Bingo.  Clearly another driver for inserting MU where it doesn't belong is a
desire to replace the need for competent personnel with an algorithmic process
that works for any personnel.  But the same personnel who don’t know how to
properly perform the test will also not know how to run the algorithm. Hence
Mr. Walton’s observations on how poorly MU is executed in reality.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



________________________________

From: Dennis Ward <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
List-Post: [email protected]
List-Post: [email protected]
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:50:21 -0700
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse modulation

I think I would only add that while measurement uncertainties for EMC is
nebulous at best, at the same time we do not want to get into the habit of a
slam dunk mentality of ‘oh, just a number, it doesn’t matter.”  
 
That is why Derek’s statement of “What’s really needed is a competent
individual with adequate equipment” is so important.  Where electromagnetic
compatibility is concerned, competence of the engineers doing the measurement
is probably much more important than uncertainties. I know that one of the
biggest benefits to testing in the radio approvals industry is competence of
test personnel.
 
Compliance does matter and the best way to keep unneeded uncertainties out of
the EMC measurement industry, is to keep competence of test personnel in.



 
Dennis Ward 
Director of Engineering
American TCB 
Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry www.atcb.com
<http://www.atcb.com/> <http://www.atcb.com/>  
703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 
direct - 703-880-4841 


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:00 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse modulation


Hi Deniz,

this is where "real" EMI guys differ from Metrology guys. We really don't need
to be piddling with little numbers.... with the exception of frequency. Most
of these modulations are compromises, and measuring a compromise accurately is
a silly thing to do: in reality.



You may want to get on board with the proof of the pudding phrase, it's OK in
EMI: otherwise we expend all sorts of effort for no VALUE in return. The
compliance world is obsessed with meeting a number, when the REAL reason for
doing this testing is to ensure successful operation in use.

I strongly disagree with Gerts statement MU is simple, it's not. Of the 140+
labs I've visited as an assessor, only a handful have a valid effort, and less
than 1/2 doz believe it was of real value.

Precision and EMI do not go together. I for one like it like that. Whats
really needed is a competent individual with adequate equipment.

If a committee would like MU, then as test labs we should isolate the cost
that adds, and identify it on peoples invoices when that test is run. It's an
effective way of making the standard unpopular. 


The reason I'm on a soap box about this is because unless silly requiremnts
like this re CHALLENGED, and not just carte-blanche accepted, they become
requirements. For calibration, I believe MU is useful, but for EMI, it has no
place.

Sincerely,

Derek.


From: Deniz Demirci <[email protected]>
To: Untitled <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Aug 11, 2010 10:35 am
Subject: RE: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse modulation
Could you define how precise?









What is your acceptance criteria for the modulation dept? 




Let's say for basic 80 % AM modulation.  Is your tolerance 0.1 % or




between 60 % to 90 % is good enough. 




There is more than a dB peak difference in the signal for 60 % AM and 80




% AM modulations. You won't realize the difference with a field probe in




radiated immunity tests with modulated signal. (Simple  math;




20*Log(1.6/1.8) = -1.02 dB) It seems not very insignificant to me









Another case;




If you are using 6 meter cable for radiated emission at 10 GHz, your




cable characterization uncertainty is more than 1.5 dB even with a quite




high grade cable (Experimental measurements). Check the cable vswr




figures in their specs measured in ideal conditions. Even a simple cable




is a significant uncertainty contributor.




Your measurement antenna is not exactly 50 Ohm at 10 GHz also. Site




imperfection is another story. Those figures are not accounted for in




the MIL-STD-461 RE102 verification. Everything seems to be very good




when you terminate the measurement cable with a signal generator (50




ohm) output.  I don't agree with this <quote> an ultimate




"proof-of-the-pudding," </quote>









You can use all your engineering skills for the tests but you have to




quantify your risk using type B measurement uncertainty analysis and do




the Type A if you can afford to see where you stand.









As Mr. Gremmen said " MU is not difficult"




No need to be afraid,









OOO (Own opinions only)









Best regards,









Deniz Demirci 




National Technical Systems (NTS Canada)




Phone: 403-568-6605 ext 244




fax: 403-568-6970




email:[email protected]




web: http://www.ntscorp.com/about/locations
























From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?>
<mailto:[email protected]?>  ] On Behalf Of Ken




Javor




Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:55 AM




To: Untitled




Subject: Re: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse




modulation









Precisely.




 




Ken Javor









Phone: (256) 650-5261














> From: Cortland Richmond <[email protected]>




> Reply-To: <[email protected]>




> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:27:34 -0400




> To: emc-pstc <[email protected]>




> Subject: re: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse




modulation




> 




> Not quite what you need to know but I've used signal taps or




directional




> couplers with a 'scope to watch the RF waveform and set modulation




depth,




> and a calibrated counter, or even a receiver or analyzer will for




> frequency. One always has recourse to calibrated devices to monitor




> another, uncalibrated one. It's a good idea anyway! If a detector must




be




> used whose linearity is unknown, one can use calibrated attenuators to




find




> out. 




> 




> 




> Cortland Richmond




> KA5S 




> 




> 




>> [Original Message]




>> From: Wendy Nya <[email protected]>




>> To: <[email protected]>




>> Date: 8/10/2010 4:23:29 AM




>> Subject: Calibration supplier for signal generator with pulse




modulation




>> 




>> Dear All,




>> 




>> I am looking for a calibration supplier that can provide accredited




> service for 




>> AR SG6000. It has built-in pulse modulation option (for Radiated




Immunity




> use).




>> 




>> By the way - Is anyone using this model? It seems to be OEM from




Agilent




> (it 




>> came in an agilent box) but the equipment is marked AR




>> and works with Agilent N5181A driver. Agilent is saying that it is




not




> able to 




>> provide accredited calibration service for this model.




>> 




>> Thanks & Regards,




>> Wendy Nya




> 




> -




> ----------------------------------------------------------------




> 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]>









-









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]> 
-

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