John Woodgate wrote: > Well, apart form the 'sets of interests', do you agree that it is > technically unsound? At least, in specifying only the insertion loss of > the ferrite, leaving open the question of whether the ferrite is > absorbing the incident energy (good) or reflecting it back to the source > (not good).
And Ghery Pettit wrote: > Oh, and the ferrite clamps have been deleted from CISPR 22 as part of > the latest FDIS and will not show up in CISPR 22:2005, which should be > published in the next few weeks. > > The problem with the clamps is that they were not adequately defined and > you could still have different clamps, each meeting the 15 dB of loss in > 50 ohms requirement, converging to different answers. Yes indeed; this was one of the sets of interests I was meaning, but not by any means the only one. It's also one that is being (has been?) addressed in CISPR/A, through a document defining how to calibrate the CMAD. Undoubtedly it was a rather hastily-thought out amendment, but I don't see that it deserved all the opprobrium that it got, and it was at least trying to address the problem. The problem hasn't gone away, but the solution is hiding in the corner. > I suspect this subject will arise again in CISPR SC I in the future I hope so, but it seems as though CIS/I has its hands full at present. Regards Tim Williams Elmac Services, Chichester, UK http://www.elmac.co.uk This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
