Hello,
I'm puzzled by a proposed RF link performance standard I have just reviewed
that is calling for some immunity to inband interference signals. The
proposed procedure to do this to is to place a system receiver in an
anechoic room and then transmit to it. The transmitter signal strength is
t
-Original Message-
From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:47 PM
To: 'Kevin Harris'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject:RE: RF testing question
Kevi
hock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
>-Original Message-
>From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:40 AM
>To: 'Ken Javor'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: RF testing question
>
>
>
>Hi Ken,
>
>Let me try to explain it bet
" , "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)"
>Subject: RE: RF testing question
>Date: Tue, May 8, 2001, 6:39 AM
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Let me try to explain it better. The standard asks that you stop reducing
> the signal strength one you cross the 25% threshold. I would imagine that it
> would
lto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:48 PM
To: Price, Ed; 'Kevin Harris'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: Re: RF testing question
Either I am being dense, or there is not enough
dear, departed brain cells)?
--
>From: "Price, Ed"
>To: "'Kevin Harris'" , "EMC-PSTC (E-mail)"
>Subject: RE: RF testing question
>Date: Mon, May 7, 2001, 1:47 PM
>
>
> Kevin:
>
> You are actually testing a signal-to-nois
onday, May 07, 2001 9:19 AM
>To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
>Subject: RF testing question
>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm puzzled by a proposed RF link performance standard I have
>just reviewed
>that is calling for some immunity to inband interference signals. The
>proposed procedur
7 matches
Mail list logo
