d testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.grem...@cetest.nl>
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:05:32 +0100
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Conversation: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM cur
il and
delete the material from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday 1 February 2016 03:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
t;
> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
> A clamp-on ferrite with a few turns of wire and connected to a spectrum
> analyzer, worked out to be a good tool for measuring CM currents on single
> cables. It gave me some measured numbers [dBuV], and then
equ...@ieee.org
<mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> >
Reply-To: Bill Owsley <wdows...@yahoo.com <mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com> >
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:26:08 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PS
MC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Doug's point is well taken. If you know the probe's transfer impedance, and you
know it works properly (is well-shielded) then instead of just "getting a
number" and trying to lower it you can work a
(256) 650-5261
>>
>>
>>> From: Amund Westin <am...@westin-emission.no>
>>> Reply-To: Amund Westin <am...@westin-emission.no>
>>> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:21:48 +0100
>>> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>>> Subject: [PSE
STSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> > A clamp-on ferrite with a few turns of wire and connected to a spectrum
> analyzer, worked out to be a good tool for measuring CM currents on single
> cables. It gave me some measured num
Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: 18 January 2016 22:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
" I have been experimenting with this and in several cases using a ferrite
clamp
at the end of cabling seems to "sta
ISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Just as Gert and Ralf say, ferrites used for EMC purposes are , if the
ferrite material is properly chosen for the frequency range concerned,
predominately RESISTIVE not inductive. Therefore they damp out resonance
016 11:24
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Just as Gert and Ralf say, ferrites used for EMC purposes are , if the
ferrite material is properly chosen for the frequency range concerned,
predominately RESISTIVE not inductive. Therefore they damp out resona
testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.grem...@cetest.nl>
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,
Date:
01/16/2016 01:41 AM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Hi Doug et al,
If I understand well, the ferrite creates a virtual end of cable for EUT2,
allowing the ca
any other experiences from members on this list.
Gert Gremmen
-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com]
Sent: zaterdag 16 januari 2016 1:52
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Hi Everone,
Here is an interesting case where
Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
I think it is important to not lose sight of the original query that started
this thread. The query was about whether
-0800
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
> I would add a caution to Ken's comment about common mode cable currents
> creating RE. Yes, the CM currents certainly do create RE, but you need to
> probe the cables at
Owsley <wdows...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:26:08 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
If you can measure common mode noise on a cable, you have a problem from the
port !!
Note the world famous Ott's math on this
ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday,
January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
I think it is important to not lose sight of the original query that started
this thread. The query was about whether placing a current probe
m, not just reduce it. But there
are exceptions.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
&g
ST
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> Reply-To: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
>
> IMO, a near field probe gets you back to where Bill Owlsley was at: you are X
> dB over the limit on the test site, so you wave
o:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,
Date:
01/13/2016 01:22 PM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its
opening. The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may
affect how much current flows through the con
On 1/14/2016 5:20 PM, McDiarmid, Ralph wrote:
Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?
That's good for finding a source. but as Ken points out, its not
accurate enough for quantitative evaluation. FWIW... a SA chamber or an
OATS aren't all that hot either,according to a 2001 paper.*
armid, Ralph" <ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com"
<ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:33 -0800
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
S] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Ken is correct. Near field probes are good for finding sources, but current
probes are better for characterizing the emissions from cables. However, if the
EUT has a leaky enclosure, or other radiating structures besides cables, you'll
reall
tin-emission.no>
Reply-To: Amund Westin <am...@westin-emission.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
Probing a lot of cables ins
it. But there
are exceptions.
From: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currentsI re-read the query and see I didn’t
a
against the cable impedance itself to assess any perturbation of
the quantity to be measured.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:15:55 -0600
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Conversation: [PSES] Current probe for
Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
Probing a lot of cables inside a rack and try to find the source.
Will make a current probe by a ferrite core (two halves, a few turns wire and
coax plug) as many EMI experts have posted on the web and on this forum.
26 matches
Mail list logo
