Hi Bill. Thanks for this great info! Much appreciated.

The second part of my original email was merely philosophical discussion 
points. Let me clarify. I would love to hear what people think:


1.     How many different types of ancillary equipment shall you test with your 
main EUT? i.e. PCs or laptops with HDMI & USB ports......the sky's the limit as 
to the myriad of devices that now can be connected. Where does one 'stop'?

a.     Also, not all devices (that claim to be Class B) are noise free. I've 
personally experienced extremely noisy devices using a reputable brand name 
(yes, FCC logo on the device), but had to exchange it for their competitor to 
ensure no unintentional emissions, so my main EUT passes. (Moral of the 
story....don't believe everything you read on the label - lol)


2.     Another related question: what about identical devices that can be daisy 
chained? i.e. some devices allow a daisy chain of up to 12 or more. (i.e. 
telecom trunk card). Does one use the chamber table as the determination for 
the quantity of daisy chained samples to test? Or does one compile all the max 
# of daisy chained devices on the table despite the congestion of I/O & power 
cables (not recommended)? Or is there a rule of thumb that one shall prove that 
there will not be an increase in emissions past a certain number of devices? 
(The latter is my preference).

Thoughts?

From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 6:54 AM
To: Regan Arndt <re...@empowermicro.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: EMC co-location distance question

Regan,
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but I will try to provide an 
answer.  ANSI C63.4 is used when testing for FCC part 15 subpart B compliance 
for unintentional radiators. When testing a table-top system, the collocated 
equipment should be spaced at 10cm, unless this is not typical of normal 
operation. If so, then the EUT and its accessories/peripheral devices should be 
placed as they would be in typical applications.  It is important to read the 
text of the ANSI standard, as it goes into great detail on how to set up and 
select accessories for testing.  The drawings are for general reference only 
and the text always takes precedence. As for EN/CISPR standards, they mostly 
accept similar setup conditions to ANSI C63.4, but you will have to verify the 
specific requirements in each standard.   The <20cm you refer to was at one 
time unofficially (FCC) considered the distance for collocation of transmitter 
antennas, but this is no longer the case.  The FCC considers that two 
transmitters/antennas are collocated if they are in the same product / 
enclosure.  I hope this helps.

Bill

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:re...@empowermicro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 1:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] EMC co-location distance question

Greetings members,

Can anyone shed any light on what ANSI defines as the max distance/limit of a 
'co-located' piece of ancillary equipment or other support equipment (on the 
table) to the main EUT being tested for FCC Part 15 class B for 'unintentional 
radiators'. I seem to recall 20 cm but I think this was referring to 
'intentional' radiators.

Is there a similar requirement in the EMC directive and/or EN/CISPR standards? 
Or is this really dictated on your recommended set-up? Shall that device be 
removed from the test bed if typical installation indicates that it will be 
greater than 20cm from the main EUT?

I believe that the set-up in ANSI only showed the PC, printer, mouse, keyboard 
& monitor but that's it. There are so many other/different electronic devices 
that connect to a laptop/PC/other, etc. (i.e. smart phone) these days, it is 
not viable for anyone to test all devices/configurations. I understand that one 
must use good judgment and exercise due diligence but there must be a limit. 
Agree? Some of these electronic devices state compliance to Class B, it may 
still have interference with another closely co-located device because they did 
not test it fully to the myriad of other electronic devices out there that it 
could be connected to. There is no guarantee per se.

Can anyone comment? Thanks in advance.

Regan

-
----------------------------------------------------------------

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<mailto: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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the person 
or organization to which it is addressed or was intended to be addressed, and 
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or 
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and 
delete the original message immediately . The sender, its subsidiaries and 
affiliates, do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or 
virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that arise as a result 
of e-mail transmission. Thank you.

-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
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