nal Message-
> From: Paolo Roncone [SMTP:paolo...@tin.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:08 AM
> To: Lothar Schmidt
> Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>
>
> Good point Lothar,
> it was about time that the original technical grou
care
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:08 AM
To: Lothar Schmidt
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Site Correlation
Good point Lothar,
it was about time that the original technical grounds and limitations of CE
method
+1 (408) 586 6299
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 AM
To: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling th
: Ralph Cameron; chris maxwell; dan kwok
Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
I am getting the distinct (but uncomfortable) feeling that was is being
discussed by a lot of people on this thread is that cable cm CE need to be
controlled to prevent either crosstalk to another bundle
Cameron"
>To: "Chris Maxwell" , "Ken Javor"
, "dan kwok"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 9:01 AM
>
> What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity of the consumer
> equi
In a message dated 1/16/01 7:09:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, ral...@igs.net
writes:
<< What it boils down to Chris is the lack of immunity of the consumer
equipment contributes to degradation of the intended function. >>
Ralph,
I've made this point to Art Wall of the FCC many times, he does
hod is somewhat defined by what
you're
> measuring.
>
> Chris Maxwell
> Design Engineer
> GN Nettest
> 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4
> Utica,NY 13502
> email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
> phone: 315-266-5128
> fax: 315-797-8024
>
>
>
>
> > -Orig
sage-
> From: Ralph Cameron [SMTP:ral...@igs.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:57 PM
> To: Ken Javor; dan kwok
> Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
>
> No, your message is clear, what I am saying is that the emissions below
> 30Mhz
ot;dan kwok"
Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
> I must have been unclear in my previous message. The purpose of
controlling
> cable cm CE is to control the resultant cable-induced RE, which are
> controlle
--
>From: "Ralph Cameron"
>To: "Ken Javor" , "Dan Kwok"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2001, 8:51 PM
>
> Perhaps what you state is correct Ken but there has been a supposition that
>
ameron"
Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
> Mr. Kwok's theories are logical and no doubt bear on the subject, but
there
> is a historical angle that bears inspection. About the time FCC limits
for
> IT equi
t the CE limit below 30 MHz sufficed
to control RE from the power cable to levels sufficient to protect against
cable radiation-induced rfi.
--
>From: Dan Kwok
>To: Ralph Cameron
>Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2001,
rranty or
electrical safety in any way.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Kwok"
To: "Ralph Cameron"
Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
> Hello Ralph:
>
> That's a good question. At one
Hello Ralph:
That's a good question. At one time, I pondered the same question
myself. There are obviously plenty of communication systems operating
under 30 MHz. I suppose there are reasons why CISPR or CISPR 22 does not
specify radiated emissions below 30 MHz. I can suggest one possibility.
Per
-
>From: "CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more..."
>To: "Ken Javor" , "Cortland Richmond"
<72146@compuserve.com>, "ieee pstc list"
>Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>Date: Sun, Jan 14, 2001, 1:10 PM
>
>
>
e business /-/
===
>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Ken Javor
>>Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 12:45 AM
>>To: Cortland Richmond; ieee pstc list
>>Subjec
supply switching-speed related.
Ken Javor
--
--
>From: "Ralph Cameron"
>To: "Ken Javor" , "David Heald"
, "Tudor, Allen"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Sun, Jan 14, 2001, 7:57 A
Electronic Equipment
(After Sale).
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Javor"
To: "David Heald" ; "Tudor, Allen"
Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>
> I must say that this thread has
ollows ====
>
> >> Date: 13-Jan-01 00:50:16 MsgID: 1077-20414 ToID: 72146,373
> From: "Ken Javor" >INTERNET:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
> Subj: Re: Site Correlation
> Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt: NoParts: 1
>
> Date: Sa
one of his employer's opinions)
== Original Message Follows
>> Date: 13-Jan-01 00:50:16 MsgID: 1077-20414 ToID: 72146,373
From: "Ken Javor" >INTERNET:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Subj: Re: Site Correlation
Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: StdReceipt:
of the RE technique or limit anywhere over the 30 - 1000 MHz range.
Ken Javor
--
>From: "CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more..."
>To: "Ken Javor" , "david heald"
, "tudor, allen"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Su
iginal Message-
>>From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 6:01 PM
>>To: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...; david heald;
>>tudor, allen
>>Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
>>Subject: Re: Site Correlat
ot;David Heald"
, "Tudor, Allen"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>Date: Sat, Jan 13, 2001, 9:08 AM
>
>
> You analysis of the situation is correct but for one thing:
>
> In real life you cannot measure the curre
business /-/
===
>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
>>Of Ken Javor
>>Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:44 AM
>>To: David Heald; Tudor, Allen
>>Cc: EMC-PCST (E-mail)
guaranteed EUT enclosure-related.
Polite responses only, please!!!
Ken Javor
--
>From: David Heald
>To: "Tudor, Allen"
>Cc: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2001, 9:36 AM
>
>
> Greetings again.
>I
Interesting... we are gojng to set-up a pre-compliance semi-anechoic
chamber for 3 m measurements (mainly radiated emissions) on telecom
products and we'll need to correlate it with a 10m full-compliant chamber.
Our DUT's are typically sub-rack or 2m+ high telecom racks. Your idea of
considering
Greetings again.
I received some questions about this off list and there has been more
discussion in this direction, so I thought I would throw my other two
cents in.
For small fully anechoic chambers with little room for antenna height
adjustment, you should be able to have uncertainty o
Joe,
If the transmitting antenna (your product) and the receiving antenna were in
free space, you pretty much could assume that the radiation falls off at 1/r^2,
and thus use a 10.5dB correction factor between 10m and 3m measurements. (You
might have to worry about near-field effects and antenna
n Behalf
>>Of Cortland Richmond
>>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 6:34 AM
>>To: Tudor, Allen; ieee pstc list
>>Subject: Re: Site Correlation
>>
>>
>>
>>I'd say either a comb generator, or a sweep generator but use them to
>>excite a test obje
I'd say either a comb generator, or a sweep generator but use them to
excite a test object of the same general size as the equipment you wish to
test. The smaller your chamber, the more it will be affected by the size of
an EUT sitting in it. If you can be pretty sure what you will test, add its
c
schl"
Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org
To: "Tudor, Allen" , "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
cc:
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Allen,
the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a
comb generator, but the difference in the radiation chara
.
--
>From: "Brent Pahl"
>To: "Ken Javor" , "Tudor, Allen"
, "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 1:31 PM
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Very true. I was simply looking at the question of which of the two l
]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:02 AM
To: Brent Pahl; Tudor, Allen; EMC-PCST (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Site Correlation
Have to take strong exception. If EUT is much larger than comb generator, a
correlation between sites using the comb generator will not work for the
larger EUT. Measurement
.
--
>From: "Brent Pahl"
>To: "Tudor, Allen" , "EMC-PCST \(E-mail\)"
>Subject: RE: Site Correlation
>Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 11:31 AM
>
>
> Allen,
>
> We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After
> in
Allen,
We just did this in our 3-meter lab using a comb generator. After
interviewing several test labs, I found out that they use comb generator's
occasionally to see if they are still properly calibrated. Evidently, a
good comb generator will give a consistent output, give or take 0.5dB, over
I would assume that the 10m semi-anechoic chamber complies with ANSI C63.4
volumetric NSA. I would also assume that the <3m chamber noes not comply.
The major correlation issues would relate to:
1) 3m versus 10m (regardless of the sites)
2) non-compliant room (with peaks and nulls) versus compli
If you don't use a source of similar size to the EUT you won't get the right
answer.
--
>From: "Tudor, Allen"
>To: "EMC-PCST (E-mail)"
>Subject: Site Correlation
>Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2001, 7:58 AM
>
>
> Greetings:
>
> What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller th
Allen,
the main problem you will have is not whether to use signal generator or a
comb generator, but the difference in the radiation characteristic of your
source for correlation and the DUTs that you will later put in the chamber.
You will measure a lots of near-field in you 3m or smaller chamb
Hello all
There are a few variables that need to be addressed to answer this question.
The first is the nature of the chamber. My reply will assume that this is
a fully anechoic chamber (walls, floor, and ceiling all lined
with absorber material). Otherwise, all bets are off due to the unpr
39 matches
Mail list logo
