RE: EMC standards
Cecil, The 1998 version has been postponed, but if you DO NOT have Telecom ports you can use either one. Josh -Original Message- From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:24 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC standards Importance: High From: Cecil A. Gittens Is EN55022:1994 the correct EMC ITE emissions standards to use? Or EN55022:1998. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: The Trouble with Convention
For the FCC calculations, I can understand ... E = I*R = 1uA*377 ohms = 377*10^-6 Volts dBuV = 20log(377*10^-6V/1uV) = 51.5 dBuV Assume you measure XuA's and you want to convert to dBuV's. E = I*R = XuA*377ohms = X*377*10^-6 Volts and ... dBuV = 20log[X*377*10^-6 Volts/1uV] Separating out the terms a little bit ... dBuV = 20log[X * (377*10^-6 Volts/1uV)] or ... dBuV = 20log(X) + 20log(377*10^-6V/1uV) And, dBuV = 20log(X) + 51.5 dBuV The 20log(X) is our dBuA if we want (assuming we keep everything consistent) and putting the 51.5dBuV on the other side we get ... dBuA = dBuV - 51.5 dBuV But, I'm not so sure what's really being demanded for the voltage measurements. - Doug McKean --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EFT Failures..Help!
I gotta agree with all that's said. I'm supposing you've tried the old cap across the input trick. Or, if the lab has a toroid laying around, you could probably wind up a common mode choke for experiment. Or, simply put in a line filter and see what happens. Mind the ratings, though. The power supply will have different criteria with "Pass" in 4-4 than your product. - Doug McKean --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
The Trouble with Convention
Pursue the right question and one might receive a meaningful answer. How do you convert from dBuA to dBuV when measuring a 50 kHz signal at 10 meters? How do you convert from linear terms to log terms when addressing the output of an averaging detector where the limit is field strength in units of uV? One needs to be aware of who is asking and what the applicable conventions are, i.e., is it a question of science or a question of convention? The issue is generally how does one create a standard that assures repeatability? In ETSI EN 300330, there is a statement that says "For measuring equipment calibrated in dBuV, the reading should be reduced by 51.5 dB to be converted to dBuA/m." 51.5 dB is based on 377 ohms, Z of free space. The impedance of free space applies in the far field, not the reactive near field where the impedance of a magnetic field may be as low as a couple of ohms. The approach may not be mathematically correct, but it provides a simple means of achieving repeatable results. Similarly, it appears the same issue of convention is the basis of certain FCC clauses, for example, the reporting of the output of an averaging detector as called for by 15.209 and other clauses for some frequency bands. The FCC is looking for field strength, a voltage representing the output of the averaging detector. The FCC is aware that there are different implementations of "averaging" detectors and linearity issues so they provided instructions to arrive at the reporting level by mathematical means for consistency. The instruction was to multiply the peak detector reading by the duty cycle and report this value in terms of the limit units, uV, as the equivalent of the output of the averaging detector. So, what is this unit they asked for? It appears to be the function of averaging a voltage signal, i.e., if the signal is X and is on for y, 0 -- > From: Ken Javor[SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:07 PM > To: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; > dmck...@corp.auspex.com > Subject: Re: duty cycle closure > > No. You aren't applying the rule correctly. As I stated earlier: > > log a*b = log a + log b > log b^n = n log b > Combining, it is clear that > log (a*b^n) = log a + n log b. > > -- > >From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com > >To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, dmck...@corp.auspex.com > >Subject: duty cycle closure > >Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001, 2:33 PM > > > > > > > Going back to fundamentals -- > > > > Given a = duty cycle = average power > > and define "^2" = "squared" > > > > Then P[ave] = a P[ref] > > > > P = V^2/R > > > > V[ave]^2/R = aV[ref]^2/R, the Rs cancel leaving > > > > V[ave]^2 = aV[ref]^2 > > > > 10 log(V[ave]^2) = 10 log (aV[ref]^2), which is equivalent to > > > > 20 log (V[ave]) = 20 log (aV[ref]) > > > > = 20 log (a) + 20 log (V[ref]) > > > > In the last equation one sees the duty cycle isolated as "20 log (a)" > when > > referring to power in terms of voltage. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Don Umbdenstock > > Sensormatic > > > > > >> -- > >> From: Doug McKean[SMTP:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] > >> Reply To: Doug McKean > >> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:41 PM > >> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > >> Subject: Re: Is This Right? > >> > >> > >> > > >> > More to the proof discussion launched by the duty cycle question, > >> given > >> > > >> > > dB = 10 log (P1/P2) > >> > > > >> > > Let "a" be the duty cycle ratio, with 0 >> > > > >> > > Then dB = 10 log (aP2/P2) = 10 log (a). Eq. > >> > > (1) > >> > > > >> > If 10 log (P1/P2) = 10 log (V1^2/V2^2) = 10 log (V1/V2)^2 = 20 log > >> (V1/V2), > >> > > >> > Then does it follow that, > >> > > >> > dB = 10 log (aV2^2/V2^2) = 10 log (aV2/V2)^2 = 20 log (a) ? Eq. (2) > >> > > >> > > >> > If this is true, then > >> > > >> > duty cycle "a" = 10 log (a) from Eq. (1) and > >> > > >> > = 20 log (a) from Eq. (2) > >> > > >> > What am I missing? > >> > >> The original intention of the calculations. > >> > >> The first relation, dB = 10 log (aP2/P2) = 10 log (a) > >> is a "power" relation. > >> > >> The second relation, dB = 10 log (aV2^2/V2^2) = 20 log (a) > >> is a "voltage relation. " > >> > >> Equating the two is invalid since you're trying to equate > >> two different concepts. Doesn't mean anything. > >> > >> - Doug McKean > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> 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: > >> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > >> Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net > >> > >> For policy questions, send ma
EMC standards
From: Cecil A. Gittens Is EN55022:1994 the correct EMC ITE emissions standards to use? Or EN55022:1998. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EFT Failures..Help!
The power supply was probably not designed to _filter_ EFT signals, which can range up to 50MHz. Since power supplies are typically low frequency devices (as compared to 50MHz signals), it make sense that it was unaffected. Try using high frequency ferrite cores on the AC and DC lines. The cores may also may help reduce radiated emissions. On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:22:50 +0100, Alex McNeil wrote: >I am at an EMC test centre today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, my product >failed EFT testing on the AC power port at 1KV. This is for various >combinations of Line, Neutral and Earth (L, N, E, LN, LE, NE and LNE) > >My product is Class II, no Earth. It is supplied by an external power >supply. This supplies SELV to my product. The power supply manufacturer has >stated that his power supply meets EN61000-4-4 for 2KV and has emailed me >this report to verify this. > >Has anyone got a quick solution to my problem so that I can implement here >at the EMC test house? > >Kind Regards >Alex McNeil >Principal Engineer >Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 >Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 >email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EFT Failures..Help!
Sounds to me that while the POWER SUPPLY keeps working, it does not sufficiently attenuate EFT presented to it that your product keeps working. It is POSSIBLE you might find a power supply that does, but unless you can control whose PS customers use, it may be smarter in the long run to fix the EUT. Either, of course, would result in passing the test. But if customers used a different PS later, you might find field returns with no apparent reason adding warranty costs in your rework center. The "quick fix" involves capacitors across the mains for differential, and mains to ground for common-mode, and might raise leakage. Less easy, but perhaps easier to live with, improve power filtering and device bypassing on the board so EFT does not completely discharge stored power. Cortland --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EFT Failures..Help!
At 11:22 22/10/01 +0100, Alex McNeil wrote: >I am at an EMC test centre today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, my product >failed EFT testing on the AC power port at 1KV. This is for various ^^^ >My product is Class II, no Earth. It is supplied by an external power >supply. ^^^ Hi Alex, Where is the AC power port on your product? Why are you testing a power supply that has been tested already? What do mean by "failed EFT testing" ? Did it reset, blow up. ? What is your product? :) Enci --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: high temperature circuitbreaker
Kris, We have a product that uses a breaker made by Carlingswitch that has a temperature rating or -40 deg. C to +85 deg. C. Their website is www.carlingswitch.com. I have three phone numbers for them: Carlingswitch, Inc. 860-793-9281, Carlingswitch, LTD. 44 1392-364422, and Carlingswitch Asia-Pacific, LTD. 852-2737-2277. Kurt Andrews Compliance Engineer Tracewell Systems, Inc. 567 Enterprise Drive Westerville, Ohio 43081 voice: 614.846.6175 toll free: 800.848.4525 fax: 614.846.7791 http://www.tracewellsystems.com/ -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:high temperature circuitbreaker Hello group, Circuit breakers and residual current operated circuitbreakers for house-hold applications are typically cetified at 40 degree Celcius. If these types are built into other products, they do not comply with their temperature rating as specified in the safety certificate. Does any-one know about references to circuit-breakers(230V ac, 10A) that can work safely at higher temperatures (70...90 degrees) Regards, Kris Carpentier --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: duty cycle closure
I think I've found the rub here... What Ken says below is mathematically correct. What Don says below what's below is also mathematically correct. It's the application of the math (and the absence of, or assumed position of, a parenthesis or two) that is getting in the way. Assuming voltage (V) across a load, R, the power through the load is V**2/R. (I hope we can all agree on this.) Now, if the VOLTAGE were scaled by a factor "a", then power would be: (aV)**2/R. In this case, the "a" directly scales the voltage, so it gets squared when you calculate power. So, If you were to convert this to dB, you would get a 20log(a) term, which is what Don did. Mathematically correct, but doesn't have anything to do with duty cycle. The original question asked about a duty cycle. In this case, the voltage level is not changed or scaled. It is simply turned on and off with a duty cycle "a". It's probably best to think of this situation in terms of power being defined as energy/time. Consider one on/off cycle with a period of "T". Assume that the voltage is "on" during a*T and off during the rest of the cycle. So, in this case, ON TIME is being scaled by "a". The energy "E" delivered in one cycle (assuming square waves) is equal to the instantaneous power multiplied by the time. When V is on, Eon = (a*T)(V**2/R) When V is off, Eoff=0 So, the energy for the entire cycle--- E = Eon + Eoff = (a*T)*(V**2/R) The average power would be E / T which would yield a*(V**2)/R. Now, to convert to dB, we need to assume a reference power. We then take 10 times the log of the power ratio. This is the basic definition of dB, so it should lead us in the right direction. Let the reference power be V**2/R. ---which is what the power would be if V were on all of the time. dB = 10log((a*(V**2)/R) / ((V**2)/R)) everything but "a" cancels out. >> dB=10log(a) assuming--- 0 -Original Message- > From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:07 PM > To: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; > dmck...@corp.auspex.com > Subject: Re: duty cycle closure > > > No. You aren't applying the rule correctly. As I stated earlier: > > log a*b = log a + log b > log b^n = n log b > Combining, it is clear that > log (a*b^n) = log a + n log b. > > -- > >From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com > >To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, dmck...@corp.auspex.com > >Subject: duty cycle closure > >Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2001, 2:33 PM > > > > > > > Going back to fundamentals -- > > > > Given a = duty cycle = average power > > and define "^2" = "squared" > > > > Then P[ave] = a P[ref] > > > > P = V^2/R > > > > V[ave]^2/R = aV[ref]^2/R, the Rs cancel leaving > > > > V[ave]^2 = aV[ref]^2 > > > > 10 log(V[ave]^2) = 10 log (aV[ref]^2), which is equivalent to > > > > 20 log (V[ave]) = 20 log (aV[ref]) > > > > = 20 log (a) + 20 log (V[ref]) > > > > In the last equation one sees the duty cycle isolated as "20 log > (a)" when > > referring to power in terms of voltage. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Don Umbdenstock > > Sensormatic > > > > > >> -- > --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: EFT Failures..Help!
Hope you're using more than one sample. I've been bit by having the one I brought to the lab not being in compliance. Anyway, make certain. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Alex McNeil To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, October 22, 2001 4:06 AM Subject: EFT Failures..Help! > >Hi Guys, > >I am at an EMC test centre today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, my product >failed EFT testing on the AC power port at 1KV. This is for various >combinations of Line, Neutral and Earth (L, N, E, LN, LE, NE and LNE) > >My product is Class II, no Earth. It is supplied by an external power >supply. This supplies SELV to my product. The power supply manufacturer has >stated that his power supply meets EN61000-4-4 for 2KV and has emailed me >this report to verify this. > >Has anyone got a quick solution to my problem so that I can implement here >at the EMC test house? > >Kind Regards >Alex McNeil >Principal Engineer >Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 >Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 >email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com > > >--- >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: > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net > >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: >No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Light Emission from Professional Photography Flashes
Rich, Peter, Strobe flash is not a simple calculation. The iris of the eyes and 'visual purple' both alter the sensitivity. So human susceptibility depends on darkness of the environment. Strobe flash units are rated in 'Watt-seconds' but many flash units have a thyrister circuit that cuts off the flash after a short duration. Amateur cameras have 'pre-flash' that causes the iris to close to avoid 'red eye'. Then there is a distance-to-subject factor, etc. At 2" distance, amateur flash units can be deadly. Professionals use high-powered units for group shots, but the distance to subject is much greater so the effect on the subject is reduced. Professionals using color film prefer slow flash durations <1/2000 sec because the color balance of the film is subject to reciprocity failure. Some professionals use a dark studio so that the eyes of the subject appear larger (as the iris opens), and of course, no pre-flash. But pros use 2- and 3-light set-ups; flash units are not directed at the eyes (as with amateur photographers using 'flash-on-camera'. Flash exposure is becomming less of a problem as professionals shift to digital cameras. The computerization will keep the flash intensity minimally above ambient illumination so that the subject is not harmed by the light flash. David Sterner Member of American Photographic Historical Society and IEEE -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:00 PM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Light Emission from Professional Photography Flashes Hi Peter: > Any limitations/requirements for amount of light emitted from professional > photography flashes? Any UL, IEC or European standards which specify > limitations? > > I know how many you like being photographed - but imagine what harm one of > these flashes can cause to your eyes! The root question is what is the maximum safe optical energy as a function of time for the eye? I suspect there are many research documents for this eye parameter. Check out this optical radiation safety calculator: http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/jbm/home/exps/java/safe_txt.html The calculator is described for situations such as when the eye is illuminated for photography. I suspect this is for steady- state and not for flash. But, it should provide some references. Good luck, and best regards, Rich --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
EFT Failures..Help!
Hi Guys, I am at an EMC test centre today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, my product failed EFT testing on the AC power port at 1KV. This is for various combinations of Line, Neutral and Earth (L, N, E, LN, LE, NE and LNE) My product is Class II, no Earth. It is supplied by an external power supply. This supplies SELV to my product. The power supply manufacturer has stated that his power supply meets EN61000-4-4 for 2KV and has emailed me this report to verify this. Has anyone got a quick solution to my problem so that I can implement here at the EMC test house? Kind Regards Alex McNeil Principal Engineer Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
