In message <[email protected]>, dated Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Bill Owsley <[email protected]> writes:
>I've had a number of products pass at 3 meters to fail at 10 and with >nearly the same profile on the spectrum plot, besides the amplitude >that did not drop the 10 dB as expected. But interference is more likely with less separation, and 3 m separation between source and victim is much more likely these days than 10 m. I think you should look at your results as showing that 'the field strength did not RISE as much as expected between 10 m and 3 m', not the other way round. I suspect that 10 m was standardized 60 years ago as a reasonable distance on an OATS when the radio spectrum was quite quiet and products were much larger. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex 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/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: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
