Larry,
Thank you very much for the clarification!
Can we try to conclude that
(1) The modulation parameters of A1 are the same as original EN61000-4-3.
(2) If both EN 61000-4-3 and A1 are stipulated at the same test amplitude, say
3 V/m, we don't have to retest 800-960 MHz of A1 after passing
Barry,
I have the copy of A1 and do verify that it states 80% AM from 800 to
960. Appendix A in the Amendment provides the rational why 80% AM was chosen.
Appendix A in a nutshell:
Sine Wave AM, Square Wave AM and Pulsed RF signals were compared on a
variety of products.
It was
, 2000 9:36 PM
To: 'Barry Ma'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Do they have the same modulation parameters? I always
assumed that the
800-960Mhz tests were pulse modulation tests using 200Hz,
50% duty cycle
square waves. If not, then I'm just as confused as you
Sorry, there's a typo in my quotation that I just sent:
The requirement for 9005 MHz pulse modulation in ENV 50204 was replaced by
800-960 MHz
and 1.4-2.0 GHz, 80% amplitude modulation in Amendment 1:1998 of EN61000-4-3.
9005 MHz should have been 900 + - 5 MHz.
Chris,
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of A1 at hand. Please allow me to quote a
text from an article in EE July 2000, p. S-55:
The requirement for 900+/-5 MHz pulse modulation in ENV 50204 was replaced by
800-960 MHz and 1.4-2.0 GHz, 80% amplitude modulation in Amendment 1:1998 of
: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:47 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Hi group,
Thanks for all replies in respond to my question on the Amendment 1 of
EN61000-4-3 a few days ago. But there is another unclear issue left with
the A1. Please help.
I think
Hi group,
Thanks for all replies in respond to my question on the Amendment 1 of
EN61000-4-3 a few days ago. But there is another unclear issue left with the
A1. Please help.
I think the intention of A1 is to simulate the interference from near cell
phones. That's why A1 has two frequency
, October 13, 2000 8:53 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Barry, I don't have a copy of A1 either, but the dow is listed on the
CENELEC web site as 2001-05-01.
Richard Woods
--
From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com]
Sent: Thursday
To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Annex ZA (normative) of EN55024:1998 includes the following
phrase at the head of the list of associated specifications.
For dated references, subsequent amendments
...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 11:50 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Good question. This does appear to be a problem. It appears that the dates
for the Basic standards, when they are first published
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Annex ZA (normative) of EN55024:1998 includes the following
phrase at the head of the list of associated specifications.
For dated references, subsequent amendments to or revisions
of any of these publications apply to this European
a different approach?
Geoff Lister
Senior Engineer
Motion Media Technology Ltd.
http://www.motion-media.com
-Original Message-
From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent: 13 October 2000 16:50
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Good question
--
From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 11:31 AM
To: wo...@sensormatic.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3
Richard, perhaps you or someone can help me with basic standards
of EN61000-4-3
Barry, I don't have a copy of A1 either, but the dow is listed on the
CENELEC web site as 2001-05-01.
Richard Woods
--
From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:30 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: A1 of EN61000-4
Barry, I don't have a copy of A1 either, but the dow is listed on the
CENELEC web site as 2001-05-01.
Richard Woods
--
From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:30 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: A1 of
of
that revision or amendment.
Richard Woods
--
From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 7:10 AM
To: Barry Ma; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: A1 of EN61000-4-3
I do not think that basic standards
I do not think that basic standards have DOWs. I believe that they become
effective when they are called out by a higher standard.
=
Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 10/12/2000 03:30:14 PM
Please respond to Barry Ma
17 matches
Mail list logo
