A claim of inconsistency in the verification tests of click analyzers has been raised in a recent paper [1]. More specifically tests 2 and 3, as defined in the standard CISPR 161-1 [2], are found to be inconsistent with the click definition in the same standard. A rebuttal to the claim of inconsistency is here offered. In addition solutions are proposed to detect transient disturbances so that the measurement of click duration and separation can be successfully carried out without slipping into any inconsistency.
On the alleged inconsistency in CISPR 16-1-1 performance tests for disturbance analyzers / Carobbi C.; Milan F.; Palermo N.. - ELETTRONICO. - (2019), pp. 549-553. (Intervento presentato al convegno 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Signal and Power Integrity, EMC+SIPI 2019 tenutosi a New Orleans Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, usa nel 2019) [10.1109/ISEMC.2019.8825259].
On the alleged inconsistency in CISPR 16-1-1 performance tests for disturbance analyzers
Carobbi C.;
2019
Abstract
A claim of inconsistency in the verification tests of click analyzers has been raised in a recent paper [1]. More specifically tests 2 and 3, as defined in the standard CISPR 161-1 [2], are found to be inconsistent with the click definition in the same standard. A rebuttal to the claim of inconsistency is here offered. In addition solutions are proposed to detect transient disturbances so that the measurement of click duration and separation can be successfully carried out without slipping into any inconsistency.
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
On_the_alleged_inconsistency_in_CISPR_16-1-1_performance_tests_for_disturbance_analyzers.pdf
Accesso chiuso
Tipologia:
Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione
317.83 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
317.83 kB | Adobe PDF | Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
