>From "EUT cost to compliance" point of view I fully agree
with  this discussion about preselectors.
The only error one makes without preselector is that one may (not will)
need much more effort and cost to make your product compliant,
as ghost emissions may appear due to overload effects in any 
receiver amplifier/mixer part, transient  limiter or elsewhere.
However, if your receiver/spectrumanlyser without preselector indicates
compliance
the result is valid (other non-compliance aspects neglected).

Without preselector:

A non compliance result is NOT reliable
A compliance result IS reliable.


Another remark:

Most transient limiters contain an attenuator (20dB) 
in front of the limiter. As a transient limiter will
clip somewhere between 1 and 3 volts pk, the
spikes that triggered the transient limiter were generated
by that "immature design" were of an amplitude very
likely to have destroyed the input of the analyser
without the transient device (>20V) !!

I have no relations with this company!!!
I stick to the (older?) R&S receivers, as they have shown
to produce consistent results over time, and have sufficient
head room in their amplifiers to never
create overload problems, and do have
decent pre-selectors. In addition, they have
no problems in meeting calibration requirements
over their lifetime.
Also, from a electronics designer point
of view, these instruments have been build without compromises.
(and I have looked inside !)
>From a company whose core business is professional RF one can
expect corresponding performance.
No durable experience with the newer receivers yet.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen




ce-test, qualified testing bv



Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner <[email protected]> wrote:

>Amazing the spectrum you get when a really large 50kHz switching
>fundamental slams into the transient limiter.

I remember reading a long time ago that when a transient limiter starts
to clamp, it becomes a comb generator. I ran into that recently when
testing a product that initially appeared to fail by ~20dB. I don't know
what made me think to try it, but I removed the transient limiter and
installed an attenuator in its place. The emissions at 150khz dropped
drastically. A linearity check showed that I still had a problem,
though. I grabbed the one analyzer we have with a preselector, and got
passing results. 

FWIW, this was a power supply for VCCI testing. It easily passed (with
transient limiter) at 120Vac, but appeared to fail miserably at 100Vac,
50Hz.

Bob Richards, NCT.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to <[email protected]>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that
URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
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]>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<[email protected]>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
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]>


Reply via email to