John/Bob,

We actually had some degree of floor reflection and continued to perform
antenna height adjustments (1 to 2.7m, due to room limitations). We didn't
nearly get the amount of change in measured value versus antenna height as we
did with a reflective floor, though. For RI testing, we also had to add a
couple blocks of 3' absorber in the middle of the floor. We also used 3'
absorber in the side walls and 4' in the end walls. Yes, we interpolated the
test distance using the factor 9.5 dB. The region from 30 to 150 MHz, you
could "write off", but everything higher was amazingly predictable based on
chamber measurements. Fortunately, our equipment rarely had emissions below
150 MHz.

By the way, if anyone would like to build a "real" comb generator, let me know
privately and I can send you the DIY details. It produces harmonics every 5
MHz and has useful energy out to 1500 MHz. This was published in the early
90's by RF Design Magazine.

Regards, Ken


Wyatt Technical Services, LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.emc-seminars.com

(719) 310-5418
(888) 212-4602 toll-free

On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:54 AM, John McAuley wrote:


        
        Hi Ken
         
        Does this mean that the ground reflected component is not necessary to
achieve the NSA at 3m?  Did varying the receive antenna height make any
difference to the NSA.  Were you doing a simple linear interpolation between
10m and 3m?
         
        What area of waffle tiles did you use? Complete floor coverage?
         
        Lots of questions, I know.
         
        Thanks
         
        John McAuley
         
         
        From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken 
Wyatt
        Sent: 13 April 2009 15:26
        To: Elliott Mac-FME001
        Cc: [email protected]
        Subject: Re: [PSES] any recommendations on floor absorber?
         
        Hi Mac, et al,
         
        At the Agilent - Colorado Springs test lab, we replaced our reflective 
floor
in the 3m chamber with the waffle tiles, covering it over with thin plywood
and carpeting. With the antenna / turntable angled from the center line, we
were able to achieve NSA without any trouble (30-1000 MHz). We never measured
above that, though, as we didn't have equipment standards that required it.
However, the comparison between 10m OATS and 3m FAC was almost too good to be
true. We were often within 2 dB and hardly ever more than 4-5 dB different.
This was data from real products with cables attached and spread out, as well
as comb generator data. ...and yes, I know all the affects of near field
versus far field and 3m versus 10m distance. We were maybe just plain lucky,
who knows? Bottom line is that the waffle tiles did us GOOD!
         
        Regards, Ken
        ----------------------------------------------
        Wyatt Technical Services, LLC
        56 Aspen Dr.
        Woodland Park, CO 80863
         
        Email: [email protected]
        Web: www.emc-seminars.com
         
        (719) 310-5418
        (888) 212-4602 toll-free
         
        On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Elliott Mac-FME001 wrote:
        
        
        
        Hi Charles - interesting question. I haven't really had any experience 
with
this.
         
        Ferrite tiles become more reflective at higher frequencies so may be 
unlikely
to meet the criteria I would bet.
         
        However, I have recently seen some "waffle" ferrite walls at a lab 
recently
that actually worked pretty well at not attenuating the incident wave at
higher freqs but instead "scattered" the reflections and the dispersement
seemed to work fairly well. Correlation to OATS pretty good up to at least 8
GHz.
         
        Whether or not it meets the CISPR site requirements would be a good 
study....
         
        Anybody out there have any luck using ferrite material
         
        Best regards,
         
        Mac Elliott
         
        
        [    ] General Public 
         
         
        
________________________________

        From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:[email protected]] 
        Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:45 PM
        To: Elliott Mac-FME001; Knighten, Jim L; [email protected]
        Subject: RE: any recommendations on floor absorber?
        Typically folks with chambers use tile – is that out of the question?
         
        
________________________________

        From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Elliott
Mac-FME001
        Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:59 PM
        To: Knighten, Jim L; [email protected]
        Subject: RE: any recommendations on floor absorber?
         
        Jim
         
        Last year I started looking into this for my OATS as well but was 
primarily
looking at the upcoming changes to ANSI C63.4 [absorber with > 20 dB
attenuation over 1 GHz over freq range]. New version of ANSI C63.4 will
require 2.4m*2.4m square for 3m OATS and proportionally higher for larger
distances [about 8m*8m for 10m site..]
         
        I found two that meet the requirement, although I am sure there are 
more out
there
         
        TDK Model IS-30A
         
        ETS Lindgren Model EHP-12PCL
         
        Both have distinct pros and cons.
         
        The TDK seems like it would be better for anchoring down and leaving on 
OATS
due to closed cell absorber blended with polyethylene which should be fairly
impervious to elements [at least that is the theory]
         
        The ETS comes in larger pieces and easier for transport but may not be 
as
resistant to elements.
         
        Of course price comes into play as well....
         
        I have done some experiments and found that NSA below 1 GHz seems to be 
OK on
3m site except for 1-2 sites that are out. Could have been operator error as
we were doing yearly NSA tests and just stuck the absorber out there to get
general idea what would happen. No time to investigate anomaly yet...
         
        Am cautiously optimistic that NSA may be OK with absorber on ground 
plane,
which seems counter intuitive to me because I thought that the ground bounce
was included in the equation for ideal site attenuation.
         
        This doesn't seem to be the case for my 10m sites which are off axis 
from the
3m site and we have dual masts for doing primarily Part 90 tests [TX], which
won't require absorber and TIA 603 will actually point to old ANSI standard
which doesn't have it. There seems to be an edge effect in VPOL if I leave the
3m foam down when I do my site attenuation for my 10m sites. Need more
investigation. Using the ANSI C63.5:2006 AFs for NSA may help as well - need
to do comparisons.
         
        My hope is that my OATS with the absorber will meet the CISPR 16 [site
requirements as well. May need some turntable treatment but hopefully not as
much of an issue as trying to meet it in a chamber from what I have been
hearing.
         
        Anyway - more info than you probably needed but though I would share 
with you
and the rest of the group [especially since you have an OATS].
         
        Hope this helps [at least point towards some potential absorber!]
         
         
        Best regards,
         
        Mac Elliott
         
        [    ] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR), 
        [ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
        [    ] General Public 
         
         
        
________________________________

        From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Knighten, Jim
L
        Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:57 PM
        To: [email protected]
        Subject: any recommendations on floor absorber?

        I am looking for advice as I prepare for radiated emissions testing 
above 1
GHz according to the CISPR test method, which becomes mandatory in 2010.

        I have an OATS with an all weather fiberglass dome (with a 4m diameter
turntable) in which I testensembles of floor-standing racks of equipment (each
rack ~6 ft high, 2000 lbs.)

        Does anyone have recommendations to share with me as to candidate 
absorber
materials for placement on the floor to meet the CISPR 16-2-3 measurement
method for measuring radiated emissions above 1 GHz? 

        I am guessing that important characteristics for absorbers may be: 
fragility
or durability, absorptionfrequency range, cost, and size.  I cannot easily
raise my EUT to a height off the floor to clear the absorbers, not can I
configure my EUT to place certain chassis higher or lower in the rack.

        I appreciate your help in advance.

        Jim

        __________________________

        James L. Knighten, Ph.D.

        EMC Engineer

        Teradata Corporation

        17095 Via Del Campo

        San Diego, CA 92127

        858-485-2537 – phone

        858-485-3788 – fax (unattended)

         
        -
        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        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
athttp://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