Brian-

While I agree that dictating the exact routing of a cable though the clamp 
is straining at gnats, it could make a (small) difference even in the case 
using feedback as outlined in IEC 61000-4-6. According to the standard, 
the calibrated voltage needs to be induced on the cable, and the current 
monitored. ONLY IF the resulting current is higher than what the voltage 
would cause to flow into 150 ohms is the drive reduced to adjust the 
injection current. This means that for cables to the EUT that present a 
load above 150 ohms, there is no adjustment to the drive. So it is 
conceivable that if the cable layout in the clamp does not match the cable 
layout used when calibrating the drive to the clamp, then the induced 
voltage might be lower than if the cable layout did match the calibration 
layout. And since the current measured with the current  probe is too low, 
the drive is not adjusted.

Let me say again that this is straining gnats. There are too many 
variables. The cable to the EUT seldom matches that used during 
calibration. 

The source impedance of the drive from the clamp is not as well controlled 
as that of a CDN. If it has a source impedance higher than 150 ohms, and 
the cable into the EUT presents an impedance higher than 150 ohms, the 
voltage induced onto the cable will be higher than if the clamp had a nice 
source impedance of 150 ohms. Thus we are over testing. To the current 
probe everything looks OK, so we don't know we are over testing.

All of us (including auditors) just  need to get over it. Let's make a 
good effort at doing the test properly, and not get too excited about 
these fine points until someone can show that they really matter a bunch, 
and can come up with a better, reasonable procedure (or better clamp).

Cheers,

Donald Borowski
EMC Compliance Engineer
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA, USA



From:   "Kunde, Brian" <brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
To:     "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Date:   11/20/2012 09:53 AM
Subject:        RE: Fischer CC EM Clamp F-203I-32mm
Sent by:        emc-p...@ieee.org



Our clamp has three half moon shaped spring loaded ferrite pieces that 
holds the cable in the bottom of the clamp’s ferrite cores, so such 
spacers would not work for me. 
 
I can make an argument that the cable is run the same way that it is when 
my clamp is calibrated so any alteration to that setup would be wrong to 
apply. 
 
Plus, if you use the feedback method where you are reading back the 
injected rf with a current clamp then what does it matter how the cable 
goes through the clamp? 

Some of these auditors really drive me nuts. 
 
Brian
 
From: Sundstrom, Michael [mailto:michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:42 PM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Fischer CC EM Clamp F-203I-32mm
 
I once had an auditor who dinged me on not keeping the cables centered in 
the injection clamp. Next day I had foam cell material in the clamp, 
pretty much kept the cables centered. I don’t think it made much 
difference??? Well, no difference that I could see…
 
 
Michael Sundstrom
OHD TREQ Dallas
Electronic Lab Analyst EMC Lead
(214) 579 6312  office
(940) 390 3644  cell
マイク
KB5UKT
 
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fischer CC EM Clamp F-203I-32mm
 
Wendy,
 
Who makes an EM Clamp that has a cable entry of 30mm? The size of the 
cores needed to handle a cable diameter of any size will be large enough 
to make this difficult if not impossible. Plus you have to have room for 
the input ‘N’ connector mounted under the cores. 
 
I have never seen an EM Clamp where the cable entry wasn’t 50mm or 
greater though I’m not saying one doesn’t exist. Typically they are more 
like 75mm. 
 
I don’t know where your supplier got this requirement.  I don’t have the 
latest version of the 4-6 standard but the copy I have only states in 
section 7.2, “The cable between the AE and the injection clamp shall be 
kept between 30mm and 50mm above the ground reference plane”. The text 
doesn’t say anything about the height of the clamps or the cable height 
between the clamp and EUT, though the picture in figure 6 shows it as 
30mm. 
 
I don’t see where the short distance the cable has to run higher than 
30-50mm coming in and out of the clamp would have much impact on the test 
results.
 
The Other Brian
 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Nya
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:50 AM
To: EMC- PSTC
Subject: Fischer CC EM Clamp F-203I-32mm
 
Dear All,
 
We have a very old Fischer CC F-203I-32mm EM Clamp. A supplier pointed out 
that it does not comply to the 61000-4-6 standard's requirement - the 
height of the cable entry is more than the standard's requirement of 
30-50mm.
 
I just checked Fischer CC website. They are still selling this model. Is 
anyone still using it? 
 
Regards,
Wendy 

-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to