I favor scanning somewhat past the prescribed scan edge (and either including
calibration points, or if not provided, extrapolating straight line in the
transducer tables) because often, automated systems fail to display an
emission right on the edge of the scan and extending it makes sure these are
caught.
Many of us may also have noticed that automated systems can produce misleading
printouts unless scan segments are kept short enough to insure all data is
properly represented on paper. That is properly another discussion.
It's already been mentioned that where large excursions are present, more data
points should be entered in transducer tables. Data points far enough apart
to introduce an additional 1 dB of error are in my opinion too far apart.
I suspect that in-band computational errors due to reliance on missing
out-of-band data points may be satisfactorily contained by short straight line
extrapolations as above.
Cortland Richmond, KA5S
GE Aviation
Opinions my own, not my employers'!
----- Original Message -----
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 6/7/2009 12:49:05 PM
Subject: Measurement Accuracy and antenna factors
A lot of effort has been put into specification of
measurement accuracies in radiated emissions.
CISPR 16-4-2 has a number of uncertainty budgets listed.
One factor that I have not seen in any budget is the
error introduced by interpolation between
antenna factor calibration points by the measuring receiver.
In general the characteristics of a calibrated antenna
are entered into the measuring receiver as a number of
F/AF pairs, more or less randomly selected from
the calibration graph. Then the AF values for frequencies
in between those pairs a quadratic spline function is used
to interpolate. The function requires 4 calibration pairs to operate
correctly
of which 2 must be lower and 2 must be higher then the
interpolated frequency. Especially near 30 MHz, where modern
antennas have steep AF graphs, a calibration point
below 30 MHz is not always available and I assume
the software duplicates the 30 MHz pair to
say 25 MHz to complete the function’s requirements.
This must introduce interpolation errors near 30 MHz.
I do now know the error that might be introduced by this
Type of function. I know that Taylor series have alternating sign
In their expansion, and that the values diminish each term,
so the error of approximation remain smaller as the last term
used to interpolate. But Taylor does not suit itself
for approximation of non computable data (such as AF).
My questions for the group are:
What requirements are to be met for the F/AF pairs to
minimize errors?
What are the errors introduced by interpolation?
How do YOU handle this additional uncertainty…?
Gert Gremmen
Ce-test qualified testing bv
-
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]>
