Paolo, All, Also of note is that CISPR and ANSI Antenna calibration standards for “commercial use” have a VSWR requirement as part of their standards, that means broadband antennas (Biconicals) and (Bilog / Combilog) or other broadband antennas that operated from 30 to 200 (300) MHz should be fitted with an attenuator at the antenna’s connector to meet these requirements.
We found that a 4 dB attenuator was needed on one style 30 – 2000 MHz antenna and a 5 dB was needed on another style antenna with the same frequency range. Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World! FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety 357 Main Street Sandown, NH 03873 (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445 complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com> <https://complianceworldwide.com> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: Paolo Roncone Sent: Friday, July 14, 2023 4:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PSES] 6dB pad Hi all, I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the range 30MHz - 6GHz. The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm. My colleague says the pad is an unnecessary element in the measurement chain, because the receiver built-in attenuator (typically with 10dB steps) and proper adjustments in the amplitude settings are enough. The reason I'm using the 6dB pad is that - based on my EMI testing experience, the 6dB pad is a good trade-off between the need to avoid receiver overload and maintaining a good enough noise floor. Without the pad the noise floor is of course lower and everything is fine as long as the input levels are low enough. But in the majority of the test scenarios I'm working on the input levels are not so low and the 6dB pad is just enough to avoid triggering the auto built-in 10dB attenuation, that kicks in when the receiver attenuation is in auto mode, and that is oftentimes an overkill, raising the noise floor too much, especially in the 1-6 GHz range. I have the 6dB pad calibrated for cable loss once a year together with the N-cable connecting to the antenna. And also the cable calibrated without the pad. The most typical sources of overload are transient noise generated by motors (especially brush DC motors) and signals from radio modules like 2.4G wi-fi, Bluetooth and 5G wi-fi. In addition to overload protection, the 6dB pad improves the VSWR at the cable-receiver interface, as explained in C.J.Paul's EMC Introduction to EMC (John Wiley 2nd Ed.) Ch.7. Based on the above I think that, being a resistive network stabilizing the 50ohm termination impedance at the receiver end, the 6dB 50ohm pad is a good practice that can prevent overload or excessive auto-attenuation, and worst-case doesn't do any harm. Or, am I missing something here? I'd like to know if there is someone else in this community who has experience using fixed attenuation pads at the receiver end of EMI receivers/spectrum analyzers, or any opinion about it. Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback! Paolo ________________________________ This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/<https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/%20> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Rick Linford at: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher at: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Mike Sherman at: [email protected] Rick Linford at: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> _________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
