Hi Jim, Kicking back ready for the week end eh? Thank you for your comments. I think however that the original thread was for immunity testing. My limited experience has been that delivering 10VRMS above about 200MHz is a problem with most probes.
Are you referring to emissions? Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:[email protected] Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -----Original Message----- From: Knighten, Jim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 4:47 PM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); [email protected] Subject: RE: Current Probes Chaz, I was scrolling through old messages and came across this one. Always ready to provide a counter example, I routinely use a current probe at 500 MHz on our high speed digital data switching equipment. It was better than anything else early in the design phase. Jim Knighten Dr. Jim Knighten e-mail: [email protected] Senior Consulting Engineer NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com Tel: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 -----Original Message----- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 4:38 AM To: [email protected]; 'Donald McElhearn' Subject: RE: Current Probes There is no doubt that the use of a current probe can effectively illuminate problems with an EUT. But the method can really only be used effectively up to about 200MHz or so and (heres the kicker) is about 6db harsher on the EUT than the Radiated Immunity test. In other words, you may cause a failure with the probe that the cannot be repested in the RI test. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) > ---------- > From: Donald McElhearn[SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Current Probes > > > Could some of the more experienced member of this forum share > there views and or experiences on the usefulness of current probes > in carry out pre-compliance RF immunity testing. > > I am aware that there are limitation to this method of current > injection to simulate true RF field immunity conditions. > > Short of a screened anechoic chamber can this method allow a > manufactuer some means of evaluating what he/she may > experience under real test conditions? > > Do the costs justify the benefits? > > Donald Mcelheran > Product Development Co-ordinator > > > > > > > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
