RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Group, On several occasions during radiated immunity EMC testing, I have observed products deviate or even fail and subsequent manual spot checks at the frequencies of interest have revealed no anomalous behaviour. I saw such behaviour on a product I was testing recently, and spent a long time

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Hi Brent, can't reply now, dashing for a plane... Rest assured I will, because I take issue with a number of your points... Also with respect, Derek Walton L F Research. This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Soc

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:48 PM GMT Daylight Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: The British Standards EMC committees have test houses very well represented. Two observations... First: Test houses

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Chris, The only other thing I can suggest doing is to trace the GPIB traffic to the instruments (particularly the signal generator) to determine the sequence of commands before and during the EUT failure. If you have a National Instruments GPIB interface, you can run the NI-Spy program and captur

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Hi, I once had equipment that did processing of analogue measurements. Nobody explained what is was doing and so I seemed to get random failures. The measurement technique was to set the levels, trigger the equipment and check the result, then move to the next frequency. A failure would occur

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

HI, I once had equipment that did processing of analogue measurements. Nobody explained what is was doing and so I seemed to get random failures. The measurement technique was to set the levels, trigger the equipment and check the result, then move to the next frequency. A failure would occur

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <1f5.102ef2e6.303a1...@aol.com>) about 'RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check', on Sun, 21 Aug 2005: >In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:48 PM GMT Daylight Time, >j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: > >The British Standards EMC committee

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

In a message dated 8/20/2005 4:18:48 PM GMT Daylight Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: The British Standards EMC committees have test houses very well represented. Two observations... First: Test houses are entities that commercially exist to evaluate products. It is unlikely that you will

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in <1a6.3d3df2dc.30376...@aol.com>) about 'RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check', on Fri, 19 Aug 2005: >Perhaps standards should be written by folks that actually run >tests Having worked on come committees, it's fascinating to see &g

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Had a similar problem, found the digital attenuator for the RF Generator shifted bits unlike an analog attenuator. Did a nasty spike of more than 10dB as it set the bits. I vaguely remember a "mute" function that didn't take a lot of time, but allowed us to shut off the RF Generator until the at

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Attenuator switching transients are one thing. Another is spikes in RF or modulation level when a sig gen is turned on again after having being turned off to avoid producing transients. Darned if you do, and also if you don't . Narrow resonances in directional couplers may also fool a control syst

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

In a message dated 8/19/2005 3:12:03 PM GMT Daylight Time, don_borow...@selinc.com writes: Indeed the software does what it is designed to do, but that doesn't mean that the design is correct. I also use software that (when using drive tables from the field calibration) advances to the next frequ

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

BTW, if anyone is interested in free conducted immunity software that works this way, check out: http://emc.toprudder.com/software/radcon/index.html Not a lot of instrument drivers at this time, but you can write your own without prog

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

lfresea...@aol.com wrote on 08/18/2005 05:42:04 PM: > Hmm... > > This is a carrot that I need to nibble on. > > I take a little issue with folks by blaming software, regardless of > the supplier. The software does what it's designed to do... Indeed the software does what it is designed to do, but

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

All current military standards may be retrieved from the following site: http://stinet.dtic.mil/str/dodiss4_fields.html From: "Richard Jones" List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:43:30 +0100 To: Subject: Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check H

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Hi Well at the risk of being burnt at the stake I believe that: When carrying out an automatic sweep some EMC test software does not allow the power meter time to measure the power level correctly. (The larger the transition the longer it will take for the power head to level and this isn't tak

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Derek You say the MIL standard is available free of charge - can you tell me where I can download it? Thanks Ian Gordon *** The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential and is provided solely f

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Derek, That is a very good carrot to nibble on!! > 1) The test environment attempts the reproduce > consistent results. It may not > correlate with real fields encountered in use. So, > there is controversy on > how a test should run. Great point. From what I understand, plane waves are rarely

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Hmm... This is a carrot that I need to nibble on. I take a little issue with folks by blaming software, regardless of the supplier. The software does what it's designed to do... In reality there are a number of factors, some of which are: 1) The test environment attempts the reproduce consist

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

emc-p...@ieee.org >> Subject: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check >> Group, >> >> On several occasions during radiated immunity EMC testing, I have >> observed products deviate >> or even fail and subsequent manual spot checks at the frequencies of >> inte

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Chris, This could be a problem with the automated software running the test. I have seen at least two commercial software packages that have problems stepping between frequencies. There may be 2 or 3 (or more) dB difference in the signal generator calibration level between adjacent frequencies. (

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Chileshe, Chris Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:52 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check Group, On several occasions during radiated immunity EMC testing, I have observed products deviate or even fail and subsequent ma

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

usceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check "Chileshe, Chris" wrote (in <97976b56b6309e45bf7378c2c39329ed01a73...@havuksmb01.euro.ad.etn.com>) about 'RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check', on Thu, 18 Aug 2005: >What is the explanation for this and there are techniques for

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

From: Chileshe, Chris [mailto:chrischile...@eaton.com] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 9:52 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check Group, On several occasions during radiated immunity EMC testing, I have observed products deviate or even fail and subsequent

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

"Chileshe, Chris" wrote (in <97976b56b6309e45bf7378c2c39329ed01a73...@havuksmb01.euro.ad.etn.com>) about 'RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check', on Thu, 18 Aug 2005: >What is the explanation for this and there are techniques for getting >round this

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Chileshe, Chris wrote: > Group, > > On several occasions during radiated immunity EMC testing, I have > observed products deviate > or even fail and subsequent manual spot checks at the frequencies of > interest have revealed no > anomalous behaviour. > > I saw such behaviour on a product I

RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check -- MIL-STD-461E

_ From: pauljsmi...@cs.com [mailto:pauljsmi...@cs.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:27 AM To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check -- MIL-STD-461E You can also find MIL-STD-461E and other free standards at the

seeing double again RE: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check

Hi, Can someone on the mailing list tell me why is it that I am seeing the same posting twice? Tim Foo This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ie

Re: RF Susceptibility: Sweep v/s spot check -- MIL-STD-461E

You can also find MIL-STD-461E and other free standards at the following site http://assist1.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ Regards, Paul J Smith This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Socie