Hello David, Josua and other interested ,
EN standards as you refer to are basic standards for European (read CE marking) purposes. Not meant to define performances. Performance Criteria are defined in product (group) standards or generic standards. Immunity performance for any equipment will be also be largely defined by the manufacturer, by publishing it’s equipment specifications under stress and/or no stress. Regarding David’s questions: 1) Yes, how else will you reliably couple RF current upto 20 mA into your equipment mains port ? the standard was created to replace radiated immunity test below 80 MHz (unpractical) by conducted at 80 Mhz you NEED to be close to the equipment not to attenuate the current by re radiation Try to create a radiated immunity test at 1 MHz or even lower. You would need ¼ lambda cable length or more to get enough coupling, not to mention the test antenna size, or SAR/FAR !!!! or huge power amplifiers. 2) Same answer, better then real world. ;<)) 3) Criteria are not for BASIC standards; if you were to complain about IEC 61000-4-6 you might have a point. 4) I am not sure what you mean here, the intend was to CM load all cables by a CDN at 150 Ohm, so the current injected on one port could spread out over the others according to the quality of EUT design. New developments wanted to replace this approach by a 2 CDN max setup. 5) Manufacturers are free to define any BER value they like (can get away with) Any AE is being decoupled by a CDN, so may be placed wherever you want (need) The combined AE/EUT measurement is only relevant if one really needs to test this way and cannot test EUT and AE separately. (EUT <-> AE then). The standard allows for a modified lower test frequency if cables are short by design. I agree with you policy. Sound approach. The current and amended standard allow for small and large “enclosure/ports” configured equipment to be tested according to the ideas behind the standard: simulating low frequency radiation injected current on long cabling by a galvanic coupled current. Looking forward to discuss this topic further….. Regards, Gert Gremmen Approvals manager ====================================================== ce-test, qualified testing Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC + Independent Consultancy Services + Compliance Testing and Design for CE + Improvement of product quality and reliability + Testing services according to: Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC Electrical Safety 73/23/EC Medical Devices 93/42/EC Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC Website: www.ce-test.nl Phone : +31 10 415 24 26 Fax : +31 10 415 49 53 ====================================================== _____ From: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: donderdag 27 januari 2005 20:16 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: IEC/EN61000-4-6 Josua - Honeywell tests rack-mounted equipment with numerous I/O connections. Few of our products look like the equipment depicted in EN 61000-4-6, because even the small EUT's are components of larger systems. We also tested rack mounted equipment using the set-up suggestion of the IEC amendment. The descriptions of EN 61000-4-6 contain contradictions and are subjective, e.g. 1) immunity on mains when EUT uses a standard linecord: do you cut the linecord to insert the CDN? 2) immunity of 75-ohm video: is the short cable to the CDN a valid real-world representation? 3) video criteria are vague: acceptable video @ three volts, no distortion @ 1 volt? 4) where there are several similar cables, CDN testing should require decouplers on each cable to avoid parasitic inputs due to the line imbalance 5) data bus characterization is flawed; it is not a satisfactory test of bit-error rate, and manual input voids the test by changing the test mode during the test The IEC amendment does not cover the case where both the EUT and AE are floor mounted. Our policy is to protect the customer by testing product as close to real world as possible. Whether or not there are set-up deviations, we document the set-up in our test report (photograph). If the deviation is major, the quality engineer inserts a rationale in the test plan. Bottom line: Whatever the final committee conclusion, there will be deviations from EN 61000-4-6 because it is impossible to anticipate every equipment geometry. I think it would be good to provide guidance on testing equipment that presents a geometry problem. The amendment was a step in the right direction by removing the 300 mm spacing, but 1) the basic intent should be expanded 2) guidlines for a data-bus test (most of our components are technically part of a larger security system) 3) guidlines where EUT and AE geometry is a problem (diagrams cannot cover every case, nor can we anticipate every new product) Honeywell David W. Sterner Quality Assurance Engineering Security & Custom Electronics 165 Eileen Way P.O. Box 9035 Syosset, NY 11791 Phone: (516) 921-6704 x6970 Fax # (516) 364-6953 [email protected] < http://www.honeywell.com <http://www.honeywell.com/> > From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: New standard Need your comments: Understanding this is a draft and has not been finalized, what is the potential impact on current products and what proposed changes would affect the way we currently do business? < Parallel Voting of EN 61000-4-6: Until recently the results of parallel voting on basic standards in the IEC/EN 61000-4 series have been consistent between the European and international versions and therefore no common modifications were needed. However, in the recent voting on IEC/EN 61000-4-6 [4] the second edition passed the vote in IEC but failed as an EN. It was decided by CENELEC that different test methods in basic standards between the IEC and EN versions would be undesirable, and so common modifications have not been prepared. This means that the current EN version remains at the first edition. An amendment has now been made to the international edition and CENELEC will ensure the national committees have a chance to look again at the revised standard to see if this can receive sufficient support in Europe to allow the two versions (IEC and EN) to once again become identical. IEC 61000-4-6 Ed. 2.1 (2004-11): Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-6: Testing and measurement techniques - Immunity to conducted disturbances, induced by radio-frequency fields.> Thanks Joshua Kim Senior Regulatory Engineer Welch Allyn 4341 State Street Road P.O. Box 220 Skaneateles Falls, NY 13153-0220 Tel. (315) 554-5289 Fax (315) 685-2532 e-mail: [email protected] web: www.welchallyn.com This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
