No connected cables. It was clearly a radiated test. Here is what we worked out so far, but it seems rather bizarre so I was looking for an alternative explanation:
It is an antenna induced limit like MIL-I-6181, but what throws me is the arcane way (I think) they determine the antenna factor as they build their antenna-induced limit. I'm not saying this is correct, but this is what my NASA colleague and I worked out. They show a theoretical 3 m site attenuation not in terms of straight loss between transmit antenna power input and receive antenna power output but as the dBpW available from the receive antenna when immersed in the field of a transmit antenna driven to generate 100 uV/m. The receive antenna is a tuned dipole above 80 MHz, and fixed at the 80 MHz length below 80 MHz. They plot the dBpW available from that dipole as a function of frequency (30 - 1000 MHz) given height scans of 1 - 4 m. Then they show an antenna-induced limit in terms of dBpW measured at the receiver from the EUT as a source. The version of EN 55013 I had was CISPR 13 - 1975. What I want to know is if this admittedly bizarre explanation is correct. If it is, why do they do it like that? And if it isn't, how do I read a dBpW vs. frequency graph? ---------- >From: "KC CHAN [PDD]" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: CISPR 13, EN 55013 >Date: Sun, Oct 28, 2001, 6:37 PM > > Are there any connections, like earphone? The result look like the power > clamp measurement. > >>>> "Ken Javor" <[email protected]> 10/27/01 04:05am >>> > > Assembled Experts, > > A NASA colleague of mine has EN 55013 test results on an electronic > keyboard. The test results are a graph of dBpW vs. frequency, with a > conversion chart for getting from measured data in dBuV to dBpW to be > plotted against the limit. I have a 1975 version of CISPR 13 and can find > nothing that leads to a dBpW limit. The keyboard is battery powered so I > assume the test was radiated in nature. Any ideas out there on what was > measured? > > Thank you. > > Ken Javor > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > Dave Heald [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old > messages are imported into the new server. > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
