In message <c2a93c6c.58773%[email protected]>, dated Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Ken Javor <[email protected]> writes:
>The RE limit is based on protecting some level of signal-to-noise ratio >at the victim broadcast receiver from interference at some assumed >level of received broadcast signal level. If that level of rfi has been >measured at three meters from a test article, then as you move in >closer the rfi field intensity will increase, but you don't know how >much because you are in the near field. The victim snr will suffer, >but you don't know how much, and it only matters if the broadcast >signal level is at or below that assumed when setting the limit. Agreed. One case (other than in free space and far field) where a calculation is sometimes possible is magnetic induction into a receiver with a magnetic antenna. -- 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 ______________________________________________________________________
