I presented a long paper related to this subject about field-to-wire coupling in the commercial and military arenas, which really translates into building vs. vehicle installation, which in turn means electrically how close and how well-defined is the ground plane. Here is the reference:
"On Field-To-Wire Coupling Versus Conducted Injection Techniques,"1997 IEEE EMC Symposium Record. Austin, Texas ---------- >From: "Jim Conrad" <jc...@shore.net> >To: "Ken Javor" <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>, <m.bushn...@ieee.org>, <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> >Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 >Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 9:40 AM > > Thanks Ken, > > Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather > strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft > environment is entirely different than most other equipment > installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR > testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft > installations. I will take another look at this. Any other > information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. > > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM > To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Cc: Jim Conrad > Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 > > I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not > a direct > comparison to CISPR because > > a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, > and > > b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and > > c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached > cables > are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions > relative to a CISPR test set up. > > ---------- >>From: "Jim Conrad" <jc...@shore.net> >>To: <m.bushn...@ieee.org>, <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org> >>Cc: "Jim Conrad" <jc...@shore.net> >>Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 >>Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM >> > >> >> I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very >> interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process > of >> amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft >> environment. We have based our requirements on the environment >> specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE > are >> higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation >> frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 >> MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you > find >> anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. >> >> Jim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of >> m.bushn...@ieee.org >> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM >> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >> Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 >> >> >> Late reply: >> I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the >> following >> document: >> DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 >> Description: This document addresses the potential interference to >> installed >> aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable > Electronic >> Devices >> (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential >> interference >> phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; >> provides test >> methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference >> exists for >> certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses >> acceptable >> levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of >> Federal >> Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and >> better define >> the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, >> increased >> public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and >> the >> development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. >> >> FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: >> DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 >> Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential >> interference >> effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from >> self-powered >> portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard > aircraft. >> Recommends >> regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of >> passenger- >> operated devices to assure control of possible sources of >> interference, and >> recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected >> interference. Volume >> I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, > data >> analysis, >> conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification > or >> background >> material for some of the summary data included in the basic > report. >> Superseded >> DO-119 >> >> Sincerely, >> Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG >> m.bushn...@ieee.org >> L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas >> Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 >> This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. >> ________________________________________________ >> ---------- >> From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] >> Reply To: Ron >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM >> To: EMC >> Subject: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 >> >> >> I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, "Potential >> Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried >> Aboard". >> Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this >> document >> contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the > same >> specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >> Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ >> >> To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> majord...@ieee.org >> with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com >> Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org >> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org >> >> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ >> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list" >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >> Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ >> >> To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> majord...@ieee.org >> with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com >> Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org >> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org >> >> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ >> Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list" >> > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
