Engineers' Guide to Pre-compliance Radiated Emission Test

[@jluke6861]

Thank you for making the video and sharing your knowledge with us. Much appreciated.

[@theemcshop7721]

Agreed, thank you for taking the time. We can appreciate how long a detailed video, with Brad Pitt acting, can take!

[@msix90]

Hello Min! Thank you for the video. Can i put the Little biconical antenna into the tent? Which are the drawbacks?

[@cemprotecta]

Thanks for the video. I wonder what SA you are using in open field. Looks quite slim and portable.

[@alexandrewayenberg2189]

Hi Min, awesome video. You are saying at some point that the real time spectrum analyzer is making the scan in EMCview faster. How much slower would it be on a non real time one (e.g. : Siglent SSA3021X Plus) ?

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Hi Alexandre, I think we are talking about less than a minute to do a full sweep to 1GHz with the real time SA, with the sweep type SA, it takes 5-6 minutes to do a full sweep, I haven't tested it properly, but it is close enough. Hope this helps

[@theemcshop7721]

Did you ever test it, when we sweep the Real time vs the standard unit we found it half as fast.

[@remy-]

Very nice video Min! A time ago I noticed a LinkedIn post about a new course; is it already published? 😃

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Not Yet, Remy, still working on it in my spare time. Will let you know as soon as i get one.

[@abdifatahaden4761]

Min how often does being near metal and having other EMI signals in your environment, say in an office, ever make the measured results less than they should be? I can imagine there may be destructive interference but would not in almost all cases the interference be constructive? Would that not mean that if you can pass the CISPR standard in your office, you should be able to pass it in the chamber? I am aware that one major concern is you may waste time attempting to reduce phantom signals when your device is not the cause but excluding that fact maybe office results can be considered a conservative estimate of chamber results, right?

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Very good question Abdifatah, as you said, in order to ensure the noise is generated by the DUT, not something else, we need to do some preparation, TEMCELL, near field probe and even checking the design datasheet, as shown in the video.

[@marcreynolds7948]

@@MachOneDesignEMC I don't think that this reply answers the OPs question. To phrase the question differently: Is it true that self testing in a noisy environment can tell you if your device passes EMI standards (if all the signal peaks are below the standard), but it can't tell you if the DUT fails the standards because over-the-limit signals might be caused by other sources nearby.

[@aceryx1501]

Hi Min, How can you perform a radiated test without doing it in a shielded room? I assume everything would be generating some for of radiation. Would you need to then first put your EUT in a GTEM or TEM cell first to see what emissions are actually from your device?

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Hi, yes, indeed, as explained in the video, because that is the only way to distinguish the noise from ambient noise. Hope this helps.

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Also check incompliancemag.com/article/in-situ-radiated-emission-testing-of-large-systems-installations/

[@biswajit681]

Hi Min when your EMI EMC for switching mode power supply coming?

[@MachOneDesignEMC]

Still working on it, as I am quite busy, so can only do it in weekend or so. Need some push. lol