]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 6:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Perhaps “single-cycle RMS” would be better than “instantaneous”
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
From
you.
From: Bill Owsley [mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:27 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
The "convention" for Instantaneous RMS is trending tow
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Well, first, instantaneous does not mean zero, it means done in a short
duration of time. So, there is no such thing as averaging in zero time.
Dennis Ward
This com
:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
The "convention" for Instantaneous RMS is trending towards 0.707, the square
root of 2 time
ERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
RMS means 'root-mean-square' and 'mean' means 'average. For 'instantaneous',
the averaging time is zero, so the RMS value is also zero. No trouble in
meeting
bruary 28, 2017 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Not much different from any other in situ testing I've ever done. Guess I
looked like a mad scientist and didn't know it.
Thanks,
Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB
EE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
"...since the 51.5 is derived from 20*log(377)"
to be even more accurate, the 377 is the ratio of E/H, and for actual numbers
(if I get this right) permittivity / permeability in a vacuum or free spa
ect: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
Use]
Not much different from any other in situ testing I've ever done. Guess I
looked like a mad scientist and didn't know it.
Thanks,
Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT
"We c
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
But there was a technical reason for do
when everything works but nobody knows why." -- Albert
Einstein
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [G
d testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.grem...@cetest.nl>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:37:43 +0100
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Conversation: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive
tion.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!
With best wi
: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> Agreed Ken. In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
> the specified antenna factor i
On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Agreed Ken. In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
the specified antenna factor is what it is.
I have to concur. I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on
measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.
[mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
&
yleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
If we go all the way back to the OP:
The cu
;
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:13:53 -0500
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions
[General
> Use]
>
> On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> I think Ken's ra
g distance at that frequency!
Brent G DeWitt, AB1LF
Milford, MA
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27
RV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
>> 20*log(377).
>>
>>
> Sure, but now
On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
20*log(377).
Sure, but now we're back to how close we are -- wavelengths -- to the emitter.
20*log(??)
Low frequencies can be tricky, and I once had to double-check a test
ate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions
> [General Use]
>
> I doubt that
ohn Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubt
odgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubtedly means
&g
b 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubtedly means
> 'near field'.
>
> Wit
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John McAuley wrote:
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
His customer wants dB s/m, which is not printable with the TE software.
From the EMCO manual:
/
/Cortland Richmond/
/
.
-
[mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John Macaulay wrote:
> The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
>
> dB(pT) -
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John Macaulay wrote:
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
This is
true only in the Far Field.
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 27 February 2017 16:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use
On 2/27/2017 7:15 AM, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) wrote:
The customer has requested an extended magnetic field emission test over the
range 100kHz to 2MHz with a limit defined in dBpT.
The antenna to be used is an EMCO 6512 which has it correction factors provided
in dBS/m which the emission
29 matches
Mail list logo