com>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:37 AM
*To:* Edward Price
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Hello Ed -
Good morning!
You are correct - the factors stored in the probe correct for
the non-linearities of the diode detector.
( as a side note- h
lar steel, so it was obvious that this conductive
> mass (not to mention the shielded, multi-conductor power & signal cable)
> would distort the measured field and degrade the isotropicity.*
>
>
>
>
> *Ed Price **WB6WSN*
> *Chula Vista, CA USA*
>
>
>
> *From:*
Price <e...@jwjelp.com>
Reply-To: Edward Price <e...@jwjelp.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:57:28 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Patrick:
The probe manufacturer says something like ³
sday, March 06, 2018 7:37 AM
To: Edward Price
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Hello Ed -
Good morning!
You are correct - the factors stored in the probe correct for the
non-linearities of the diode detector.
( as a side note- hearing a presentation live, and asking/answe
[mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 8:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
It is clear that any correction table built into the field probe
hardware/firmware/software is time domain only, so linearity correction factors
based
avor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Edward Price <e...@jwjelp.com>
Reply-To: Edward Price <e...@jwjelp.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:27:07 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
This is in
rice
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA
From: Patrick [mailto:conwa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 1:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
The author is Zhong Chen, an engineer with
: (256) 650-5261
From: Patrick <conwa...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:26:03 -0700
To: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
Cc: <EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
http://ieee.rackoneup.net/rrvs/10/Zhong%20Probe.pdf
Look at the la
018 14:36:11 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> *Cc: *<EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
> A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
> The author is Zhong Chen, an engineer with one of the probe manu
--------
> *From: *Patrick <conwa...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:10:52 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> *Cc: *<EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
> Well, some of us have to consid
no, if I know beforehand that the
numbers don¹t matter.²
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Patrick <conwa...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:10:52 -0700
To: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
Cc: <EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calib
n I email the
listserve, and when it is delivered.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
<mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
See below.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-03-05 18:10, Patrick wrote:
Well, some of us have to consider other requirements, not just EN's.
What if the test is -461, or DO-160 ?
And what if the requirement is 200 V/m ?
0-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
> *Reply-To: *John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:19:10 +
> *To: *<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
&g
t;j...@woodjohn.uk>
Reply-To: John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:19:10 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
+/- 20% doesn't seem to be enough to explain the reported result. After all,
assuming the +/- 20% is off the
chaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
<mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
In turn:
It i
hour delay between when I email the listserve, and when it is delivered.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Schaefer
>
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibratio
, and when it is delivered.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
In turn:
It is not surprising at all that it takes less power to generate
.ja...@emccompliance.com>
Reply-To: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:16:41 -0600
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Conversation: [PSES] Field probe calibration
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
In turn:
It is not surprising at all that it takes less
equipment, but your actual field could be +/- 3dB due to just probe error.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 7:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I'm with Gert.
Anything &q
could be +/- 3dB due to just probe error.
Thanks,
David Schaefer
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 7:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I'm with Gert.
Anything "antennas" is checked in the
Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Cortland Richmond <k...@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Cortland Richmond <k...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 08:01:31 -0500
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
I'm with Gert.
Anything &quo
I'm with Gert.
Anything "antennas" is checked in the far-field -- especially if
testing for accuracy.
I'm a BIG fan of near-field probing for relative measurements and
localizing emissions, but we use probes appropriate to what we are
looking for; if I wanted to "calibrate" one there,
IMHO all probes are calibrated under far field conditions.
In general: Using probes in the proximity (< lambda) of anything
conductive (including ground planes at 10 cm and including EUT) makes
the measurement data useless.
As James correctly states, the construction of the probe makes this
Hi David,
An interesting set of results! I'm going to ask some questions that I'm sure
you've already considered so please bear with me being Captain B. Obvious.
Do your field probes use frequency correction? I'm not familiar with a wide
range of probes but my Narda PMM field probe has an
25 matches
Mail list logo
