ider Electric
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 4:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Clicks per CISPR 14-1
Agree, but that would be a bit too clear...I think there's an office somewhere
within IEC whose mission is to maxi
Agree, but that would be a bit too clear...I think there's an office
somewhere within IEC whose mission is to maximize the intricacy of
something already intricate
An alternative, but maybe too simple and easy, would be to add peak limits
for conducted EMI, higher than QP and Average..
Best
I still say that the wording of 3.3.3 is not as rigorous as it should
be. It should read something like: "discontinuous disturbance, the
amplitude of which, measured with the QP receiver, exceeds the
quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the duration of which is
NOT LONGER than 200 ms
Hi John,
I see only an upper duration limit (200 msec), because clicks are
referenced/measured only with a QP detector. See CISPR 14-1 sec.C2.2 "The
amplitude of the clicks shall be measured with a receiver having a
quasi-peak detector according to Clause 4 of CISPR 16-1-1:2015."
So clicks
Paolo,
When QP level didn't exceed the QP limits (if our client wish to
have some minimum margin in the test, QP limits minus the margin)
for continuous disturbances, we will not evaluate discontinuous
disturbances.
As you said, the standard says "Discontinuous disturbances shall be
assessed
I think the 1 ms attack time ensures that the click is detected. But
there is an issue with the wording. It appears that a 0.5 ms pulse above
the QP limit is a click as defined , but is too short compared with the
QP rise-time to show as exceeding the limit. I think there should be a
lower
6 matches
Mail list logo
