.
Another way is to misthread the acble attached to the TWT.
I
>-Original Message-
>From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:00 AM
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Radiated immunity testing above 1 GHz
>
>
>
>I need to make a decision on an amplifier for radiated
>immunity testing in
They're usually VSWR tripped. I f you want one to operate with high vswr,
then you need a circulator or isolator to absorb the reverse power.
--
>From: richwo...@tycoint.com
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Radiated immunity testing above 1 GHz
>Date: Wed, Nov 13, 2002, 8:00 AM
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:20 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian
wrote
(in ) about
'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Mon, 30 Sep 2002:
&g
ed to be more invasive.
Dave Graham.
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris Chileshe
Sent: 30 September 2002 08:59
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
Ian
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian wrote
(in ) about
'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Mon, 30 Sep 2002:
>My mistake - the old light industrial generic immunity standard EN50082-1
>(and EN61000-6-1?) includes use of a "keyed carrier" at 900MHz
No, IEC/EN 61000-6-1 doesn't include it ei
Chris,
It sounds like you are referring to ENV 50204:1995, which simulates a
digital radio telephone transmitting close to the equipment under test
(EUT). This test is performed at a single frequency between 895MHz and
905MHz, keyed on and off at 200Hz with a 50% duty cycle.
The only standards t
on your product!
Thanks
Ian Gordon
-Original Message-
From: Chris Chileshe [mailto:chris.chile...@ultronics.com]
Sent: 30 September 2002 08:59
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
Ian wrote ..
>> > I believe the gene
Ian wrote ..
>> > I believe the generic standard EN61000-6-2 refers to
>> > testing using pulsed modulation at 900MHz only.
to which John replies ..
> I can't find any mention of that in EN 61000-6-2.
Agreed. I test to EN 61000-6-2 and I have never come across this
requirement. I have jus
I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen wrote (in
) about 'RADIATED
IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
>While stating that the product must remain safe as a result of
>applying the standard, it does not require that it is safe
>during the application of the test. (page 23)
Page 23
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris K. Poore wrote (in
) about 'RADIATED
IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
>I have BS EN61326:1998 which references IEC 61000-4-3:1995 which I believe
>has no test method above 1.0 GHz.
Is that definitely a dated reference? It SHOULD be: undated refer
Hi Gordon (and John)
This is a good example of a recent standard created by
IEC with stupid mistakes in it and voted by CENELEC without thinking.
While for conducted immunity the frequency boundaries are
defined (6.2 4th par) , for radiated immunity they are not.
One may argue that the this way o
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian wrote
(in ) about
'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
>Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests
>above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled
>"Electrical equipment for meas
I have BS EN61326:1998 which references IEC 61000-4-3:1995 which I believe
has no test method above 1.0 GHz. I don't actually have the 1995 version to
verify this. I have the IEC 61000-4-3:1998 which does describe test methods
from 1.4 to 2.4 GHz.
Therefore, for BS EN61326:1998, there are no requ
The biggest "chamber effect" in radiated immunity testing is reflections. The
reflections off the walls, ceiling, and especially the floor in semi-anechoic
chambers will add or subtract from the field generated via the direct path. The
main effect is to make the 16 point uniform field calibratio
cc:(bcc: Don Borowski/SEL)
Subject: RE: Radiated immunity test
Hi KC,
His information is nothing really new, just stated differently. The
standard modulation is 80% AM at 1 kHz, so the modulated field strength will
be 1.8 times the unmodulated level. 61000-4-3 spells this out fair
Hi KC,
His information is nothing really new, just stated differently. The
standard modulation is 80% AM at 1 kHz, so the modulated field strength will
be 1.8 times the unmodulated level. 61000-4-3 spells this out fairly
clearly. I've never done a calibration of field uniformity with modulatio
This is definitely the case. 61000-4-6 and -3 both require testing with 80%
AM, with the modulation applied to the signal level that yields the required
injected potential or field intensity (1, 3, 10 Volts or Volts/meter) prior
to modulation. That takes the rms equivalent of the peak of the te
Be careful about using the antenna factor. The published antenna factor is
a receive antenna factor, and for what you are trying to do you need the
transmit antenna factor. You can calculate one from the other if you know
the frequency, but they are not identical. I can provide that derivation.
Courtland,
I saw many quick responses to your question that may be missing the essence
of your question.
Actually, the answer which you seek depends on what you mean by "CE"
To "CE" mark most electronic products, meeting the radiated immunity
requirements IS required. A Declaration of Confor
Oh . . .how I WISH that were the case!!!
With all due respect, you may want to re-consider using that
source for regulatory information . . .
John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY
-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:51
No way Courtland,
Immunity test are not the first priority of governmental officers,
that may have tempted someone to overlook these requirements.
Regards,
Gert Gremmen, (Ing)
ce-test, qualified testing
===
Web presence http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop
M
To: John Juhasz
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Radiated Immunity
John,
I read an article some time ago regarding the use of a spectrum analyzer
equipped with a tracking generator to explore near-field resonances in
cables, etc. A near-field probe (loop) was used in conjunction with an
inexpe
Radiated ImmunityJohn,
I read an article some time ago regarding the use of a spectrum analyzer
equipped with a tracking generator to explore near-field resonances in
cables, etc. A near-field probe (loop) was used in conjunction with an
inexpensive (Mini_Circuits) combiner to explore RF Immunity i
John:
I often use a short wand probe for localizing a response. Just get a
foot-long piece of rigid coax, cut about 1/4" of the shield off of one end
and put a connector on the other end. Connect the probe to your signal
generator using any convenient length of flexible coax. Set your generator
John,
You may also try a magnetic (or electric) sniffer probe by using it in an
opposite direction.
Conventional way using the sniffer is to connect it to a preamplifier and an
oscilloscope. The sniffer serves as a receiving antenna. ... The opposite way
is to connect it to a signal generato
I have just completed debugging of a unit that failed radiated immunity by
using a biconical antenna, a coaxial loop antenna, an HP8593E spectrum
analyzer, an HP8447A pre-amplifier, an HP8647A signal generator and a screen
room. I was able to use the signal generator to provide a 10dBm level at
Identify the source of propagation for these frequencies and their egress
path. If you can successfully lower the radiated emissions level from these
you should have a subsequent decrease in your susceptibility. If you are
having a problem at 3V/m, the radiated emissions should be fairly strong.
In most cases, the culprit is a cable. If you suspect a cable is conducting
the noise into your system, you can use a clamp on current probe to induce
noise onto the cable.
Richard Woods
Subject: Radiated Immunity
Author: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com (John Juhasz) at smtp
D
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
