Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-10 Thread Regan Arndt
Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Much appreciated! From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 12:01 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question Here is the problem with the ‘2 dB rule’. If there are only two ports

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread dward
question Right - ANSI C63.4 still makes reference to the "2dB rule" Bill From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC co-location d

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Bill Stumpf
the case. The FCC considers that two transmitters/antennas are collocated if they are in the same product / enclosure. I hope this helps. Bill From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.O

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread dward
that the e-mail or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect. Thank you. From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 11:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question It's been awhile

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Bill Stumpf
Right - ANSI C63.4 still makes reference to the "2dB rule" Bill From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question It's been awhile, but at the time wh

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Adam Dixon
ce when everything works but nobody knows why." *-- Albert > Einstein > > > > *From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 11:50 AM > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question &

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Sundstrom, Mike
V.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question Hi Bill. Thanks for this great info! Much appreciated. The second part of my original email was merely philosophical discussion points. Let me clarify. I would love to hear what people think: 1. How many different types of

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Regan Arndt
the same product / enclosure. I hope this helps. Bill From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question Greetings members, Can anyone

Re: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-09 Thread Bill Stumpf
day, March 08, 2017 1:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question Greetings members, Can anyone shed any light on what ANSI defines as the max distance/limit of a 'co-located' piece of ancillary equipment or other support equipment (on the table) to the m

[PSES] EMC co-location distance question

2017-03-08 Thread Regan Arndt
Greetings members, Can anyone shed any light on what ANSI defines as the max distance/limit of a 'co-located' piece of ancillary equipment or other support equipment (on the table) to the main EUT being tested for FCC Part 15 class B for 'unintentional radiators'. I seem to recall 20 cm but I