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 f
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
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
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'v
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
0
> 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 q
etween 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
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 Op
gt; 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
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
-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
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, Bri
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 Wood
: [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 Societ
; 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
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 re
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
calib
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
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
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 dri
20 matches
Mail list logo
