subject:"EMI Receiver"

Not entirely correct.  The 1 kOhm bleeder working against the 0.25 uF
blocking cap yields a 10:1 voltage divider, open-circuit.  Still too much
for an EMI receiver absent adequate attenuation and/or filtering. At 400
cycles (per one post, not the original concern) the problem is greatly
exacerbated.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:36:20 -0600
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Back in the early 1990s, Tegam supplied a LISN that had a switch which could
be depressed while connecting the EMI receiver to the LISN EMI port.
Without that switch, the open-circuit potential at the EMI port is the line
potential.  When the switch is depressed, it shorts out the bleed resistor
across the EMI port, which in turn shorts out any potential across the EMI
port. Once the 50 Ohm receiver is connected, the switch is released, and the
50 Ohm receiver loads the line potential across the blocking cap.

The idea came from homemade LISNs that Elite Electronics Engineering Company
built for their own in-house use.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Derek Walton 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:05:54 -0600
To: 
Cc: Ken Javor , 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

   I'm not sure if someone has covered this, but my biggest concern with
damaging a receiver/SA is during the application of, or removal of power.

 Specifically, if power is applied at the peak of a line cycle, a pulse
almost equal to the peak line voltage couples through the internal LISN cap
and into the receiver/SA. Most instruments are rated for only about +/- 30
volts, so a 300+ volt spike can be damaging.

 I use the HP/Agilent transient limiter. But a 10 dB or 20 dB pad works just
as well. I'm always nervous that the limiter may be clipping and giving me
spurs to measure.

 Having learned the hard way, I use an 8568B for conducted emissions, and
save my 8566B for radiated emissions. Suggest you get a low cost SA/receiver
for making CE measurements.

 Happy holidays everyone.

 Derek Walton.

 On 12/27/2011 2:13 PM, doug...@gmail.com wrote:
>  Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver The CISPR 16, 5 uH LISN.
>  
>  Doug Powell
>  
>  
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>  
> 
>  
> From:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:40:13 -0600
>  
> To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  
> ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  
> 
>  
>  Clearly, under the conditions of hundreds of Amperes (what LISN was
> employed?) and large contactors, special attention is required. But the
> original post seemed to address more mundane, everyday situations, and that
> was the focus of my question.
>   
>  Ken Javor
>  
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From:  <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
>  Reply-To:  <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
>  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:27:43 +
>  To: Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> , 
> <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  
>  Ken,Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen
> conducted emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely measured
> emissions on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700 amps.
>  Caution is warranted.  Also some of these products use AC large contractors
> and operating these devices while under load can cause huge inductive spikes
> on the LISN.- Doug Powell
>  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>  From:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
>  To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
> protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
> filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.
>  
>  The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these days,
> correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband attenuation
> is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise floor for a
> typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the pre-amplifier.  Further, in
> the case of the original post, preselection exists filtering out the noise
> below 150 kHz.
>  
>  Why is there even a problem?
>   
>  Ken Javor
>  
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Back in the early 1990s, Tegam supplied a LISN that had a switch which could
be depressed while connecting the EMI receiver to the LISN EMI port.
Without that switch, the open-circuit potential at the EMI port is the line
potential.  When the switch is depressed, it shorts out the bleed resistor
across the EMI port, which in turn shorts out any potential across the EMI
port. Once the 50 Ohm receiver is connected, the switch is released, and the
50 Ohm receiver loads the line potential across the blocking cap.

The idea came from homemade LISNs that Elite Electronics Engineering Company
built for their own in-house use.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Derek Walton 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:05:54 -0600
To: 
Cc: Ken Javor , 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

   I'm not sure if someone has covered this, but my biggest concern with
damaging a receiver/SA is during the application of, or removal of power.

 Specifically, if power is applied at the peak of a line cycle, a pulse
almost equal to the peak line voltage couples through the internal LISN cap
and into the receiver/SA. Most instruments are rated for only about +/- 30
volts, so a 300+ volt spike can be damaging.

 I use the HP/Agilent transient limiter. But a 10 dB or 20 dB pad works just
as well. I'm always nervous that the limiter may be clipping and giving me
spurs to measure.

 Having learned the hard way, I use an 8568B for conducted emissions, and
save my 8566B for radiated emissions. Suggest you get a low cost SA/receiver
for making CE measurements.

 Happy holidays everyone.

 Derek Walton.

 On 12/27/2011 2:13 PM, doug...@gmail.com wrote:
>  Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver The CISPR 16, 5 uH LISN.
>  
>  Doug Powell
>  
>  
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>  
> 
>  
> From:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:40:13 -0600
>  
> To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  
> ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  
> 
>  
>  Clearly, under the conditions of hundreds of Amperes (what LISN was
> employed?) and large contactors, special attention is required. But the
> original post seemed to address more mundane, everyday situations, and that
> was the focus of my question.
>   
>  Ken Javor
>  
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From:  <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
>  Reply-To:  <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
>  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:27:43 +
>  To: Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> , 
> <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  
>  Ken,Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen
> conducted emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely measured
> emissions on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700 amps.
>  Caution is warranted.  Also some of these products use AC large contractors
> and operating these devices while under load can cause huge inductive spikes
> on the LISN.- Doug Powell
>  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>  From:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
>  To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
> <mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>  Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>  Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
> protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
> filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.
>  
>  The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these days,
> correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband attenuation
> is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise floor for a
> typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the pre-amplifier.  Further, in
> the case of the original post, preselection exists filtering out the noise
> below 150 kHz.
>  
>  Why is there even a problem?
>   
>  Ken Javor
>  
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>
>  Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
>  To:  <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>
>  Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
>  Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver
>  
>  Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
>   
>  Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
>  measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
>  ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
>  They are easy to purchase, but you can build one

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread Derek Walton

I'm not sure if someone has covered this, but my biggest concern with 
damaging a receiver/SA is during the application of, or removal of power.


Specifically, if power is applied at the peak of a line cycle, a pulse 
almost equal to the peak line voltage couples through the internal LISN 
cap and into the receiver/SA. Most instruments are rated for only about 
+/- 30 volts, so a 300+ volt spike can be damaging.


I use the HP/Agilent transient limiter. But a 10 dB or 20 dB pad works 
just as well. I'm always nervous that the limiter may be clipping and 
giving me spurs to measure.


Having learned the hard way, I use an 8568B for conducted emissions, and 
save my 8566B for radiated emissions. Suggest you get a low cost 
SA/receiver for making CE measurements.


Happy holidays everyone.

Derek Walton.

On 12/27/2011 2:13 PM, doug...@gmail.com wrote:

The CISPR 16, 5 uH LISN.

Doug Powell

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

*From: * Ken Javor 
*Date: *Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:40:13 -0600
*To: *
*ReplyTo: * Ken Javor 
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Clearly, under the conditions of hundreds of Amperes (what LISN was 
employed?) and large contactors, special attention is required. But 
the original post seemed to address more mundane, everyday situations, 
and that was the focus of my question.


Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *
*Reply-To: *
*Date: *Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:27:43 +
*To: *Ken Javor , 


*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Ken,Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen 
conducted emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely 
measured emissions on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 
700 amps.  Caution is warranted.  Also some of these products use AC 
large contractors and operating these devices while under load can 
cause huge inductive spikes on the LISN.- Doug Powell

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
*From: * Ken Javor 
*Date: *Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
*To: *
*ReplyTo: * Ken Javor 
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all 
this protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either 
dedicated power or filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.


The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV 
these days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external 
broadband attenuation is available for use, while still providing a 
suitable noise floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that’s without 
using the pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, 
preselection exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.


Why is there even a problem?

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *"ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 


*Date: *Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
*To: *
*Conversation: *Protect An EMI Receiver
*Subject: *RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !

Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)

If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm 
(instead of 50 Ohm)

if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series 
per value)

and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.

Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group


*Van:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *Namens *Grace Lin
*Verzonden:* dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
*Aan:* emc-p...@ieee.org
*Onderwerp:* Protect An EMI Receiver


Dear Members,



Happy New Year!!!



I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service 
report (as a

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread John Woodgate

In message 
, 
dated Tue, 27 Dec 2011, Grace Lin  writes:


Hi, Grace.

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service 
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency 
response out of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency 
response.  Adjusted the reference oscillator to optimize frequency 
accuracy when operating from an internal standard."


That doesn't necessarily imply damage. It ma be due to normal component 
drift with age.

 
Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was 
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was 
caused by click noise from dimmers. 



Do dimmers produce click noise? I've not seen it.

Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click noise (below 1 MHz 
in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start freq was 
150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click noise 
when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150 
kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message. 
 What should I do to prevent it from happening again?


IF overload doesn't imply damage, but the results are unreliable.

 
1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13 
preselection filters 
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_
strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html).  The first one covers 
20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought 
when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't 
be selected (not cause the problem).


The filter can't have a 'brick wall' response below 150 kHz, so some 
energy from lower frequencies can appear in the results. A dimmer 
produces every odd harmonic of the power frequency, inversely 
proportional to frequency up to typically 10 MHz, and falling off more 
steeply beyond that. So there is quite a bit of energy below 150 kHz 
that can leak though the filter. But the spectrum is not time-varying; I 
don't see why you are getting clicks.


2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If 
yes, could you please refer me one?
3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?  
If yes, could you please refer me one?

 
I suspect your problem is of a different nature and filtering is not the 
solution.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Some people who are peeling the finch of the financial crisis are thinking of
biting a rook.

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

The CISPR 16, 5 uH LISN.  

Doug Powell

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:40:13 
To: 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Clearly, under the conditions of hundreds of Amperes (what LISN was
employed?) and large contactors, special attention is required. But the
original post seemed to address more mundane, everyday situations, and that
was the focus of my question.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:27:43 +
To: Ken Javor , 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Ken,Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen
conducted emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely
measured emissions on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700
amps.  Caution is warranted.  Also some of these products use AC large
contractors and operating these devices while under load can cause huge
inductive spikes on the LISN.- Doug Powell
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From:  Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
To: 
ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.

The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these
days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband
attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise
floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the
pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection
exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.

Why is there even a problem?

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
To: 
Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !

Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)

If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead
of 50 Ohm)
if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)
and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.

Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver

Dear Members,

Happy New Year!!!

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response out
of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted the
reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from an
internal standard."

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was right
below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by click
noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click
noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start
freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click
noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150
kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.  What
should I do to prevent it from happening again?

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_stre
ngth/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html). The first one covers 20 Hz to
150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Once again, 400 cycles is a special case that does not apply to the original
post.  But in my experience, if testing a 400 cycle load, one is either
testing to MIL-STD-461, or RTCA/DO-160, or an international equivalent.  In
461, the test method requires a 20 dB pad between LISN EMI port and EMI
receiver, and there is still room for more attenuation within the receiver.
The 461 power-line conducted emission requirement starts at 10 kHz, and
while there are available high pass filters that cut-in just below 10 kHz,
they are not universally employed and there don¹t seem to be problems.  For
RTCA/DO-160, the requirement and LISN impedance both begin at 150 kHz, and
the blocking cap in the LISN is 0.1 uF, instead of 0.25 uF.  And while the
test method doesn¹t mandate it  as in MIL-STD-461, there is certainly room
for a 20 dB pad.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Cortland Richmond 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:44:56 -0500
To: 
Cc: Ken Javor 
Subject: Re: Protect An EMI Receiver

   Yes, an excellent post.

 There is a problem sometimes when using a LISN for  400 Hz power.  I
remember a manager at a former employer who didn't want to add a high pass
filter between his LISN and receiver when the limit was too low for an
attenuator. He ended up buying  a new a receiver attenuator assembly as a
result.  And they HAD a high pass filter.

 Cortland Richmond

 On 12/27/2011 1:03 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
>  Re: Protect An EMI Receiver Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled
> by the need for all this protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with
> either dedicated power or filtered power, but here is the question,
> nonetheless.
>  
>  The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these days,
> correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband attenuation
> is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise floor for a
> typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the pre-amplifier.  Further, in
> the case of the original post, preselection exists filtering out the noise
> below 150 kHz.
>  
>  Why is there even a problem?
>   
>  Ken Javor
>  
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

Clearly, under the conditions of hundreds of Amperes (what LISN was
employed?) and large contactors, special attention is required. But the
original post seemed to address more mundane, everyday situations, and that
was the focus of my question.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: 
Reply-To: 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:27:43 +
To: Ken Javor , 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Ken,Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen
conducted emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely
measured emissions on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700
amps.  Caution is warranted.  Also some of these products use AC large
contractors and operating these devices while under load can cause huge
inductive spikes on the LISN.- Doug Powell
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From:  Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
To: 
ReplyTo:  Ken Javor 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.

The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these
days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband
attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise
floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the
pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection
exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.

Why is there even a problem?
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
To: 
Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
 
Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
 
If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead
of 50 Ohm)
if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)
and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
 
Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver
 

Dear Members,

 

Happy New Year!!!

 

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response out
of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted the
reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from an
internal standard."

 

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was right
below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by click
noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click
noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start
freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click
noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150
kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.  What
should I do to prevent it from happening again?

 

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_stre
ngth/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html). The first one covers 20 Hz to
150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought when I take
data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't be selected (not
cause the problem).

2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?

3. Should I find

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Because EUT may contain inductors and switches

that generate spike when intentional or unintentional switching

or switching ON/OFF during the test.

Invariably the day comes that a BIG transient blows BIG money without

such a protector.

 

Gert

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ken Javor
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 19:03
Aan: Untitled
Onderwerp: Re: Protect An EMI Receiver

 

Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all
this protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated
power or filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.

The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these
days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband
attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise
floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that's without using the
pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection
exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.

Why is there even a problem?
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
To: 
Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
 
Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
 
If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm
(instead of 50 Ohm)
if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)
and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
 
Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver


Dear Members,

 

Happy New Year!!!

 

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response
out of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.
Adjusted the reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when
operating from an internal standard."

 

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused
by click noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see
the click noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen
when the start freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to
see the high click noise when the receiver was set at the certain
frequency (for example 150 kHz).  At the same time, the screen also
showed IF Overload message.  What should I do to prevent it from
happening again?

 

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_
strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html). The first one covers
20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought
when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't be
selected (not cause the problem).

2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?

3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?
If yes, could you please refer me one?

 

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 
-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.

The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these
days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband
attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise
floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the
pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection
exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.

Why is there even a problem?
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
To: 
Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
 
Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
 
If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead
of 50 Ohm)
if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)
and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
 
Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver
 

Dear Members,

 

Happy New Year!!!

 

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response out
of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted the
reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from an
internal standard."

 

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was right
below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by click
noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click
noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start
freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click
noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150
kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.  What
should I do to prevent it from happening again?

 

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_stre
ngth/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html). The first one covers 20 Hz to
150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought when I take
data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't be selected (not
cause the problem).

2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?

3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?  If
yes, could you please refer me one?

 

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 
-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread Ken Wyatt

I believe the limiter mentioned below also included a 60 Hz (high pass) filter 
to reduce the fundamental.
___
Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
Woodland Park, CO
Email Me! | Web Site | Blog
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn

On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Ken Wyatt wrote:

> HP/Agilent sells a spike limiter especially for CE measurements. Before we 
> installed that, I was always taught to disconnect the spectrum analyzer prior 
> to switching the LISN from one phase to the other. Apparently, this can cause 
> major spikes which will zap the front-end preamp of the spec an.
> ___
> Kenneth Wyatt
> Wyatt Technical Services LLC
> Woodland Park, CO
> Email Me! | Web Site | Blog
> Subscribe to Newsletter
> Connect with me on LinkedIn
> 
> On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Doug Powell wrote:
> 
>> Ken,
>> 
>> Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen conducted 
>> emissions far exceed 107 dBuV. Of course I have routinely measured emissions 
>> on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700 amps. Caution is 
>> warranted. Also some of these products use AC large contractors and 
>> operating these devices while under load can cause huge inductive spikes on 
>> the LISN.
>> 
>> - Doug Powell
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>> From: Ken Javor 
>> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
>> To: 
>> ReplyTo: Ken Javor 
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
>> 
>> Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this 
>> protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or 
>> filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.
>> 
>> The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these 
>> days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband 
>> attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise 
>> floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that’s without using the 
>> pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection 
>> exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.
>> 
>> Why is there even a problem?
>>  
>> Ken Javor
>> 
>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>> 
>> 
>> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
>> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
>> To: 
>> Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
>> Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver
>> 
>> Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
>>  
>> Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
>> measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
>> ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
>> They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
>> using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
>> when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
>>  
>> If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
>> problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
>> parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
>> the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
>> the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
>> The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead 
>> of 50 Ohm)
>> if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
>> Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per 
>> value)
>> and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
>> Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
>> live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
>> Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
>> as commercial products.
>> Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
>> to meet your accreditation requirements.
>> My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
>> (+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
>>  
>> Gert Gremmen
>> ce-test qualified testing bv
>> Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
>>  
>> 
>> Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
>> Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
>> Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Members,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Happy New Year!!!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service 
>> report (as a result of annual calibra

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread Cortland Richmond


Yes, an excellent post.

There is a problem sometimes when using a LISN for  400 Hz power.  I 
remember a manager at a former employer who didn't want to add a high 
pass filter between his LISN and receiver when the limit was too low for 
an attenuator. He ended up buying  a new a receiver attenuator assembly 
as a result.  And they HAD a high pass filter.


Cortland Richmond

On 12/27/2011 1:03 PM, Ken Javor wrote:
Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all 
this protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either 
dedicated power or filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.


The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV 
these days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external 
broadband attenuation is available for use, while still providing a 
suitable noise floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that's without 
using the pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, 
preselection exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.


Why is there even a problem?

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261




-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread Ken Wyatt

HP/Agilent sells a spike limiter especially for CE measurements. Before we 
installed that, I was always taught to disconnect the spectrum analyzer prior 
to switching the LISN from one phase to the other. Apparently, this can cause 
major spikes which will zap the front-end preamp of the spec an.
___
Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
Woodland Park, CO
Email Me! | Web Site | Blog
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn

On Dec 27, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Doug Powell wrote:

> Ken,
> 
> Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen conducted 
> emissions far exceed 107 dBuV. Of course I have routinely measured emissions 
> on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700 amps. Caution is 
> warranted. Also some of these products use AC large contractors and operating 
> these devices while under load can cause huge inductive spikes on the LISN.
> 
> - Doug Powell
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> From: Ken Javor 
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 -0600
> To: 
> ReplyTo: Ken Javor 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver
> 
> Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this 
> protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or 
> filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.
> 
> The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these days, 
> correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband attenuation 
> is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise floor for a 
> typical ESU receiver, and that’s without using the pre-amplifier.  Further, 
> in the case of the original post, preselection exists filtering out the noise 
> below 150 kHz.
> 
> Why is there even a problem?
>  
> Ken Javor
> 
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
> To: 
> Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
> Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver
> 
> Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
>  
> Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
> measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
> ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
> They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
> using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
> when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
>  
> If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
> problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
> parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
> the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
> the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
> The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead 
> of 50 Ohm)
> if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
> Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per 
> value)
> and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
> Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
> live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
> Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
> as commercial products.
> Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
> to meet your accreditation requirements.
> My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
> (+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
>  
> Gert Gremmen
> ce-test qualified testing bv
> Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
>  
> 
> Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
> Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
> Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver
> 
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
>  
> 
> Happy New Year!!!
> 
>  
> 
> I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service report 
> (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response out of 
> specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted the 
> reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from an 
> internal standard."
> 
>  
> 
> Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was right 
> below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by click 
> noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click noise 
> (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start freq 
> was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click noise 
> when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150 kHz).  At 
> th

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Ken,

Having worked power electronics for years, I have on occasion seen conducted 
emissions far exceed 107 dBuV.  Of course I have routinely measured emissions 
on mains of up to 100 amps and more recently up to 700 amps.  Caution is 
warranted.  Also some of these products use AC large contractors and operating 
these devices while under load can cause huge inductive spikes on the LISN.

- Doug Powell


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:23 
To: 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Gert provided an excellent post, but I am puzzled by the need for all this
protection.  Granted I work in a screen room with either dedicated power or
filtered power, but here is the question, nonetheless.

The conducted emission limit above 150 kHz is at or above 60 dBuV these
days, correct?  So 30 - 40 dB of either internal or external broadband
attenuation is available for use, while still providing a suitable noise
floor for a typical ESU receiver, and that¹s without using the
pre-amplifier.  Further, in the case of the original post, preselection
exists filtering out the noise below 150 kHz.

Why is there even a problem?
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:26:50 +0100
To: 
Conversation: Protect An EMI Receiver
Subject: RE: Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !
 
Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted
measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage
ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.
They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself
using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance
when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)
 
If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have
problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor
parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator
the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to
the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V
The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm (instead
of 50 Ohm)
if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.
Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)
and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.
Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you
live in the USA then 200 V is enough.
Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs
as commercial products.
Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments
to meet your accreditation requirements.
My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics
(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.
 
Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv
Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group
 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver
 

Dear Members,

 

Happy New Year!!!

 

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response out
of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted the
reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from an
internal standard."

 

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was right
below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by click
noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the click
noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the start
freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high click
noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example 150
kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.  What
should I do to prevent it from happening again?

 

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_stre
ngth/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html). The first one covers 20 Hz to
150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought when I take
data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't be selected (not
cause the problem).

2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?

3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?  If
yes, could you please refer me one?

 

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

Here is one example:

R&S®ESH3-Z2 Pulse Limiter 
High RF input levels and high-energy interfering pulses generated on artificial 
mains networks when the DUT is switched on and off can damage the RF input 
circuits of test receivers. The R&S®ESH3-Z2 pulse limiter limits and reduces 
the interference level. 0 Hz - 30 MHz

Doug Powell
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: doug...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:47:18 
To: Grace Lin; 
Reply-To: doug...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Grace, 

It is possible to overload the input of your analyzer/receiver without damage, 
normally this just causes signals to clip.  However strong signals outside your 
normal range of measurement can be a concern.

If you are concerned about spikes caused by click sources, it is possible to 
purchase a small coaxial surge suppressor that will not affect your 
measurements.  It uses a small replaceable spark gap with much less than 10 pF, 
not a filter network.  Mounting this directly on your shield room penetration 
panel works very well. This is a good precautionary measure to have in your 
system in any case.  

Preselection filters are a possibility, as long as you have the calibration 
factors.

I always prefer to keep a small value RF attenuation pad (wide bandwidth) on 
the input of the receiver. The pad should be located between the surge 
suppressor and the RF input.  Putting this directly on the front of the 
receiver minimizes normal wear and tear on the RF input connector.  I prefer a 
power rated attenuator of a couple watts.  The value can be almost anything 
from 3 to 10, so long as you don't cause signals of interest to drop out of 
sight in the noise floor.  And don't forget to correct your readings for this.  
It may seem counter intuitive, but using a small value pad and then turning on 
the preamp has worked well for me. 

All the best in the New Year,

Doug Powell


Sent with Xobni Mobile - http://xobni.com/mobile

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Grace Lin 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:00:48 
To: 
Reply-To: Grace Lin 
Subject: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Dear Members,

Happy New Year!!!

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response
out of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted
the reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from
an internal standard."

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by
click noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the
click noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the
start freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high
click noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example
150 kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.
 What should I do to prevent it from happening again?

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters (
http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html).
The first one covers 20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to
2 MHz.  I thought when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below
150kHz shouldn't be selected (not cause the problem).
2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?
3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?  If
yes, could you please refer me one?

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-p

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Happy new year to all, and hope you had a great Christmas !

 

Every receiver or spectrum analyzer used for conducted

measurements on a LISN or AMN to mains voltage

ABSOLUTELY NEEDS a dedicated surge/spike suppressor.

They are easy to purchase, but you can build one yourself

using a fast bidirectional 10V transient suppressor with low capacitance

when 0 Vdc over it (use your cap meter of read datasheet)

 

If the suppressor was mounted in a 50 ohm circuit you would have

problems with high frequencies, but if you connect this suppressor

parallel to the  ground resistor in a 20 dB T-type (NOT PI) attenuator

the performance is much better. The attenuator adds 20 dB to

the impulses and the transient suppressor cuts off everything above 10 V

The ground resistor in this configuration is slightly above 10 ohm
(instead of 50 Ohm)

if I remember well, so the high frequency cut-off is way above 30 MHz.

Use  old fashioned coal resistors or smd film resistors (3 in series per
value)

and mount in a small coaxial enclosure with 2 BNC's.

Make sure the input resistor allows for 500V each, unless you

live in the USA then 200 V is enough.

Voila your home brew transient suppressor with same specs

as commercial products.

Of course it needs calibration, and possibly adjustments

to meet your accreditation requirements.

My software (EMI-SCAN) allows for the transfer characteristics

(+/- 1dB)  to be corrected  in real time.

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv

Owner LinkedIn EMC experts group

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Grace Lin
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2011 17:01
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: Protect An EMI Receiver

 

Dear Members,

 

Happy New Year!!!

 

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response
out of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.
Adjusted the reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when
operating from an internal standard."

 

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused
by click noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see
the click noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen
when the start freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to
see the high click noise when the receiver was set at the certain
frequency (for example 150 kHz).  At the same time, the screen also
showed IF Overload message.  What should I do to prevent it from
happening again?

 

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters
(http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_
strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html).  The first one covers
20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to 2 MHz.  I thought
when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below 150kHz shouldn't be
selected (not cause the problem).

2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?

3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?
If yes, could you please refer me one?

 

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

 

Best regards,

Grace Lin

 

-


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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Grace, 

It is possible to overload the input of your analyzer/receiver without damage, 
normally this just causes signals to clip.  However strong signals outside your 
normal range of measurement can be a concern.

If you are concerned about spikes caused by click sources, it is possible to 
purchase a small coaxial surge suppressor that will not affect your 
measurements.  It uses a small replaceable spark gap with much less than 10 pF, 
not a filter network.  Mounting this directly on your shield room penetration 
panel works very well. This is a good precautionary measure to have in your 
system in any case.  

Preselection filters are a possibility, as long as you have the calibration 
factors.

I always prefer to keep a small value RF attenuation pad (wide bandwidth) on 
the input of the receiver. The pad should be located between the surge 
suppressor and the RF input.  Putting this directly on the front of the 
receiver minimizes normal wear and tear on the RF input connector.  I prefer a 
power rated attenuator of a couple watts.  The value can be almost anything 
from 3 to 10, so long as you don't cause signals of interest to drop out of 
sight in the noise floor.  And don't forget to correct your readings for this.  
It may seem counter intuitive, but using a small value pad and then turning on 
the preamp has worked well for me. 

All the best in the New Year,

Doug Powell


Sent with Xobni Mobile - http://xobni.com/mobile

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Grace Lin 
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:00:48 
To: 
Reply-To: Grace Lin 
Subject: [PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

Dear Members,

Happy New Year!!!

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage.  A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response
out of specification below 10MHz.  Adjusted frequency response.  Adjusted
the reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from
an internal standard."

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz).  I wonder the problem was caused by
click noise from dimmers.  Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the
click noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the
start freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz.  I was able to see the high
click noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example
150 kHz).  At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.
 What should I do to prevent it from happening again?

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection?  ESU has 13
preselection filters (
http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html).
The first one covers 20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to
2 MHz.  I thought when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below
150kHz shouldn't be selected (not cause the problem).
2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz?  If yes,
could you please refer me one?
3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz?  If
yes, could you please refer me one?

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

[PSES] Protect An EMI Receiver

2011-12-27 Thread Grace Lin

Dear Members,

Happy New Year!!!

I need your advice to prevent R&S ESU receiver from damage. A service
report (as a result of annual calibration) indicates "frequency response
out of specification below 10MHz. Adjusted frequency response. Adjusted
the reference oscillator to optimize frequency accuracy when operating from
an internal standard."

Plots from the calibration report shows the problem frequncy range was
right below 150 kHz (100 kHz -150 kHz). I wonder the problem was caused by
click noise from dimmers. Under receiver mode, I was unable to see the
click noise (below 1 MHz in most cases) displyed in the ESU screen when the
start freq was 150kHz and stop freq was 30MHz. I was able to see the high
click noise when the receiver was set at the certain frequency (for example
150 kHz). At the same time, the screen also showed IF Overload message.
What should I do to prevent it from happening again?

1. Is there any way to play with the ESU's preselection? ESU has 13
preselection filters (
http://www.rohde-schwarz.us/en/products/test_and_measurement/emc_field_strength/ESU-%7C-Overview-%7C-100-%7C-6430.html).
The first one covers 20 Hz to 150 kHz and the second one covers 150 kHz to
2 MHz. I thought when I take data starting 150kHz, the emission below
150kHz shouldn't be selected (not cause the problem).
2. Should I find a filter to bypass the emissions below 150kHz? If yes,
could you please refer me one?
3. Should I find an attenuator to attenuate the emission below 150kHz? If
yes, could you please refer me one?

Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your advice.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.

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
Mike Cantwell

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:
David Heald:

RE: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

2011-09-23 Thread emc-p...@ieee.org

 
Hi all,
 
Thanks for all the responses, there were some valuable insights.
I've now got a couple of candidates to put forward as a replacement option.
 
Regards,
James
 
 
 



> We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI 
> receiver.  Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make
EMIreceivers. 
>   
> Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer 
> they prefer and why? I'm thinking about things like support, 
> software to drive the receiver, cost of repair and calibration, 
> reliability etc. Also, are there other manufacturers that I've not found
yet? 
>   
> We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ 
> years of service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken
> a long time. Support is generally good compared to other test 
> equipment manufacturers. 
>   
> Thanks in advance 
> James 
>   
>   
> ~~ 
> James Pawson 
> Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC 
> EchoStar Europe 
> ~~ 

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Good point Wendy, I always control my Equipment from Compliance 5, so I have
never used the SW that comes with it.


Cheers,

Derek.;


-Original Message-
From: WNya 
To: Pawson, James 
Cc: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?


James,

Do ask for a demo unit and ensure that the emissions SW that you are using is
able to  control it.

By the way I'm using the PMM receiver  up to 3GHz with TDK RFS SW. You would
probably want to consider the 6GHz option. PMM is not a spectrum, hence if you
like the features of colorful trace, more than one traces, max hold traces,
etc, it doesn't work. TESEQ sells  and supports PMM in US. You can probably
get a demo unit from them. It comes with a free SW but it does minimal - no
control of antenna mast or turntable.

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:31 PM, "Pawson, James"  wrote:



I should add that the main standard we test to is EN 55022.
 
Thanks
James



From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com
<mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com?> ] 
Sent: 30 August 2011 11:12
To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?



 
Hello,
 
We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI 
receiver. 
Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.
 
        Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they 
prefer
and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?
 
We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years of
service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time.
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.
 
Thanks in advance
James
 
 
~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~
 
-

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 <
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL. 
Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: <http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html>
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < <mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net> 
emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> dhe...@gmail.com> 
-

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 <
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL. 
Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: <http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html>
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < <mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net> 
emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> dhe...@gmail.com> 

-
-

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

My understanding is that this is whats done...

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

I had forgotten about that fact. In what I wrote, the assumption was that an
IF was being fed back to the rest of the receiver, and that it was at a
lower frequency than the rf, and hence the claimed lower cable loss.

But fiber is better if the entire down-conversion and detection is done at
the antenna, and basically detected video is being fed back.  In fact, that
eliminates a lot of expense in low-loss coax. That alone could be worth
several thousand $$ or pounds or whatever...

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:22:36 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?
> 
> In message , dated Wed, 31
> Aug 2011, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
>> Then the rest of the connection all the way back to the receiver should
>> be well-matched 50 Ohm sections.
>> 
> I believe the product in question has a fibre-optic link. I wonder what
> the impedance of that is. (Half serious.)
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
> be more interesting.
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

James,

Do ask for a demo unit and ensure that the emissions SW that you are using is 
able to  control it.

By the way I'm using the PMM receiver  up to 3GHz with TDK RFS SW. You would 
probably want to consider the 6GHz option. PMM is not a spectrum, hence if you 
like the features of colorful trace, more than one traces, max hold traces, 
etc, it doesn't work. TESEQ sells  and supports PMM in US. You can probably get 
a demo unit from them. It comes with a free SW but it does minimal - no control 
of antenna mast or turntable.

Sent from Wendy.Nya iPhone

On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:31 PM, "Pawson, James"  wrote:



I should add that the main standard we test to is EN 55022.
 
Thanks
James



From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: 30 August 2011 11:12
To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
    Subject: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?



 
Hello,
 
We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI 
receiver.  Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they 
prefer and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the 
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there 
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?
 
We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years 
of service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time. 
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.
 
Thanks in advance
James
 
 
~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~
 
-

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 < 
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: <http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html> 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < <mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net> 
emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> dhe...@gmail.com> 

-

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 < 
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: <http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html> 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < <mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net> 
emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> dhe...@gmail.com> 

-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large fil

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message <8ce362b4daae905-16b4-13...@webmail-d105.sysops.aol.com>, 
dated Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Derek Walton  writes:

>A cable is only its characteristic impedance when fed and terminated in 
>matching impedance. That's why I said non-perfect impedance of the 
>cable

The characteristic impedance IS an intrinsic property of the cable; the 
full expression is:

  Z = sqrt((R+jwL)/G+jwC)), where R, L, G and C are per (the same) unit 
length.

At a sufficiently high frequency, wL>>R and with a sufficiently low-loss 
dielectric G<

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

I had forgotten about that fact. In what I wrote, the assumption was that an
IF was being fed back to the rest of the receiver, and that it was at a
lower frequency than the rf, and hence the claimed lower cable loss.

But fiber is better if the entire down-conversion and detection is done at
the antenna, and basically detected video is being fed back.  In fact, that
eliminates a lot of expense in low-loss coax. That alone could be worth
several thousand $$ or pounds or whatever...

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:22:36 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?
> 
> In message , dated Wed, 31
> Aug 2011, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
>> Then the rest of the connection all the way back to the receiver should
>> be well-matched 50 Ohm sections.
>> 
> I believe the product in question has a fibre-optic link. I wonder what
> the impedance of that is. (Half serious.)
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
> be more interesting.
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

HI Ken,

excuse my nievity here, but I need help understanding this.

A cable is only its characteristic impedance when fed and terminated in 
matching impedance. That's why I said non-perfect impedance of the cable.

So, since the antenna output impedance is all over the place, you can't say 
that the cable is 50 Ohms.

To get around this, we add pads on antennas ( like when we do NSA measurements 
) to improve the match between antenna and cable. I would argue that the 
receiver head, with a pretty good termination right there, is much better than 
the uncontrolled match between the antenna and Zo of the cable. 

What am I missing?

Cheers,

Derek.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Expansion on this: “Less issues matching a complex source impedance like and 
antenna to the non-perfect impedance of a cable.”

Cable is usually 50 Ohms.  It is the antenna that can have a relatively high 
vswr into 50 Ohms, especially at the low end of use (i.e., biconical below 80 
MHz, and in general wideband antennas at their low end). If the rf head has a 
50 Ohm output impedance, then the match is better than the antenna alone, and 
the measurement accuracy increases due to lower vswr.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Derek Walton 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: , 
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

All good points.

you could add that the antenna would better represent free space. I wonder 
what the effect of Cal factors would be?

Less issues matching a complex source impedance like and antenna to the 
non-perfect impedance of a cable.

Elimination of temperature effects of the cable dielectric.

I'm sure there are more.

Cheers,

Derek.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 11:10 am
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message <40be5b4eca254ad7bae8a4d5ef896...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Wed, 
31 Aug 2011, Brian Oconnell  writes:

>Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to 
>the antenna?

No cable loss?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk>   and www.isce.org.uk <http://www.isce.org.uk> 
<http://www.isce.org.uk>  
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald  

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Socie

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message , dated Wed, 31 
Aug 2011, Ken Javor  writes:

>Then the rest of the connection all the way back to the receiver should 
>be well-matched 50 Ohm sections.
>
I believe the product in question has a fibre-optic link. I wonder what 
the impedance of that is. (Half serious.)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Most mixers are a poor match to 50 Ohms, and the manufacturer's instructions
will generally advise insertion of 10 dB between mixer and cable for that
reason. Of course, their noise figure or noise floor specification is based
on 0 dB attenuation. Connecting the mixer directly to the antenna output
places two potentially poor matches to 50 Ohms in immediate proximity, and
the short distance between them will minimize vswr-induced inaccuracy. Then
the rest of the connection all the way back to the receiver should be
well-matched 50 Ohm sections.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:51:32 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?
> 
> In message , dated Wed, 31
> Aug 2011, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
>> Cable is usually 50 Ohms.
> 
> Well, people do sometimes tread on it or even stand heavy equipment on
> it, but in general I agree that, if treated with care, good quality
> cable has an impedance more stable and better-behaved than many antennas
> and even receivers.
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
> be more interesting.
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message , dated Wed, 31 
Aug 2011, Ken Javor  writes:

>Cable is usually 50 Ohms.

Well, people do sometimes tread on it or even stand heavy equipment on 
it, but in general I agree that, if treated with care, good quality 
cable has an impedance more stable and better-behaved than many antennas 
and even receivers.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Expansion on this: “Less issues matching a complex source impedance like and
antenna to the non-perfect impedance of a cable.”

Cable is usually 50 Ohms.  It is the antenna that can have a relatively high
vswr into 50 Ohms, especially at the low end of use (i.e., biconical below 80
MHz, and in general wideband antennas at their low end). If the rf head has a
50 Ohm output impedance, then the match is better than the antenna alone, and
the measurement accuracy increases due to lower vswr.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Derek Walton 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: , 
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

All good points.

you could add that the antenna would better represent free space. I wonder
what the effect of Cal factors would be?

Less issues matching a complex source impedance like and antenna to the
non-perfect impedance of a cable.

Elimination of temperature effects of the cable dielectric.

I'm sure there are more.

Cheers,

Derek.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 11:10 am
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message <40be5b4eca254ad7bae8a4d5ef896...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Wed, 
31 Aug 2011, Brian Oconnell  writes:

>Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to 
>the antenna?

No cable loss?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk>   and
www.isce.org.uk <http://www.isce.org.uk> <http://www.isce.org.uk>  
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald  

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

All good points.

you could add that the antenna would better represent free space. I wonder
what the effect of Cal factors would be?

Less issues matching a complex source impedance like and antenna to the
non-perfect impedance of a cable.

Elimination of temperature effects of the cable dielectric.

I'm sure there are more.

Cheers,

Derek.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 11:10 am
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message <40be5b4eca254ad7bae8a4d5ef896...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Wed, 
31 Aug 2011, Brian Oconnell  writes:

>Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to 
>the antenna?

No cable loss?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

In message <40be5b4eca254ad7bae8a4d5ef896...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Wed, 
31 Aug 2011, Brian Oconnell  writes:

>Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to 
>the antenna?

No cable loss?
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
When I point to a star, please look at the star, not my finger. The star will
be more interesting.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

S/N ratio. 

Rob Oglesbee

(765) 494-5234
Senior Instrumentation Specialist
Jonathan Amy Facility for Chemical Instrumentation 


-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to the 
antenna?

Brian the EMC amateur

-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Why is it good that the 'RF head' is separate and/or can be attached to the 
antenna?

Brian the EMC amateur

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Derek Walton
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:21 PM
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Just a quick note about the Teseq Receiver. I think you really mean the PMM 
marketed by Teseq.

This really is a super little receiver. It's CISPR compliant, but it also does 
neat tricks like has a click option, and also the MIL 6 dB BW.

My favorite feature though is that the RF head is separate and can attach 
directly on the antenna. Optical fibre feeds the signal outside the chamber and 
breaks any ground connections... That's sweet!

The 18 GHz module was released at the IEEE EMC show.

I'm sure R and S is good stuff, but its way too many $$

My 10 cents worth.

Derek Walton
L F Research

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Just a quick note about the Teseq Receiver. I think you really mean the PMM 
marketed by Teseq.

This really is a super little receiver. It's CISPR compliant, but it also does 
neat tricks like has a click option, and also the MIL 6 dB BW.

My favorite feature though is that the RF head is separate and can attach 
directly on the antenna. Optical fibre feeds the signal outside the chamber and 
breaks any ground connections... That's sweet!


The 18 GHz module was released at the IEEE EMC show.

I'm sure R and S is good stuff, but its way too many $$

My 10 cents worth.

Derek Walton
L F Research


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC 
Sent: Tue, Aug 30, 2011 10:25 am
Subject: Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?


No experience with it, but wondering if anyone else out there has used the 
Amplifier Research CER2018A.  This is a receiver that was under development by 
a company that AR bought a few years back.  AR’s description says the following:

“The CER2018A offers continuous coverage from 20 Hz to 18 GHz with 
expandability to 40 GHz and it also exceeds CISPR 16-1-1 Ed 2.0 October 2007. 
It combines state-of-the-art sensitivity, dynamic range, accuracy, and easy 
operation in a CISPR-compliant instrument. To ensure the highest accuracy, 
self-calibration is selectable at every frequency scan. It’s a complete EMI 
test solution with test formats such as CISPR 16-1-1, MIL-STD 461/462, ANSI C63 
and FCC programmed in upon request.

The receiver includes a built-in computer that operates under Windows XP. 
Software is also included along with a 19” flat screen monitor, keyboard and 
mouse. offers continuous coverage from 20 Hz to 18 GHz with expandability to 40 
GHz and it also exceeds CISPR 16-1-1 Ed 2.0 October 2007. It combines 
state-of-the-art sensitivity, dynamic range, accuracy, and easy operation in a 
CISPR-compliant instrument. To ensure the highest accuracy, self-calibration is 
selectable at every frequency scan. It’s a complete EMI test solution with test 
formats such as CISPR 16-1-1, MIL-STD 461/462, ANSI C63 and FCC programmed in 
upon request.

The receiver includes a built-in computer that operates under Windows XP. 
Software is also included along with a 19” flat screen monitor, keyboard and 
mouse.”

I witness a lot of EMI testing, and have never seen this receiver in use. I 
realize that is hardly an endorsement, but that isn’t the purpose here. The 
purpose is to flag another possible receiver, and see if anyone has used it.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: "Pawson, James" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:12:14 +0100
To: "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 
Conversation: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?
Subject: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?


Hello,
 
We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI receiver.  
Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they prefer 
and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the 
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there 
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?
 
We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years of 
service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time. 
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.
 
Thanks in advance
James
 
 
~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~
 
-

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 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald  

-

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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 administr

Re: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?


Hi James, 

Consider asking the vendors how much longer the model will be supported for
service from this date. 

We've have good luck with various pieces of EMC equipment lasting a long time,
but the manufacturer 
stopped supporting them, and I have to look for other places that can perform
calibration and perform 
the occasional repair. 

Pat Lawler
EMC Engineer
SL Power Electronics Corp.

"Pawson, James"  wrote on 08/30/2011 03:12:14 AM:   
> We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI 
> receiver.  Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make
EMIreceivers. 
>   
> Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer 
> they prefer and why? I'm thinking about things like support, 
> software to drive the receiver, cost of repair and calibration, 
> reliability etc. Also, are there other manufacturers that I've not found
yet? 
>   
> We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ 
> years of service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken
> a long time. Support is generally good compared to other test 
> equipment manufacturers. 
>   
> Thanks in advance 
> James 
>   
>   
> ~~ 
> James Pawson 
> Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC 
> EchoStar Europe 
> ~~ 
-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

Re: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

No experience with it, but wondering if anyone else out there has used the
Amplifier Research CER2018A.  This is a receiver that was under development by
a company that AR bought a few years back.  AR’s description says the
following:

“The CER2018A offers continuous coverage from 20 Hz to 18 GHz with
expandability to 40 GHz and it also exceeds CISPR 16-1-1 Ed 2.0 October 2007.
It combines state-of-the-art sensitivity, dynamic range, accuracy, and easy
operation in a CISPR-compliant instrument. To ensure the highest accuracy,
self-calibration is selectable at every frequency scan. It’s a complete EMI
test solution with test formats such as CISPR 16-1-1, MIL-STD 461/462, ANSI
C63 and FCC programmed in upon request.

The receiver includes a built-in computer that operates under Windows XP.
Software is also included along with a 19” flat screen monitor, keyboard and
mouse. offers continuous coverage from 20 Hz to 18 GHz with expandability to
40 GHz and it also exceeds CISPR 16-1-1 Ed 2.0 October 2007. It combines
state-of-the-art sensitivity, dynamic range, accuracy, and easy operation in a
CISPR-compliant instrument. To ensure the highest accuracy, self-calibration
is selectable at every frequency scan. It’s a complete EMI test solution
with test formats such as CISPR 16-1-1, MIL-STD 461/462, ANSI C63 and FCC
programmed in upon request.

The receiver includes a built-in computer that operates under Windows XP.
Software is also included along with a 19” flat screen monitor, keyboard and
mouse.”

I witness a lot of EMI testing, and have never seen this receiver in use. I
realize that is hardly an endorsement, but that isn’t the purpose here. The
purpose is to flag another possible receiver, and see if anyone has used it.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: "Pawson, James" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:12:14 +0100
To: "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 
Conversation: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?
Subject: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?


Hello,
 
We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI receiver. 
Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they prefer
and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?
 
We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years of
service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time.
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.
 
Thanks in advance
James
 
 
~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~
 
-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald  


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

RE: EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

I should add that the main standard we test to is EN 55022.

Thanks
James

From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: 30 August 2011 11:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

Hello,

We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI receiver. 
Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.

Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they prefer
and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?

We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years of
service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time.
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.

Thanks in advance
James

~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

EMI Receiver - Recommendations?

 
Hello,
 
We are budgeting for a replacement for our ageing R&S ESVS10 EMI receiver. 
Apart from R&S I've found Agilent and Teseq that make EMI receivers.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on which EMI receiver manufacturer they prefer
and why? I'm thinking about things like support, software to drive the
receiver, cost of repair and calibration, reliability etc. Also, are there
other manufacturers that I've not found yet?
 
We seem to have had good reliability from our R&S receiver (12+ years of
service) but repairs have always seemed expensive and taken a long time.
Support is generally good compared to other test equipment manufacturers.
 
Thanks in advance
James
 
 
~~
James Pawson
Leading Hardware Engineer - EMC
EchoStar Europe
~~
 
-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-05 Thread Cortland Richmond

Perhaps I should  talk about over-reliance or exclusive reliance.  There
are too many test personnel who, relying on software and firmware,  do not
understand what the tests they perform need or do, or more than how to push
buttons and press keys.   

Of course, I also use spectrum analyzers and receivers that do not identify
overload and I consider the built-in warnings of newer equipment a
convenience which should not be ignored.  Even so, if a tester doesn't know
what a warning implies, we end up with mistakes; back end overload and
front end overload (one receiver's warnings) call for different
responses.  Didn't t we just have another discussion about false outages
caused by transient limiter clipping of out-of-band signals?

Don't get me started on my car's Check Engine light.


Regards,

Cortland Richmond KA5S
cortland.richm...@ge.com
Opinions not those of my employer


> [Original Message]
> From: Gert Gremmen 
> To: 
> Cc: 
> Date: 12/5/2008 2:59:15 AM
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> OK, but do you think the overload feature is less
> reliable implemented than  the actual read-out of a peak value?
> Did the manufacturer do a lousy job ? 
> We use an instrument to rely on its features, so do we on
> the overload feature.
> It often does the job better than its operating engineer.
>
>
>
> My R&S receiver has a two stage warning system: if
> the readout approaches the end of the linear region (and above) it
> gives an over-range message, making clear that improved accuracy and 
> reliability can be obtained  by adjusting the attenuator.
> (same for under-range)
> If you grossly exaggerate the input signal, a overload warning 
> is also given.
>
> Maybe the differences between spectrum analyzers and 
> measuring receivers have to be found in this area 
> instead in functional (cispr16) specs, where tend to similar.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ing. Gert Gremmen

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

2008-12-05 Thread John Woodgate


In message , 
dated Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Gert Gremmen  writes:


>OK, but do you think the overload feature is less reliable implemented 
>than  the actual read-out of a peak value? Did the manufacturer do a 
>lousy job ? We use an instrument to rely on its features, so do we on 
>the overload feature. It often does the job better than its operating 
>engineer.

I think the point is that one should always look at results to see if 
there is any detectable 'oddness' about them, which might indicate that 
they are not reliable.

For example, you see an emission at 1.1 MHz, for which there should be 
no reason. So you look carefully and see rather strong emissions at 25 
MHz and 26.1 MHz, suggesting that the 1.1 MHz emission might be an 
intermodulation product. You do indeed find a weak emission at 51.1 MHz, 
which confirms your suspicions. The rogue emissions are still there if 
you attenuate the input signal to the receiver by 10 dB and even by 16 
dB. So you suspect a bad contact in a connector, and a check proves that 
to be the case.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-05 Thread Gert Gremmen

OK, but do you think the overload feature is less
reliable implemented than  the actual read-out of a peak value?
Did the manufacturer do a lousy job ? 
We use an instrument to rely on its features, so do we on
the overload feature.
It often does the job better than its operating engineer.



My R&S receiver has a two stage warning system: if
the readout approaches the end of the linear region (and above) it
gives an over-range message, making clear that improved accuracy and 
reliability can be obtained  by adjusting the attenuator.
(same for under-range)
If you grossly exaggerate the input signal, a overload warning 
is also given.

Maybe the differences between spectrum analyzers and 
measuring receivers have to be found in this area 
instead in functional (cispr16) specs, where tend to similar.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen




ce-test, qualified testing bv




Van: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Verzonden: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:48 AM
Aan: Gert Gremmen; Ralph McDiarmid
CC: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

I believe that relying on a receiver to warn it is in overload is a
mistake.  It is important that those performing measurements understand
not
only how to operate a reciever and its software, but also what the
receiver
is *doing* under control of that software.  

I've seen errors made during tests that can be attributed to this lack
of
understanding.   One of our duties in such cases (IMO) is to correct
them.


Cortland Richmond, ka5s
cortland.richm...@ge.com
My remarks are not those of my employer



> [Original Message]
> From: Gert Gremmen 
> To: Ralph McDiarmid 
> Cc: 
> Date: 12/4/2008 1:52:19 PM
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> I think this is more a theoretic exercise, 
> and as true as unlikely to fool you.
>
> Any decent receiver in overload
> does not show a measurement value
> but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus)
> or has a bright red blinking error led
> or beeper.
>
> I have never been able to reproduce this
> phenomenon with a spectrum analyzer without 
> reported error condition. (and certainly
> not with all signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines,
> and make me conclude a compliant result.)
>  
>
>
>
> Gert
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ralph
McDiarmid
> Verzonden: donderdag 4 december 2008 17:57
> Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> That's my understanding too.
>
>
> Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
> Compliance Engineering Group 
> Xantrex Technology Inc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
> Brick
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
> To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
> spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a
lower
> amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
> products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
> analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant
just
> as readily as the opposite.
>
> If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
> the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
> -3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger
than
> your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
> overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
> Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
> interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
> preselection helps
>
> Best regards,
> Clif 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Cortland Richmond

I believe that relying on a receiver to warn it is in overload is a
mistake.  It is important that those performing measurements understand not
only how to operate a reciever and its software, but also what the receiver
is *doing* under control of that software.  

I've seen errors made during tests that can be attributed to this lack of
understanding.   One of our duties in such cases (IMO) is to correct them.


Cortland Richmond, ka5s
cortland.richm...@ge.com
My remarks are not those of my employer



> [Original Message]
> From: Gert Gremmen 
> To: Ralph McDiarmid 
> Cc: 
> Date: 12/4/2008 1:52:19 PM
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> I think this is more a theoretic exercise, 
> and as true as unlikely to fool you.
>
> Any decent receiver in overload
> does not show a measurement value
> but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus)
> or has a bright red blinking error led
> or beeper.
>
> I have never been able to reproduce this
> phenomenon with a spectrum analyzer without 
> reported error condition. (and certainly
> not with all signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines,
> and make me conclude a compliant result.)
>  
>
>
>
> Gert
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ralph McDiarmid
> Verzonden: donderdag 4 december 2008 17:57
> Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> That's my understanding too.
>
>
> Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
> Compliance Engineering Group 
> Xantrex Technology Inc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
> Brick
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
> To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
>
> I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
> spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
> amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
> products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
> analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
> as readily as the opposite.
>
> If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
> the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
> -3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
> your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
> overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
> Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
> interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
> preselection helps
>
> Best regards,
> Clif 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread John Woodgate


In message <000b01c9564c$22d7c8c0$68875a40$@com>, dated Thu, 4 Dec 2008, 
dward  writes:


>always use his/her own noodle to judge any measurement made

How revolutionary!(;-) Seriously, it's one of those crucial things that 
distinguishes professionals from others.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread dward

I would ALWAYS caution anyone making measurements not to rely solely on what
an analyzer is supposed to do or not do and to always use his/her own noodle
to judge any measurement made.  Measuring instruments make errors, don't
report error, or sometimes are just setup wrong.  Never never rely solely on
what the device reports.  There is nothing out there that is infallible and
which does not require constant monitoring of the human brain.
Thanks 

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


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif Brick
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:14 AM
To: Gert Gremmen; Ralph McDiarmid
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I guess the crux of your argument lies in the definition of "decent
receiver".  While true that a CISPR compliant receiver would warn you,
it also has preselection.  Less expensive "pre-compliance" instruments
require careful attention to this issue.

I have certainly seen this occur in real life, it's by no means merely
theoretical. Often it occurs in measuring transmitters, where the filter
that is attenuatiing the fundamental is not adequately large.  It can
however occur from a strong ambient and an inexperienced operator not
recognizing the significance of that large ambient signal could readily
make an erroneous conclusion.  Now of course if it's all carried out in
a chamber.




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:50 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I think this is more a theoretic exercise, and as true as unlikely to
fool you.

Any decent receiver in overload
does not show a measurement value
but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus) or has a bright red
blinking error led or beeper.

I have never been able to reproduce this phenomenon with a spectrum
analyzer without reported error condition. (and certainly not with all
signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines, and make me conclude a
compliant result.)




Gert


Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ralph McDiarmid
Verzonden: donderdag 4 december 2008 17:57
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

That's my understanding too.


Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
Brick
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
as readily as the opposite.

If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
-3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
preselection helps

Best regards,
Clif


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

>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 cr

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Bob Richards

Also be aware that even though the analyzer may not be reporting an error (IF
overload, etc) that does not mean that other devices upstream, such as a
preamp or transient limiter, are not in saturation. A linearity check, if
performed, should be done upstream of devices such as these.

Bob Richards, NCT.
 

--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Clif Brick  wrote:


-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:50 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I think this is more a theoretic exercise, and as true as unlikely to
fool you.

Any decent receiver in overload
does not show a measurement value
but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus) or has a bright red
blinking error led or beeper.

I have never been able to reproduce this phenomenon with a spectrum
analyzer without reported error condition. (and certainly not with all
signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines, and make me conclude a
compliant result.)
 



Gert


-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Clif Brick

I guess the crux of your argument lies in the definition of "decent
receiver".  While true that a CISPR compliant receiver would warn you,
it also has preselection.  Less expensive "pre-compliance" instruments
require careful attention to this issue.

I have certainly seen this occur in real life, it's by no means merely
theoretical. Often it occurs in measuring transmitters, where the filter
that is attenuatiing the fundamental is not adequately large.  It can
however occur from a strong ambient and an inexperienced operator not
recognizing the significance of that large ambient signal could readily
make an erroneous conclusion.  Now of course if it's all carried out in
a chamber.

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:50 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I think this is more a theoretic exercise, and as true as unlikely to
fool you.

Any decent receiver in overload
does not show a measurement value
but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus) or has a bright red
blinking error led or beeper.

I have never been able to reproduce this phenomenon with a spectrum
analyzer without reported error condition. (and certainly not with all
signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines, and make me conclude a
compliant result.)

Gert

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ralph McDiarmid
Verzonden: donderdag 4 december 2008 17:57
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

That's my understanding too.

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
Brick
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
as readily as the opposite.

If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
-3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
preselection helps

Best regards,
Clif 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

>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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  wrote:

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

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Gert Gremmen

I think this is more a theoretic exercise, 
and as true as unlikely to fool you.

Any decent receiver in overload
does not show a measurement value
but blinks, reports an error condition (IEEE-bus)
or has a bright red blinking error led
or beeper.

I have never been able to reproduce this
phenomenon with a spectrum analyzer without 
reported error condition. (and certainly
not with all signals -spurious included- meeting limit lines,
and make me conclude a compliant result.)

Gert

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Ralph McDiarmid
Verzonden: donderdag 4 december 2008 17:57
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

That's my understanding too.

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
Brick
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
as readily as the opposite.

If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
-3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
preselection helps

Best regards,
Clif 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

>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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Bob Richards

I read a paper years ago regarding this. It stated that whether the measured 
signal was lower or higher than reality depended on whether the overloading 
signal was broadband or narrowband in nature. Can't find the paper right now, 
however.

Bob Richards, NCT.

--- On Thu, 12/4/08, Clif Brick  wrote:

> From: Clif Brick 
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
> To: "Gert Gremmen" , emc-p...@ieee.org
> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 2:49 PM
> I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems
> to me that a
> spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal
> to be a lower
> amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs
> and intermod
> products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an
> overlaoded
> analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is
> non-compliant just
> as readily as the opposite.
> 
> If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a
> real (from
> the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of
> attenuation and get
> -3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB
> larger than
> your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7,
> you're still in
> overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear
> response.
> Important to understand is that it may be well outside of
> the band of
> interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This
> is why
> preselection helps
> 
> Best regards,
> Clif 
> 
> 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Ralph McDiarmid

That's my understanding too.

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Clif
Brick
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Gert Gremmen; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
as readily as the opposite.

If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
-3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
preselection helps

Best regards,
Clif 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

>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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pst

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-04 Thread Clif Brick

I could be wrong as it's been a few years, but it seems to me that a
spectrum analyzer receiver in overload will show a signal to be a lower
amplitude than it really is (in addition to ghosts, spurs and intermod
products).  The issue is one of compression, and in fact an overlaoded
analyzer will show comply when in fact the device is non-compliant just
as readily as the opposite.

If an overlaod condition exists, you may get a reading of a real (from
the EUT) signal that is say 0dBm, you add 10 dB of attenuation and get
-3dBm.  This means that in fact your signal is at least 7dB larger than
your display.  If you add 10 dB more and get say -7, you're still in
overload.  You would need to continue until you get linear response.
Important to understand is that it may be well outside of the band of
interest that the overlaoding signal is comin in on.  This is why
preselection helps

Best regards,
Clif 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gert
Gremmen
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:27 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

>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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
M

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-03 Thread Gert Gremmen

>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: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Bob Richards
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:10 AM
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMI Receiver

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread Bob Richards

--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Jim Eichner  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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread John McAuley

We also use a 140 kHz HP sharp cutoff filter as we have found 49 kHz
switchers overloading our fully compliant Rohde and Schwarz receivers. The
PSU manufacturers often use 49 kHz so that the third harmonic is below 150
kHz. I even know one that has a pot to adjust the switching frequency. 

I am guessing that the ESL will work fine perhaps with the HP filter and
pulse limiter. However, it would be a good idea to keep a fully compliant
receiver to hand as a check. I would be interested in comments.


John McAuley



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner
Sent: 02 December 2008 19:12
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

As we often test immature prototypes with high emissions, I am quite
concerned about out-of-band emissions-related effects, and consider a
"real" preselector to be a mandatory part of any system we switch over
to.  The manufacturers may be able to tell me that they solve the same
problem a different way, but I know what my starting position is.  In
fact we currently use 3 protective elements:  a 100kHz high-pass filter,
a transient limiter, and a pre-selector (moving from the EUT end of the
chain towards the SA) and have found we need all three.  Amazing the
spectrum you get when a really large 50kHz switching fundamental slams
into the transient limiter.

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.



From: John McAuley [mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I notice Rohde and Schwarz have a new "low cost" ESL receiver. Unlike
previous "pre compliance" receivers it appears to be compliant to CISPR
16
even for the 1 Hz QP prf. However, it has no pre selection. I note the
recent comments about modern receivers having less sophisticated pre
selection. This one has none. Probably uses clever digital filters to
perform bandwidth, QP and Average functions based on a basic spectrum
analyzer front end. 

I presume that this instrument can be used for full compliance testing,
however, one needs to be very careful about the accuracy of the
measurement.
By careful use of input attenuation and observing the results, a
traditional
skill used by users of spectrum analysers may help?

BR

John McAuley



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Eichner
Sent: 02 December 2008 08:03
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have
the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my
experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from
this posting).

So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting:  does
anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for
pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing?

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian
Jones
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
the will to live. 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
Edward
Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
> Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite 
> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you 
> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one 
> trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor



So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military &a

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread Jim Eichner

As we often test immature prototypes with high emissions, I am quite
concerned about out-of-band emissions-related effects, and consider a
"real" preselector to be a mandatory part of any system we switch over
to.  The manufacturers may be able to tell me that they solve the same
problem a different way, but I know what my starting position is.  In
fact we currently use 3 protective elements:  a 100kHz high-pass filter,
a transient limiter, and a pre-selector (moving from the EUT end of the
chain towards the SA) and have found we need all three.  Amazing the
spectrum you get when a really large 50kHz switching fundamental slams
into the transient limiter.

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.



From: John McAuley [mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Jim Eichner; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

I notice Rohde and Schwarz have a new "low cost" ESL receiver. Unlike
previous "pre compliance" receivers it appears to be compliant to CISPR
16
even for the 1 Hz QP prf. However, it has no pre selection. I note the
recent comments about modern receivers having less sophisticated pre
selection. This one has none. Probably uses clever digital filters to
perform bandwidth, QP and Average functions based on a basic spectrum
analyzer front end. 

I presume that this instrument can be used for full compliance testing,
however, one needs to be very careful about the accuracy of the
measurement.
By careful use of input attenuation and observing the results, a
traditional
skill used by users of spectrum analysers may help?

BR

John McAuley



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Eichner
Sent: 02 December 2008 08:03
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have
the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my
experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from
this posting).

So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting:  does
anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for
pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing?

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian
Jones
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
the will to live. 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
Edward
Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
> Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite 
> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you 
> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one 
> trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor



So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This me

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread John McAuley

I notice Rohde and Schwarz have a new "low cost" ESL receiver. Unlike
previous "pre compliance" receivers it appears to be compliant to CISPR 16
even for the 1 Hz QP prf. However, it has no pre selection. I note the
recent comments about modern receivers having less sophisticated pre
selection. This one has none. Probably uses clever digital filters to
perform bandwidth, QP and Average functions based on a basic spectrum
analyzer front end. 

I presume that this instrument can be used for full compliance testing,
however, one needs to be very careful about the accuracy of the measurement.
By careful use of input attenuation and observing the results, a traditional
skill used by users of spectrum analysers may help?

BR

John McAuley



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jim Eichner
Sent: 02 December 2008 08:03
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have
the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my
experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from
this posting).

So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting:  does
anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for
pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing?

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian
Jones
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
the will to live. 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
Edward
Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
> Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite 
> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you 
> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one 
> trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor



So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread Price, Edward

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf 
> Of Jim Eichner
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 12:03 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
> 
> Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I 
> still have the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer 
> (note I learn from my experiences and have dropped the 
> term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from this posting).
> 
> So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original 
> posting:  does anyone care to sing the praises of any 
> particular make/model for pre-compliance radiated and 
> conducted emissions testing?
> 
> Jim Eichner, P.Eng.


It's difficult to resist an invitation to sing. However, since I have
been using an HP-8562A Spectrum Analyzer (1987 vintage), an Anritsu
MS2601 Spectrum Analyzer (1993 vintage), an HP-4195A Spectrum Analyzer
Spectrum Analyzer (really old) and an HP-8572A Receiver System (1994
vintage), I may not have a modern tune.

I recently used an Agilent E4440 Spectrum Analyzer, and it was a superb
improvement over everything I have. I was especially impressed with it's
26 GHz capability, with a built-in low-noise pre-amp and no need for a
harmonic converter. Noise floor was excellent. OTOH, this gadget will
cost you north of $100k, which may be too steep to justify for
pre-compliance testing.

If you have to do it very cheap, you might consider what I use for
back-up sanity tests. I have a set of Stoddart/AILTech/Singer/Eaton
Series 7 receivers (the NM-17A for 10 kHz to 30 MHz and the NM-37A for
30 MHz to 1 GHz). I bought them both on eBay ($95 & $125); one worked
right away, the other needed a fix to the tuning voltage power supply.
These give you Peak & Average values, and you can also look for a CCA-7
QP Adapter (think I got that for about $125 too) to give you true QP
capability. Can't beat $350 plus a little labor for a pre-compliance
setup.


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-02 Thread Jim Eichner

Indeed, however while I too may be losing the will to live, I still have
the will to search out a new spectrum analyzer (note I learn from my
experiences and have dropped the term-that-shall-remain-unspoken from
this posting).

So dare I repeat my question and that of Tim's original posting:  does
anyone care to sing the praises of any particular make/model for
pre-compliance radiated and conducted emissions testing?

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Julian
Jones
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
the will to live. 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
Edward
Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
> Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite 
> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you 
> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one 
> trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor



So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

I guess all that English lit they made us read was that old... My mistake on
the numbers, but the field intensity vs. power density definitions are as I
stated on the west side of the Pond.

In fact over here we state the definition of the Poynting vector as:

Power density (W/m^2) = electric field intensity x magnetic field intensity,

Where "x" denotes vector cross-product.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:07:00 +
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> In message , dated Mon, 1
> Dec 2008, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
> 
>> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite sides
>> of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you call a
>> milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one trillion.
> 
> No, we don't! 'Milliard' hasn't been used in UK for about 100 years, and
> we now (most of us, even the BBC!) use billion = 10^9.
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
> or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver


In message 
<9d04b979323dcd428297dda95108893e0120c...@bb-corp-ex2.corp.cubic.cub>, 
dated Mon, 1 Dec 2008, "Price, Edward"  writes:


>So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?

Of course. The basis is the archaic unit 'ard' = 10^12, so a milliard is 
obviously 10^9. (;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

Not just yet, sorry. Of course you can always do what they tell us to do
when they pollute the airwaves with rotgut television shows: change the
channel.  No one is forcing anyone to watch the trash or read these posts,
which are nicely labeled as to subject.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Julian Jones 
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:48:58 -
> To: Untitled 
> Conversation: EMI Receiver
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
> 
> Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
> the will to live.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
> Edward
> Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
> To: Untitled
> Subject: RE: EMI Receiver
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken
>> Javor
>> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
>> To: Untitled
>> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
>> 
>> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite
>> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you
>> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one
>> trillion.
>>  
>> Ken Javor
> 
> 
> 
> So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?
> 
> 
> Ed Price
> ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
> NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
> Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
> 858-505-1583 (FAX)
> Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty
> 
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver


In message , dated Mon, 1 
Dec 2008, Ken Javor  writes:


>This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite sides 
>of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you call a 
>milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one trillion.

No, we don't! 'Milliard' hasn't been used in UK for about 100 years, and 
we now (most of us, even the BBC!) use billion = 10^9.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-01 Thread Price, Edward

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf 
> Of Ken Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on 
> opposite sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA 
> call a billion, you call a milliard, and what you mean by a 
> billion is what we call one trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor



So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

RE: EMI Receiver

2008-12-01 Thread Julian Jones

Can we please drop this topic now..I am beginning to lose
the will to live. 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Price,
Edward
Sent: 01 December 2008 16:53
To: Untitled
Subject: RE: EMI Receiver

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken 
> Javor
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: Untitled
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite 
> sides of the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you 
> call a milliard, and what you mean by a billion is what we call one 
> trillion.
>  
> Ken Javor

So USA 2 billion is a UK billiard?

Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility
Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA  USA 858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

This may be one of those usage differences that occur on opposite sides of
the Pond. After all, what we in the USA call a billion, you call a milliard,
and what you mean by a billion is what we call one trillion.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:30:08 +
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> In message , dated Mon, 1
> Dec 2008, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
> 
>> Picking a very small nit, field intensity is measured in terms of Volts
>> per
>> meter, these days. Radiated power density is measured in terms of Watts
>> per
>> square meter.
> 
> 
> I thought you would say that. In fact, the terminology is not
> consistent. In principle, 'intensity' is reserved for power-based
> quantities.
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
> or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver


In message , dated Mon, 1 
Dec 2008, Ken Javor  writes:


>Picking a very small nit, field intensity is measured in terms of Volts 
>per
>meter, these days. Radiated power density is measured in terms of Watts 
>per
>square meter.


I thought you would say that. In fact, the terminology is not 
consistent. In principle, 'intensity' is reserved for power-based 
quantities.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver

Picking a very small nit, field intensity is measured in terms of Volts per
meter, these days. Radiated power density is measured in terms of Watts per
square meter.

The reason that Stoddart so named their devices, which clearly are
two-terminal voltmeters, and not in and of themselves field intensity
meters, is that back in the day field intensity was measured as an rf
potential.  That is, the limit on radiated field intensity was given as an
rf potential at the terminals of a specific antenna located a specific
distance and orientation relative to the test sample.  This was clear
recognition of a fundamental fact often overlooked today. When measuring the
near field (it was 12" from the test sample back then), "field intensity"
has little meaning and what is of interest is what couples to an antenna or
pick-up device that looks like the victim of interest, placed at a
representative distance from the test sample.

The best thing about this technique (termed an "antenna-induced" limit and
test method) was that it avoided this pernicious comparison of radiated
emissions and radiated susceptibility/immunity requirements.  This
comparison is wrong as I will explain in response to Ed Price's posts on
this subject.

Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261

> From: John Woodgate 
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:29:48 +0000
> To: 
> Subject: Re: EMI Receiver
> 
> In message 
> ,
> dated Mon, 1 Dec 2008, "Price, Andrew (SELEX GALILEO, UK)"
>  writes:
> 
> 
>> What was wrong with the old Stoddart/Ailtech Identity?
>> 
>> "EMI/Field Intensity Meter"
> 
> But does it measure field intensity, in watts per square metre?
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
> Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
> or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> 
> -
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: EMI Receiver