]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 6:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Perhaps “single-cycle RMS” would be better than “instantaneous”
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
From
you.
From: Bill Owsley [mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:27 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
The "convention" for Instantaneous RMS is trending tow
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Well, first, instantaneous does not mean zero, it means done in a short
duration of time. So, there is no such thing as averaging in zero time.
Dennis Ward
This com
:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
The "convention" for Instantaneous RMS is trending towards 0.707, the square
root of 2 time
ERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
RMS means 'root-mean-square' and 'mean' means 'average. For 'instantaneous',
the averaging time is zero, so the RMS value is also zero. No trouble in
meeting
The "convention" for Instantaneous RMS is trending towards 0.707, the square
root of 2 times the Peak.
From: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passiv
EE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
"...since the 51.5 is derived from 20*log(377)"
to be even more accurate, the 377 is the ratio of E/H, and for actual numbers
(if I get this right) permittivity / permeability in a vacuum or free spa
ect: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
Use]
Not much different from any other in situ testing I've ever done. Guess I
looked like a mad scientist and didn't know it.
Thanks,
Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT
"We c
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
But there was a technical reason for do
when everything works but nobody knows why." -- Albert
Einstein
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [G
d testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.grem...@cetest.nl>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:37:43 +0100
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Conversation: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive
tion.
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!
With best wi
: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> Agreed Ken. In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
> the specified antenna factor i
On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Agreed Ken. In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
the specified antenna factor is what it is.
I have to concur. I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on
measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.
[mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
&
yleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
If we go all the way back to the OP:
The cu
;
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:13:53 -0500
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions
[General
> Use]
>
> On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> I think Ken's ra
g distance at that frequency!
Brent G DeWitt, AB1LF
Milford, MA
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27
RV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
>> 20*log(377).
>>
>>
> Sure, but now
On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from
20*log(377).
Sure, but now we're back to how close we are -- wavelengths -- to the emitter.
20*log(??)
Low frequencies can be tricky, and I once had to double-check a test
ate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions
> [General Use]
>
> I doubt that
ohn Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubt
odgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubtedly means
&g
b 2017 18:07:27 -
> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
>
> I doubt that, because it's valid at audio frequencies, which undoubtedly means
> 'near field'.
>
> Wit
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John McAuley wrote:
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
His customer wants dB s/m, which is not printable with the TE software.
From the EMCO manual:
/
/Cortland Richmond/
/
.
-
[mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John Macaulay wrote:
> The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
>
> dB(pT) -
On 2/27/2017 12:23 PM, John Macaulay wrote:
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
This is
true only in the Far Field.
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
The difference between dB(pT) and dB(µA/m) is 2 dB.
dB(pT) -2 = dB(µA/m)
-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: 27 February 2017 16:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use
On 2/27/2017 7:15 AM, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) wrote:
The customer has requested an extended magnetic field emission test over the
range 100kHz to 2MHz with a limit defined in dBpT.
The antenna to be used is an EMCO 6512 which has it correction factors provided
in dBS/m which the emission
29 matches
Mail list logo
