2016 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility - EMC EUROPE 2016
DOI: 10.1109/emceurope.2016.7739171
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validating reverberation chamber performance based on assessment of field anisotropy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is seen that F Aij (a ij ) and F A (a) approach the cdfs for ideal isotropy more closely at the higher frequency and deeper inside the cavity, as expected, whereas large anisotropies occur when the wall is approached, on account of the EM boundary conditions for E. Although measurements and tests are typically chosen to be performed "far" from any wall so that d = 9 mm would not be a location for normal RC operation, some scenarios enforce such small distances, e.g., an electronic component near a shielding enclosure, where proximity effects would be observed. The consistency of the results for F Aij (a ij ) when approaching a wall has been shown in more detail in [13]. Fig.…”
Section: B Planar Field Anisotropymentioning
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is seen that F Aij (a ij ) and F A (a) approach the cdfs for ideal isotropy more closely at the higher frequency and deeper inside the cavity, as expected, whereas large anisotropies occur when the wall is approached, on account of the EM boundary conditions for E. Although measurements and tests are typically chosen to be performed "far" from any wall so that d = 9 mm would not be a location for normal RC operation, some scenarios enforce such small distances, e.g., an electronic component near a shielding enclosure, where proximity effects would be observed. The consistency of the results for F Aij (a ij ) when approaching a wall has been shown in more detail in [13]. Fig.…”
Section: B Planar Field Anisotropymentioning
confidence: 53%
“…9. While the confidence intervals for A ij and A (′) are fairly wide, those for their sample averages are much more narrowly localized [13].…”
Section: Total Field Anisotropy a 1) Unweighted Planar Energiesmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Very often, for the sake of simplicity, planar and/or total anisotropy coefficients are defined as functions of averaged field values [24], i.e. : Threshold values for 'medium' and 'good' stirring, as a function of the number of samples, are reported in [2] and a rationale for these values is proposed in [24].…”
Section: Fig 1 Planar Field Anisotropies With Their Fitted Uniform mentioning
confidence: 99%