Hello Ron, Thanx for the response but if that were the case then wouldn't Figure 1 of 1000-4-3 have a Vrms value of 1.8V instead of 1.12V for the modulated signal? (Given that the unmodulated was 1.0V Vrms)
Best regards, Antonio -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 1:31 PM To: Antonio Cinquino; [email protected] Subject: Re: Immunity Testing to EN55024 1.8 times or 5.4V/m Ron Chernus Antonio Cinquino <[email protected]> on 09/06/2000 08:33:47 AM Please respond to Antonio Cinquino <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> cc: (bcc: RON CHERNUS/LALAB) Subject: Immunity Testing to EN55024 Hello Group, Table 1 of EN55024 calls for a test specification of 3 V/m (umodulated, r.m.s) radio-frequecny EM field for Immunity at the enclosure port. Does anyone know off-hand the value when the signal is 80% modulated with an AM signal of 1kHz as called for in the same table? Antonio Cinquino CAE Electronics Ltd. Electrical System Designer Phone : (514) 341-2000 (ext. 4303) Fax : (514) 340-5552 Email : [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
