/c63_workshops.htm
Jim Bacher
JB Consulting
Regulatory Compliance Consultant
https://trc.guru/
IEEE Life Senior Member
On Apr 11, 2017 10:49 AM, "Grasso, Charles" <charles.gra...@dish.com> wrote:
> Hello – Other than the workshop provided during the EMC Symposium,
> does anyone
Hello - Other than the workshop provided during the EMC Symposium,
does anyone know of an ANSI C63.4 workshop in the US?
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Dish Technologies
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com<mailto:3032042...@vtext.com>
(e ) charl
devices when I worked for Intel.
Ghery S. Pettit
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Deviations from ANSI C63.4 testing - Lab acceptability
ANSI C63.4 requires that "Interco
ANSI C63.4 requires that "Interconnect cabling or wiring shall be connected to
one of each type of functional port of the EUT,
and each cable or wire shall be terminated in a device typical of actual
usage." If an active termination (i.e such as for HDMI)
is used in place of a dev
In message
OF24201270.2EDF97A3-ON85257E06.007BDBCE-85257E06.007D2D07@bureauveritas.
com, dated Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Chris Bramley
christopher.bram...@us.bureauveritas.com writes:
ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.2.2 requires a direct current resistance of
less than or equal to 2.5 milliohms between
for CEMI Testing per ANSI C63.4
All that is necessary is a clean metal-to-metal faying surface bond. There are
any number of bond meters out there. Some of the old ones are the HP4328A
(which has a modern digital incarnation) and the Keithley Model 580 (which is
also obsolete but has a modern
Bonding to Ground Plane for CEMI Testing per ANSI
C63.4
In message
OF24201270.2EDF97A3-ON85257E06.007BDBCE-85257E06.007D2D07@bureauveritas.
com, dated Thu, 12 Mar 2015, Chris Bramley
christopher.bram...@us.bureauveritas.com writes:
ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.2.2 requires a direct current
AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Bonding to Ground Plane for CEMI Testing per ANSI C63.4
A ground plane made of copper, brass or aluminum of any extent (width as well
as length) will have microohms of resistance and the bonding requirement of 2.5
milliohms is reasonable
In message d1285ee5.69ff8%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
A ground plane made of copper, brass or aluminum of any extent (width
as well as length) will have microohms of resistance
I wonder if that's always true when you take
Bramley [mailto:christopher.bram...@us.bureauveritas.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 3:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] LISN Bonding to Ground Plane for CEMI Testing per ANSI C63.4
ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.2.2 requires a direct current resistance of less
than or equal
-To: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:47:28 +
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Bonding to Ground Plane for CEMI Testing per ANSI
C63.4
In message d1285ee5.69ff8%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Fri, 13
Mar 2015, Ken Javor ken.ja
Testing per ANSI C63.4
ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.2.2 requires a direct current resistance of less
than or equal to 2.5 milliohms between the LISN being used for CEMI
measurements and the reference ground plane. Is it possible to achieve this
low level of resistance by simply bolting the LISN
ANSI C63.4-2014 clause 5.2.2 requires a direct current resistance of less
than or equal to 2.5 milliohms between the LISN being used for CEMI
measurements and the reference ground plane. Is it possible to achieve this
low level of resistance by simply bolting the LISN to the ground plane
(after
Hello,
I have a question regarding ANSI C63.4 1GHz testing setup with absorbers
compliant to CISPR 16-1-4:2007.
The test lab I use has absorbers on the ground plane meeting the CISPR
16-1-4:2007 VSWR requirement up to 6GHz. ANSI says absorbers are acceptable
above 1GHz as long
Under ANSI C63.4 2009 you are to test with the absorbers above 1GHz, but if
the lab uses ANSI C63.4 2003 you CANNOT use the absorbers. Under ANSI
C63.4:2009 the minimum attenuation for the absorbers must be 20dB and cover
a 2.4 m by 2.4 m square.
Thanks
Dennis Ward
Senior Certification
Hi Dennis,
Does this mean I can use absorbers up to 40GHz following ANSI C63.4:2009?
Thanks,
Tim
In a message dated 9/7/2012 3:46:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dw...@pctestlab.com writes:
Under ANSI C63.4 2009 you are to test with the absorbers above 1GHz, but
if the lab uses ANSI
Hi Tim
Correct, ANSI C63.4:2009 uses the absorbers from 1 to 40 GHz per section 5.5
of C63.4:2009
Thanks
Dennis Ward
Senior Certification Engineer
PCTEST
This communication and its attachments contain information from PCTEST
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive
Subject: [PSES] ANSI C63.4: 2009
Hello
Does anyone know when the FCC is planning to replace ANSI 63.4: 2003 with
ANSI 63.4: 2009 if at all?
Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail e
Hello
Does anyone know when the FCC is planning to replace ANSI 63.4: 2003 with ANSI
63.4: 2009 if at all?
Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Writer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail
15 and ANSI C63.4
I didn't receive any response to my puzzler last week.
Perhaps:
a) I didn't put it in question form.
b) There was insufficient interest in the topic.
c) The mention of the word auditor was a mistake.
Assuming all (or some) of the above; Here's one more attempt.
Is anyone using
: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sykes, Bob
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:32 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: FCC Part 15 and ANSI C63.4
Worldly Experts,
In preparing for an upcoming ISO audit and making sure my standards are in
order, I have uncovered some
Worldly Experts,
In preparing for an upcoming ISO audit and making sure my standards are in
order, I have uncovered some potential problems.
I am currently using ANSI C63.4 2009. My basis for doing so is the November
2009 FCC Public Notice (DA 09-2478) clarifying use of C63 Measurement
STC LISTSERV posting on
the topic of the use of biconlog antenna in ANSI
C63.4-2009. (I do not normally follow the EMC-PSTC
LISTSERV).
In order for you to judge the validity of my answer
to the question that you raised in your recent LISTSERV
Of Martin E.
Cormier
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:15 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PSES] Biconilog antennas and ANSI C63.4:2009
Dear Mr Hodes,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer my question so
eloquently. I will keep your post on file to go back to if I ever need
Hello everyone,
I am relatively new to this mailing list, so this question may have been
posted before. I did not find it when searching the archive.
It has come to my attention yesterday that some accreditors may give a
lab a hard time if it tries to get ANSI C63.4:2009 accreditation when
In message 4f102e11.7000...@matrox.com, dated Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Martin
E. Cormier mcorm...@matrox.com writes:
(Sorry if my English is bad, second language for me)
It isn't bad at all. Just don't get too ambitious; keep it simple.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and
umpf wrote:
Martin,
There's a lot of study going on currently regarding the
hybrid antenna designs, but currently the hybrid (bicon-log)
antennas are not accepted for measurements in ANSI
with them? Or is
this just another move on the accreditation authorities to have every lab do
exactly the same thing?
When you say not accepted for measurements in ANSI C63.4:2009, is the for
emissions testing or only in regards to NSA?
The Other Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p
Brian,
Unfortunately not all hybrid antennas are equal, and studies done in the past
and more recently have indicated rather large uncertainties in measurement when
using some of these antennas. ANSI C63.4:2009 does not currently include the
hybrid designs in the list of acceptable antennas
Hulbert
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Stumpf
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:45 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Biconilog antennas and ANSI C63.4:2009
Brian,
Unfortunately not all hybrid antennas are equal, and studies done
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Test Accessories per ANSI C63.4 or CISPR 22
Hi Micheal et al,
Actually, it’s the FCC that accepts CISPR 22 data.
Anyway, CISPR 22:2008 refers to that equipment as associated equipment, but
falls short of defining it as you were searching for.
And, that raises
In message
ofe8a46d00.7b962aff-on8625790c.0059e33c-8625790c.005a6...@mmm.com,
dated Thu, 15 Sep 2011, rehel...@mmm.com writes:
Commercial equipment is not specifically called out in CISPR 22 but
in one paragraph it talks about using actual equipment as
peripherals. I take actual to mean the
] Test Accessories per ANSI C63.4 or CISPR 22
I always thought:
ANSI C63.4 was called out in FCC 47CFR15 (107/109) and since CISPR 22 accepts
FCC data that this was the logical path from ANSI to any FCC or CISPR
requirement.
Was it that FCC now accepts CISPR data?
Michael
/2011 11:10 AM
Subject:RE: [PSES] Test Accessories per ANSI C63.4 or CISPR 22
Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
Grace,
See FCC Part 15.31(j) – “The accessories or peripherals connected to the
device being tested shall be unmodified, commercially
I always thought:
ANSI C63.4 was called out in FCC 47CFR15 (107/109) and since CISPR 22 accepts
FCC data that this was the logical path from ANSI to any FCC or CISPR
requirement.
Was it that FCC now accepts CISPR data?
Michael Sundstrom
OHD / TREQ Dallas
Electronic Lab Analyst
, 2011 9:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Test Accessories per ANSI C63.4 or CISPR 22
Dear Members,
The last sentence of Section 5.10.9 (Central ontrol units) of ANSI C63.10-2009
states The accessories or peripherals connected to the device being tested
shall
Subject
09/15/2011 10:54 Test Accessories per ANSI C63.4 or
PMCISPR 22
Dear Members,
The last sentence of Section 5.10.9 (Central ontrol units) of ANSI C63.10-2009
states The accessories or peripherals connected to the device being tested
shall be unmodified, commercially available equipment. Is there any similar
wording in ANSI C63.4 or CISPR 22? I am looking
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 23:11:37 +0800 (HKT),
Derek Leung leungderek2...@yahoo.com.hk wrote:
The theoretical normalized site attenuation values of ANSI C63.4
only upto 1GHz, where can I find the NSA values above 1 GHz?
ANSI C63.4 doesn't require NSA above 1GHz, and, instead of NSA,
method, ANSI
Dear Experts,
The theoretical normalized site attenuation values of ANSI C63.4
only upto 1GHz, where can I find the NSA values above 1 GHz?
Best Regards,
Derek.
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
the
center.
The result suggests that the performance of the site is not
so good, but I think we should able to decide whether the site
is acceptable under ANSI C63.4 (and CISPR 16-1-4) standard for
1m x 1.5m tabletop setup without restrictions.
I think that the text of the standard is quite clear
-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of T.Sato
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:42 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: ANSI C63.4 volumetric NSA
Dear EMC Experts,
As we know, ANSI C63.4 requires volumetric NSA for alternative
test sites, which means that we should evaluate NSA
100% recycled electrons and 100% pure
virgin photons.
--- On Thu, 6/30/11, T.Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp wrote:
From: T.Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
Subject: ANSI C63.4 volumetric NSA
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 8:41 AM
Dear EMC Experts,
As we know, ANSI C63.4 requires volumetric NSA for alternative
test sites, which means that we should evaluate NSA of the site at,
in addition to the center, the points moved specific distance
toward front, right, left (and back, maybe) from the center in
general.
Clause
HI Derek
ANSI C63.4 covers many intentional radiators under Part 15 such as 15.231,
15.209 and 15.249 etc. However, because of the type modulations it is not
suited for devices such as Bluetooth, Zigbee or WLAN. The FCC requires these
type device typically found under 15.247 and 15.407
ANSI C63.4: 2009 is for unintentional radiators. ANSI C63.10: 2009 is for
license-exempt intentional radiators. In your case for an inentional
radiator, refer to ANSI C63.10:2009.
ANSI C63.4: 2009
American National Standard for Methoods of Measuremetn of Radio-Noise Emission
from Low-Voltage
Dear Experts,
Do you know what are the differences between C63.4:2009 and C63.10:2009?
If I measure the occupied bandwidht of an intentional radiator, which standard
should I refer to ?
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Derek.
-
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:30:20 -0800,
Spencer, David H david.spen...@xerox.com wrote:
I have a high power application where I need to use (construct) the
voltage probe described in CISPR 16-2-1 section 5.2.1 Fig. 6.
(section 4.4 from ANSI C63.4) to measure conducted emissions.
The ANSI
Regards All,
I have a high power application where I need to use (construct) the voltage
probe described in CISPR 16-2-1 section 5.2.1 Fig. 6. (section 4.4 from
ANSI C63.4) to measure conducted emissions.
The ANSI specification is that the resistance between line and ground be
1500Ohms. I'm
not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
I don't recall if any of that stuff was available in 1980-82.
ps
From: John M Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
To: k...@earthlink.net
These methods may have merit but they are not those in international
standards, specifically CISPR 22/EN 55022.
That's right. And CE + CE isn't CE. This is sometimes a problem.
It might be more of a problem if some
Indecision may or may not be the problem.
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com wrote:
From: Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com
Subject: RE: ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
To: Brent G DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com,
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
...@microsoft.com
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
From: Brent G DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
The folks
Subject: Re: [PSES] ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
Dare I mentionTEMPEST?
There are some buyers, the medical profession, the military, and commercial
aviation come to mind, who need emissions supressed if not for TEMPEST
reasons then because they must use digital equipment near
Dare I mentionTEMPEST?
There are some buyers, the medical profession, the military, and commercial
aviation come to mind, who need emissions supressed if not for TEMPEST
reasons then because they must use digital equipment near communications
installations that are not only extremely
-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
We tested a mouse when they first came out by tying the lease (cable) to a
stick braced between the legs of the table and dragging the little begger
around the outside of the turntable. The spectrum
: John M Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PSES] ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
To: Dan Roman dan.ro...@dialogic.com
Cc: emcp...@aol.com emcp...@aol.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 5:10 PM
In message 380-2200955891121...@earthlink.net, Cortland Richmond
k...@earthlink.net writes
The ultimate measure of a device is the device. Put a [mouse, for
example] on the table with cable running across the table then via
shielded means out the chamber to a data receiver. Rotate a disc
One can't do a hearing test inside a bass drum.
The ultimate measure of a device is the device. Put a [mouse, for example]
on the table with cable running across the table then via shielded means
out the chamber to a data receiver. Rotate a disc under the mouse and
click with remotely
In message
54fa6a0de969bb4b88c667e400ba85d404f699a...@mbx.dialogic.com, Dan Roman
dan.ro...@dialogic.com writes
Maybe there is an IEC committee with nothing better to do than write a
mouse standard?
Don't give people dangerous ideas!
This thread, or one very like it, originated with the
conducted emissions to the mains
to make sure the mouse is not adding unduly harmonic distortion.
Gert Gremmen
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens emcp...@aol.com
Verzonden: donderdag 7 mei 2009 19:08
Aan: emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
Subject: [PSES] ANSI C63.4/CISPR 22 Testing Configuration
Hello Group,
I have a couple of questions regarding the minimum PC configuration when
testing a USB device such as a mouse and the minimum testing requirements.
CISPR 22 contains the following:
For a personal computer or a personal
Hello Group,
I have a couple of questions regarding the minimum PC configuration when
testing a USB device such as a mouse and the minimum testing requirements.
CISPR 22 contains the following:
For a personal computer or a personal computer peripheral, the minimum
configuration
consists of
Does anyone know the current status of the release of the latest revision of
ANSI C63.4?
It was still in comment phase during the Symposium in Detroit but was expected
to publish this year I believe.
Best regards,
Mac Elliott
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR),
[ X ] Motorola
Hello Group
We have heard through the grapevine that ANSI C63.4 will be following CISPR 16
for site validation above 1 GHz.
Does anyone out there have any additional information regarding whether or not
free-space OATS will be required per ANSI C63.4 in the near future? Imagine
www.matrox.com
==
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of T.Sato
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:22 PM
To: ari.honk...@nsn.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:53:09
and/or ANSI C63.4?
Regards,
Tom
Tomonori Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p
, but it is
from 2005.
Gert
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Cortland Richmond
Verzonden: donderdag 21 februari 2008 15:22
Aan: emc-pstc
Onderwerp: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
If one includes large speakers as part of the UUT (they do constitute
emc-p...@ieee.org cc
Subject
02/20/2008 03:44 Re: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4
: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com
To: Gert Gremmen administra...@ce-test.info; John Woodgate
j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: Donald Heirman d.heir...@att.net
Date: 2/21/2008 4:51:43 AM
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
Gert,
That concept has been
...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
I found the following in a CD for CISPR 16-2-3 (CISPRA/543/CD)
(I am not sure of the status of this CD (yet).
Could find the results of vote that fast
Title:
Measurements in absorber-lined shielded enclosures - uniform
measurement
looking at it for this update. It just hasn't been a hot
button item with any of the committees.
Ghery
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:administra...@ce-test.info]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:56 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; John Woodgate; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna
In message FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA4892B3F@ZEUS.cetest.local,
dated Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Gert Gremmen administra...@ce-test.info
writes:
Shouldn't CISPR 22 comply with CISPR 16
You have cited a CD, which is a Committee Draft, for comment, not
voting. You can't expect CISPR 22 to
I found the following in a CD for CISPR 16-2-3 (CISPRA/543/CD)
(I am not sure of the status of this CD (yet).
Could find the results of vote that fast
Title:
Measurements in absorber-lined shielded enclosures - uniform measurement
arrangement for
radiated emission and immunity testing
Of
ari.honk...@nsn.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:15 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
That would be a reasonably challenging objective.
I believe the principle now is in a way sound: if you follow the
standard's text to the letter, now when
In message
e2ceff6b0970a840bb7597dc31bec3300305a...@esebe107.noe.nokia.com, dated
Wed, 20 Feb 2008, ari.honk...@nsn.com writes:
Probably no-one's feelings are hurt if a manufacturer makes a
compromise in their own tests in a way that the results are say 1 dB
higher (but never lower) than what
In message
f50a4280b6033741b1dd2b4e902258b1071af...@orsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com,
dated Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com writes:
Well, John, it's been there for a while. It's been in CISPR 22 since
at least the 2nd Edition in 1993 (I don't have an electronic copy of
the
be if the standard were exactly followed.
Ari
-Original Message-
From: ext Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: 20. helmikuuta 2008 22:41
To: Honkala Ari (NSN - FI/Espoo); emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
Exactly. And, Ari, maybe we need
32 in SC I.
Ghery Pettit
Convener, CISPR SC I WG3
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:18 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
In message
...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
I have the 2005 version of CISPR 22 in hand and it says:
The boundary of the EUT is defined by an imaginary straight-line
periphery describing a simple geometric configuration encompassing the
EUT. All ITE intersystem cables
-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:29 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; T.Sato; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
Ghery,
I don't understand your desciption.
I thought the original question
emissions standard that is also
under development in CISPR SC I).
Ghery Pettit
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
rehel...@mmm.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:58 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
I don't
In message
e2ceff6b0970a840bb7597dc31bec3300305a...@esebe107.noe.nokia.com, dated
Wed, 20 Feb 2008, ari.honk...@nsn.com writes:
This is indeed inconvenient,
It certainly is, and while your work-around is OK, it would not impress
the assessors! It's surprising that such a provision was
: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
ext Bill Owsley
Sent: 20. helmikuuta 2008 20:29
To: Pettit, Ghery; T.Sato; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
Ghery,
I don't understand your
Pettit
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:57 AM
To: T.Sato; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
I understand it to be such when the system is assembled on a turntable
AMSubject
RE: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4
antenna-to-EUT distance
to the center
of the table as it rotates.
Ghery Pettit
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:57 AM
To: T.Sato; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: CISPR 22 / ANSI C63.4 antenna-to-EUT distance
I understand
Dear experts,
I have a question about definition of antenna-to-EUT distance in
CISPR 22 and ANSI C63.4.
CISPR 22:2005 clause 10.3.1 (Antenna-to-EUT distance) says that:
Measurement of the radiated field shall be made with the antenna
located at the horizontal distance from boundary
, January 09, 2007 7:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: CISPR 22:2005 vs ANSI C63.4
Bonjour,
We just revised EN55022:2006 and compared the requirements to our methods of
measurements and this raised many issues. The first I would like to bring to
this forum is the LISN (AMN) placement for tabletop devices
the requirements of ANSI C63.4:2003.
Surprising, considering the voting on the CISPR standard. Maybe the ANSI
standard will be brought into agreement with the CISPR?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2
) for the placement of
the EUT LISN (AMN) differs from the requirements of ANSI C63.4:2003.
Section 9.5.1 of CISPR 22 can be read as:
The AMN shall be placed 0,8 m from the boundary of the unit under test and
bonded to a ground reference plane for AMNs mounted on top of the ground
reference plane
Yes, the typo was acknowledged and is being changed in the 2003 version of
ANSI C63.4. The correct height in table 2, third column should be 2 meters.
William M Stumpf
DLS Electronics
166 South Carter St.
Genoa City WI 53128
ph: 262-279-0210
fx: 262-279-3630
email: bstu...@dlsemc.com
I have a copy of ANSI C63.4:2001. Is the transmit antenna height (h1) for 10
meter measurement distance correct at 3 m? I believe it should be 2 m as it
was in the previous 1992 version of the standard. If this is a typo, is it
being corrected?
Jim Hulbert
Pitney Bowes.
, it (the AMN for CISPR 22 C63.022) is the same
LISN as per ANSI C63.4-1992 pg 17. (Can anytell me if..) Is ANSI C63-1992
current?
Just another of my 2¢...
cheerio
Tim Foo
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical
...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Steven Goulding
Sent: dinsdag 20 augustus 2002 19:03
To: jim.hulb...@pb.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EN 55022:1998 vs. ANSI C63.4
The idea of putting the ferrites on the cables is to prevent noise from
outside
one mans opinion.
Steven
- Original Message -
From: jim.hulb...@pb.com
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: EN 55022:1998 vs. ANSI C63.4
Probably won't get many responses this week as everyone with a travel
budget is now in Minnesota. However, I'll try
. AC mains, telecom, I/O to remote control units).
ANSI C63.4 does not specify this. If I follow the EN 55022 procedure, is
it necessary to repeat without the ferrite clamps in order to satisfy the
ANSI test procedure?
Thanks.
Jim Hulbert
Pitney Bowes
Dear All
know this is kind of an unusual request, but that the way it is. Normally
this is part of the more complete EMI Software packages.
Can anybody point me to a source for an Excel file to perform the NSA
calculation according to ANSI C63.4. So I can support my customer to perform
semi
Dear all
Would like to know if any document came out from FCC to allow test lab to use
ANSI C63.4-2000?
Thank you
KC Chan
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site
Hello,
I just got hold of a copy of ANSI C63.4-2000 annex M.
Does anyone have experience using the Table M1.1 spreadsheet?
Some of the equations look wrong to me. It is probably my ignorance, but I
could get lucky. :)
For example:
You have 2 arrays of frequencies and field strength readings
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
