Following your logic, "I was just following orders," means that those who
use an average detector on an EMI receiver or who properly use a spectrum
analyzer to average as I demonstrated are at a competitive disadvantage to
those who use bad math and give themselves twice the dB relaxation
warrant
Same exact equation, but the log reference would have been 11, or more
properly, 10 base 11.
--
>From: "Gregg Kervill"
>To: "'Stuart Lopata'" , "'emc'"
>Subject: RE: one more thing about duty cycle... Dimensional Analysis .. but 11
fingers makes it tricky
>Date: Tue, Oct 30, 2001, 2:33
For Central New England EMC Chapter members - URGENT-
Subject: EMCS Chapter Meeting Nov.1,2001 Cancelled
Due to circumstances,The meeting scheduled for Thursday November 1,2001 at
EMC Corporation has been cancelled.
The following announcement is in the
IEEE Boston Section REFLECTOR November 20
Members,
I have received quite a number of responses from
memebers of this group. Comments from test labs,
assessors, and even accreditors, are truely valuable,
informative, and deemed sufficient for me to make a
decision.
Please understand that I couldn't reply each of your
emails but I would
The point! We have all missed the point! :-)
I do not dispute the science.
The question was not "what is the correct science", rather, "what is
expected by the FCC (or any other spectrum authority) for successful
processing of the submittal. It became apparent that the science did not
match
Who is the final authority? It would seem to me that this would be the one
who wrote the rules -- the FCC. So if you are audited and questioned about
the correct handling of factors, you merely produce the FCC generated
instructions and show that you comply with the instructions. End of issue.
I read in !emc-pstc that Stuart Lopata wrote (in
) about 'EN 55022
limits', on Tue, 30 Oct 2001:
>The radiated limits are stated for 10 meters but our measurements are at 3
>meters. Is it ok to use 3 meter data and what should the new limits be (may
>be 10 dB higher)?
You need to look in the st
An excellent question! I can't say conclusively but this is gut feel. In a
reverb chamber any metallic ground plane acts as a boundary and in the
immediate vicinity an EM wave polarized parallel to that surface will be
attenuated. Hence the restriction you noted. But the attenuation near the
pl
For members of Central New England EMC Chapter - Chapter Meeting Nov.1,2001
is Cancelled
The meeting scheduled for Thursday November 1,2001 at
EMC Corporation has been cancelled.
The following announcement is in the
IEEE Boston Section REFLECTOR November 2001 issue:
"Unusual Sources of Power
Yes, as far as I know, when doing 3m measurements you increase the limits by
+10dB (as long as the limits are refered to 10m measuements),
Amund
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Stuart Lopata
Sendt: 30. okt
I have no idea what the reference is but please recall that I demonstrated
two items:
AVERAGE DETECTION is numerically computed by derating peak detected signal
by 10 log (duty cycle) (assumes time constants are long wrt to IF filter
time constant).
PULSE DESENSITIZATION (or broadband correction
Now that the dust on this one has settled - my trick is to start from first
principles with a spot of dimensional analysis.
A ratio is dimensionless - therefore it is straight decibels and 10log.
No convention - that is the definition.
One of the few exceptions are Power.
Power = k x V^2
The limits scale linearly upward just as you say but you have to be careful
with large test items because their radiation pattern does not behave the
same. As long as the largest dimension of the EUT is small wrt 3 m, you
should have no problems.
--
>From: "Stuart Lopata"
>To: "emc"
>S
A safety critical component is a component were the failure during normal
use, forseeable misuse and fault conditions is likely to result in a
hazardous condition for the operator and/or service person (includes
maintenance).
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
-Original Message-
All,
Does anyone have a concise definition of Safety Critical Component?
I understand that the definition of this term is highly dependent on
context, so let me frame it a bit
I am interested in the components that may be in "high-tech" industrial
equipment such as those used in the semicon
I'd be inclined to look at the design. Bandaids have a way of multiplying
until your product looks like a mummy.
If it's a low-level power problem, make sure the EUT's regulator can
respond to induced ripple. This may be as simple as exchanging a cheap
electrolytic cap for one with better ESR, or
I found the reference that used 20log() for the correction factors.
TCB Training
Unlicensed Devices
Part I
Richard Fabina
This was given to us by the FCC for training our TCB people and part of a
TCB training course at NIST.
I agree that the correction factor should be 10log(), but would like t
The radiated limits are stated for 10 meters but our measurements are at 3
meters. Is it ok to use 3 meter data and what should the new limits be (may
be 10 dB higher)?
Thanks,
Stuart Lopata
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
The Curtis-Straus Update is for October, 2001 is now available at:
http://www.conformity-update.com
The headlines are:
FCC Proposes Changes To Part 15.
Commission Adopts SDR Rules.
FCC Expands Exploration Of Options For 3G Wireless.
Standards Development Participants May Be Subject To Disclosur
I read in !emc-pstc that Lothar Schmidt
wrote (in <5EFB06767D7DD211828C0008C74CE95B414D40@CALVIN>) about 'Keep
off the grass: RF emissions!', on Mon, 29 Oct 2001:
>I guess the EN 55014-1,2 would be more applicable regarding EMC in Europe.
They are written very largely around products that have a
Jim,
I agree with you that Sec 18.101 would appear to exclude ultrasound
equipment from the scope of Part 18. Nevertheless medical ultrasound
equipment is specifically mentioned in Sec 18.107(f) and Sec 18.121.
This discussion is rather academic in that Sec 18.121 excludes "non-consumer
ultrasou
My apologies to Andrew Carson!
Somehow I scrolled down so that only the Cc: for ron_wellman was visible and,
therefore, typed in the wrong salutation. This would not happen were we
writing letters in long hand; however, we would also not be addressing so many
people at the same time.
I am i
Ron,
Thank you. I appreciate the reference to the NEC!
taniagr...@msn.com
- Original Message -
From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 4:09 AM
To: Tania Grant
Cc: WELLMAN,RON (A-PaloAlto,ex1); emc
Subject: Re: skinny power cords.
Tania
The V in SVT does indeed
Jon,
If you look at Sec. 18.101 Basis and purpose, part 18 only applies to
"medical equipment that emits
electromagnetic energy on frequencies within the radio frequency
spectrum in order to prevent harmful interference to authorized radio
communication services." The Ultrasound equipment that
John, Massimo
I guess the EN 55014-1,2 would be more applicable regarding EMC in Europe.
However the ETSI depending on the answers from Massimo can cover already a
good part and should be seen in combination to the EN.
Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Technical Manager EMC/Radio
BQB
CETECOM Inc.
41
Members,
Our lab is under UKAS accreditation and actually for
the last 3 years. For some reason, I would like to
look into either NVLAP or A2LA as our second
accreditor.
I would like to know pros & cons between NVLAP & A2LA
accreditation from a test lab's point of view. I know
they are both sign
26 matches
Mail list logo
