I don't think it is at all complicated, at least in principle. Maybe a devil will emerge out of some details I am missing...
I don't see how an end-driven wire can radiate more efficiently than a tuned half-wave dipole. That model can be used to convert from field intensity at X meters to peak current on the cable. For the case of multiple cables one could make various assumptions about the additive effect of emissions at X meters: A worst case assumption is that the same spectrum could appear on each cable and add in phase at the measurement point. This would require subtracting >from the previously determined single cable current limit the factor: 20*log (number of cables). I think this is unreasonable, that the summing would be of random phase and the factor to be subtracted from the single cable current limit ought to be 10*log (number of cables). I am not trying to say that this approach is precisely correct and should be implemented as is. I do think it would be interesting to make some cable measurements using an absorbing clamp and compare to the corresponding OATS profile and draw some conclusions. > From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> > Reply-To: John Woodgate <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:58:28 +0100 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: cable maximization - do you or don't you?? > > > I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor <[email protected]> wrote > (in <bb2efbe8.2b77%[email protected]>) about 'cable > maximization - do you or don't you??' on Mon, 7 Jul 2003: > >> Why not calculate the cable conducted emission that would result in radiated >> spec level compliance, and levy a cable conducted emission requirement? > > Such a calculation would be extremely difficult, wouldn't it? Even if > you could calculate for one cable, dealing with many cables interacting > would be hard. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk > Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to > http://www.isce.org.uk > PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! > > ------------------------------------------- > 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: > Ron Pickard: [email protected] > Dave Heald: [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > 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: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
