For internal net problems I've lost the answers (if any) to the
following message.
Could you please send them again?
Thanks.
M.P.
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
From: plaw...@west.net (Patrick Lawler)
To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Status of
From: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com
To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com; ieee pstc
list emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
Date: Monday, August 25, 1997 11:19 AM
If it's mutual coupling... sure. But if it's a surface wave,
Chris,
The rule that supersedes the others is: Don't interfere. However... there's a
general perception that Class A is cheaper to build than Class B and not to ask
for stricter standards if aiming at a better deal. This can result in specifying
Class A limits if there is any justification at
Right. Harmful interference makes any classification meaningless.
Cortland
== Original Message Follows
Date: 25-Aug-97 18:43:26 MsgID: 1054-4643 ToID: 72146,373
From: Doug McKean INTERNET:dmck...@paragon-networks.com
Subj: Re: Antenna
Great dialog, just the path that I was hoping would develop.
One thing I have learned since the question was first asked, all
biconical antennas are not made equal. The original antenna calibrated
at an outside test organization, exhibited a 5 dB difference between the
vertical and horizontal
--- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:12:00 -0400 UMBDENSTOCK, DON
umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote:
Great dialog, just the path that I was hoping would develop.
One thing I have learned since the question was first asked, all
biconical antennas are not made equal. The original antenna calibrated
Ed brings up a good point. This forum is designed to allow
communications between EMC and Product Safety professionals who are
looking to help each other in the interest of the advancement of the
compliance industry. If there is a certain test house or equipment
manufacturer that
***MESSAGE #2***
Ignore first message!!
***
This has turned into an interesting discussion.
1. On the question of Class A vs Class B etc.. I vaguely remember that the
genesis of the
Hi all,
As the Local Arrangements Chair of the organising committe for the IEEE
1998 International Syposium on EMC to be held in Denver, Colorado I am
interested in any feedback from those who attended last weeks 1997
symposium in Austin. The Austin Symposium was great but we plan to be even
Hello group
Is anyone aware when the new part FCC pt 68 (68.302)surge (9x720us) requirements
actually coming into effect.
Has anybody bought the equipment--any recommendations.
Is this requirement similar to a EU Surge requirement? Can one tester cover
both??
Thanks in advance for the
--- On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:57:56 -0700 Patricia Elliot p...@qualcomm.com
wrote:
At 08:49 AM 8/26/97 -0500, Lesmeister, Glenn wrote:
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the latest version of the
ZH1/618 testing principles that are translated into English. My TUV
rep only has it in
Message received.
I believe you are referring to ANSI C63.4.
This is a result of much controversy in the EMC community - what to do with
cables?
The FCC took a lot of heat for maximizing cables in ways that the industry
did not agree with. So, after much discussion, industry the FCC agreed on a
A few weeks ago, a posting reported on a meeting between a well known
computer manufacturer and Mrs Elena Santiago of the European Commission.
I was surprised at the content of this report, since it did not appear to
be consistent with the recently-produced Guidelines, so I checked with
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
