Re: PCI Video Card

Robert, My experience has been that separating logic ground from the D-sub shell on a plug-in card is not necessarily a good idea. When you evaluate this card, please check it not only on a system you know is a good performer for

Verses: EMI, RFI

ill, And, having worked his evil will, Turned quick away from on our sill To some dank fen or misty hill; He fled. And that's the story still! Cortland Richmond __ Reply Separator

Re[2]: C-Tick mark

Thanks for the word, Dave. I will know not to rely on the printed material they supply, then. Sic transit tyrannosaurus, right? Cortland __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: C-Tick mark Author: Dave

Re: LOW COST mesurement equipment. (Was Shiep rules)

Paul, I too have looked at consumer grade equipment with an eye towards EMI measurement. I have the ICOM R7000 (modified) and R7100, as well as Yupiteru 7100 and AOR AR8000 handheld scanners, plus the usual amateur radio handheld transceivers, and I have made some use of all of

Re: X-ray transparency info please

Heber, I have zero experience or training in X-ray technology (aside form what's in the physics books about Coolidge tubes) but I'd think you could quantify transparency as 10 log P1/P2 where P1 is tube power needed for a given flux

Re: How the limits determined?

I will have to go back to my records, in which I have a copy of the FCC's NPRM setting up Class A and B limits, but as I recall, limits were established by reference to the response of radio and television users to known levels of radio noise. Also, impulses of known energy and PRF

More moving on

This is also my last day at my present location, though I'll continue in the list from my Compuserve account while searching.

Re[2]: FCC Class A Label?

Part of the confusion, I think, is that the Rulemaking says labels shown replace existing labels, without clearly discriminating between Class A and Class B. It is not clear that the intent was only to replace the Class B label, although the text is contains actions evidently meant to qualify

Re[2]: Measurement Uncertainty

Tony, Radiated immunity tests set up a situation where only the unloaded field is known. You're correct we cannot know for sure what is actually getting into the EUT. If we had to know what current was actually entering the ports we would need to monitor it

Re[2]: Shiep rules

96 13:18:18 EST From: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com To: IEEE PSTMC emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Shiep rules Message-ID: 961222181817_72146.373_fhc1...@compuserve.com Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com X

Re[2]: Shiep rules

While not losing sight of the reason why regulations exist, let's also remember that if we don't participate in making them, we can only complain afterwards about their impact. I have participated in the FCC's comment process on several

Re[4]: Shiep rules

Chris, Here my natural cynicism comes out... In this business we all get cynical. The reduction in Electronic Fog in our universe is a secondary effect Here we disagree. CISPR-12 was based on actual interference tests using real people as subjects. The standard, which was

Re[6]: Shiep rules

Chris, The blame for standards can be assessed everywhere. But you posted: ...how we stood by and let the power generating industry make the consumer responsible for the supply quality. The problem here is that the industry can't control what we hang on the line. Remember Tungar (TM)

<    1   2   3   4   5   6