In message 007101cd7f30$6f3eb230$4dbc1690$@cox.net, dated Mon, 20 Aug
2012, Ed Price edpr...@cox.net writes:
All this discussion would be moot if we had true peak reading broadband
field strength sensors, and if the immunity standards were all
referenced in terms of peak applied field
In message 00ba01cd7f49$5053c5e0$f0fb51a0$@cox.net, dated Mon, 20 Aug
2012, Ed Price edpr...@cox.net writes:
Thus, I often used modulations beyond the popular 1 kHz, 100 Hz, 1 Hz,
1 uS, 50% pulses and AM stuff. (Which is all probably pretty boring to
the commercial and EN guys on this list,
From: Pawson, James
Sent: 20 August 2012 10:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Hello,
I can't find any clauses in 61000-4-3 (radiated RF immunity) that deal with the
rate of application of the RF field.
My understanding
Hi, Brent,
From the work I did in the NW I'd say they need to add 16 2/3 Hz to it;
the papers on AED susceptibility to railway power fields were a little
scary -- for folks in train stations, anyway.
Cheers,
Cortland Richmond
On 8/21/2012 0003, Brent G DeWitt wrote:
Re: [PSES] 61000-4-3
From: Pawson, James
Sent: 20 August 2012 10:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Hello,
I can't find any clauses in 61000-4-3 (radiated RF immunity) that deal with the
rate of application of the RF
Borowski
EMC Compliance Engineer
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, Washington, USA
From: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: 08/20/2012 08:03 PM
Subject:RE: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org
Ken:
The biggest
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
James,
What version of the standard are you looking at? The family standard we use
calls out the 2002 version but the latest version we have on-hand is the 2006
version.
I have noticed
Hello,
I can't find any clauses in 61000-4-3 (radiated RF immunity) that deal with the
rate of application of the RF field.
My understanding is that the test is generally performed by setting the
unmodulated carrier to the level contained within the calibration file and then
suddenly
James,
What version of the standard are you looking at? The family standard we use
calls out the 2002 version but the latest version we have on-hand is the 2006
version.
I have noticed that different labs perform the test differently regarding how
the power is established, verified, and how
James,
Are you asking simply to clarify the test procedure, or because you
have a compliance problem?
If it's an issue of compliance, maybe you should give details for discussion.
Pat Lawler
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Pawson, James
james.paw...@echostar.com wrote:
Hello,
I can't find
G
Subject: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
<zzz!-- converted="" from="" rtf="" --="">
Hello,
I can't find any clauses in 61000-4-3 (radiated RF immunity) that deal with the rate of application of the RF field.
My understanding is t
James-
We do IEC 60255-22-3, which is the version of IEC 61000-4-3 for protective
relays.
Looking at IEC 61000-4-3, I see no specifics about rate of application of
the RF field, nor application of the amplitude modulation. In our testing,
the RF with amplitude modulation present is suddenly
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB02626C08@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:
One issue your email points out is the fact that EMC labs are
performing the test differently which may or may not cause a larger
variation in
. Until then, we have to wrestle with
techniques that are not perfect. Now why am I thinking of Lucha Libre?
Ed Price
El Cajon, CA
USA
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate
Ed,
WRT imperfect techniques... At a former employer I added a -50dB tap in
line and looked at the RF with a 6 GHz 'scope. This let us see RF peaks
were at calibration level, but as some signal generators were incapable
of PM we had to use AM and level on the carrier, then modulate to get
Aug 2012 17:03:45 -0700
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Brian:
³Other labs level the forward power at each frequency with modulation off,
then turns on the modulation only for the dwell time, then turns off
modulation ² This technique increases
Oops. That is amplitude modulated, not demodulated in the first line below.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:25:45 -0500
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Conversation: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Subject: Re: [PSES
...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Going to pick a small nit with Ed.
In our world, military and aerospace EMC, Ed is correct that some devices
can respond more to a cw signal than
From: Ed Price edpr...@cox.net
Organization: ESP Labs
Reply-To: edpr...@cox.net
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:01:51 -0700
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Ken:
The biggest difference I see was that I called it ³rare² and you said it was
³very
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 61000-4-3: Rate of application of field
Ed and I are going to agree 99+% of the time, and that last 1% is going to
be semantics...
1 kHz modulation dates back to the days when electronics on a platform meant
radios, and radios interfaced
20 matches
Mail list logo
