<20010621143204.UCHV1335.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27]>, Ken Javor <[email protected]> inimitably wrote: >The limits as placed prevent most but not all >interference. For instance, some AM radios are susceptible to conducted >interference below 48 dBuV. The limits were placed, both in amplitude and >frequency, to prevent the large majority of interferences, but not all. >Whether it was done right or not may be open to debate, but the philosophy >was to optimize: to get the least amount of interference while imposing the >minimum design cost impact.
Correct. The new(ish) CISPR/H committee is to review these radiated emission limits, some of which are very 'traditional'. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? ------------------------------------------- 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: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
