Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
Never had to do that bulk current injection test (except some NEBS GR-1089 stuff). Is it with modulated RF, or merely swept? Keying on and off can be much more severe in its effect than a continuous carrier, or a gradual increase and decrease with sweeping frequencies as cables resonate. Cortland (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) Ken Javor wrote: Further evidence that the 1 Amp BCI limit is too stringent. --- 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: Switch Inrush Ratings
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote (in 200201102027.maa26...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com) about 'Switch Inrush Ratings', on Thu, 10 Jan 2002: Taking John Woodgate's usual response to such an inquiry, I did a Google search on inrush. I don't think I use that response any more often than others, But it's good advice. Also, if you Googled before asking here, please say so. Then when someone says 'Google!', you won't need to say (as some do in other, less polite fora), ' Do you think I'm a BF? I tried that already!'. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
In a closer-to-safety example, I've seen mobile radio affect screening devices at a courthouse doorway (I was parking for jury duty). Key down; lights up. Key up, works normally (40 meter band, about 10 meters away). I've seen a poorly wired burglar alarm go off 30 meters from my car when I was operating on the 2 meter band. FCC Part 15 of course requires the users be provided warnings that interference can make their equipment operate or malfunction, and that they have to put up with it. Some of them may even read the warning. That is little comfort to a person guards have decided must undergo a body search. Considerate operating requires that I not DO that to someone. However, in today's paranoid climate, the consequences of this kind of vulnerability can be more than just a funny story. Cheers Cortland - KA5S (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) --- 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: Car EMC, was bulk current injection testing
Yes Ken, I agree. My humor only provided a grain of truth. Thanks for providing the whole pound :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:32 PM To: Chris Maxwell; Cortland Richmond Cc: scott@jci.com; michael.sundst...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Car EMC, was bulk current injection testing A lot of humor is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of a common phrase or common wisdom. Take my wife, PLEASE, Or the cute stress relief advice I got the other day. To relieve a headache, fetch a bottle of aspirin and follow the directions: Take two aspirin and keep away from children. In this case the apparent contradiction is not one at all. The automobile requirements enforced on emissions protect radio receivers in other automobiles and fixed radio receivers operating near roads, the immunity requirements protect your car from malfunctioning when Mr. Richmond's rolling radio station is in the vicinity. Emission limits protect broadcast radio reception, while immunity limits protect non-antenna equipment from high powered transmissions. Not wishing to start another long thread, but I know I am not alone in fantasizing about building a cell-phone jammer and operating it with glee when I follow some slow driver weaving down the road ahead of me with a phone cemented to his/her ear. on 1/10/02 4:03 PM, Chris Maxwell at chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote: That's interesting!! (See Cortland's message below) We as manufacturers have CENELEC and the FCC breathing down our neck over a few dBuV/m. We have the IEEE EMC and Functional Safety paper, all 50 some pages of it, worried about the possibly catastrophic effects of a Palm Pilot next to a crock pot. Meanwhile...Cortland (KA5S which stands for Kills your Auto for 5 Seconds) here is running around town with 100Watts of electronic ignition stopping transmitter wired to his car. I mean, I like the job security of being a compliance guy and all... but why do we bother? (Just meant as humor; I hope no offense is taken. However, if you think about it, all humor (including this email) needs to have a grain of truth to be funny. Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [SMTP:cortland.richm...@alcatel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:30 PM To: Ken Javor Cc: scott@jci.com; michael.sundst...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements A worst case -- real world -- is probably just behind a radio equipped car, mounting a capacitively top-loaded antenna at its rear edge, and about 600 watts of RF. With rather less power, 100 watts, I've occasionally seen adjacent cars' engines stop when I transmit. It would be interesting to see if RF at these levels got into electric cars' motor controllers. Cortland - KA5S (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) --- 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: Car EMC, was bulk current injection testing
A lot of humor is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of a common phrase or common wisdom. Take my wife, PLEASE, Or the cute stress relief advice I got the other day. To relieve a headache, fetch a bottle of aspirin and follow the directions: Take two aspirin and keep away from children. In this case the apparent contradiction is not one at all. The automobile requirements enforced on emissions protect radio receivers in other automobiles and fixed radio receivers operating near roads, the immunity requirements protect your car from malfunctioning when Mr. Richmond's rolling radio station is in the vicinity. Emission limits protect broadcast radio reception, while immunity limits protect non-antenna equipment from high powered transmissions. Not wishing to start another long thread, but I know I am not alone in fantasizing about building a cell-phone jammer and operating it with glee when I follow some slow driver weaving down the road ahead of me with a phone cemented to his/her ear. on 1/10/02 4:03 PM, Chris Maxwell at chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote: That's interesting!! (See Cortland's message below) We as manufacturers have CENELEC and the FCC breathing down our neck over a few dBuV/m. We have the IEEE EMC and Functional Safety paper, all 50 some pages of it, worried about the possibly catastrophic effects of a Palm Pilot next to a crock pot. Meanwhile...Cortland (KA5S which stands for Kills your Auto for 5 Seconds) here is running around town with 100Watts of electronic ignition stopping transmitter wired to his car. I mean, I like the job security of being a compliance guy and all... but why do we bother? (Just meant as humor; I hope no offense is taken. However, if you think about it, all humor (including this email) needs to have a grain of truth to be funny. Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [SMTP:cortland.richm...@alcatel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:30 PM To: Ken Javor Cc: scott@jci.com; michael.sundst...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements A worst case -- real world -- is probably just behind a radio equipped car, mounting a capacitively top-loaded antenna at its rear edge, and about 600 watts of RF. With rather less power, 100 watts, I've occasionally seen adjacent cars' engines stop when I transmit. It would be interesting to see if RF at these levels got into electric cars' motor controllers. Cortland - KA5S (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) --- 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: RF immunity 1-2GHz
I have a little different experience than the other respondents to date, who pretty much said no extrapolation is possible from one band to another. My experience and analytical training tell me that if field intensity and modulation are held constant, then above 1 GHz coupling to wires running between equipments will decrease with increasing frequency. If the circuitry interfacing the equipments is slow with respect to 1 GHz, and it passed below 1 GHz, I would also expect it to pass above 1 GHz. If however the modulation scheme changes or the wires picking up the rf energy are electrically short just below 1 GHz, then the immunity could decrease with increasing frequency. A final consideration is how rf tight the equipment enclosure is. A rule of thumb of rf enclosure design is that slots and apertures should be held to a tenth wavelength long for good EMI performance. At 1 GHz, a tenth wavelength is 3 cm. It is likely that as frequency increases above 1 GHz that imperfections in equipment enclosure homogeneity will impact shielding effectiveness. Ken Javor on 1/10/02 6:06 AM, am...@westin-emission.no at am...@westin-emission.no wrote: RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: Required separation between item with 3V/m radiated immunity and Class A (industrial) emissions?
I belive emissions standards were designed to allow proper operation of radios and televisions with minimal irritation. This would include sound and video quality. I heard this story a long time ago with respect to FCC limits. On the other hand, immunity standards were developed so equipment would not be damaged, not 'lock up', and remain safe. While equipment might meet a 3V/m immunity standard, I'll bet if it was an 'Intentional Receiver' like a radio (there are international radiators, why not intentional receivers?), it would operate poorly when separated by 1m from a CISPR Class A noise source. Obviously, this assumes the noise was comparable in frequency to the victim equipment. On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:18:37 +1000, peter.pou...@invensys.com wrote: At the moment I'm examining as a generic case, the potential for interference with Item A (tested to comply with 3V/m radiated immunity) caused by Item B (tested to comply with FCC or EN Class A [industrial] emissions). Using simple inverse distance ( E2 = E1 x d1/d2 ) extrapolation (assuming dominant interfering frequencies will be in the far field), I come up with a required separation distance of approximately 75cm to ensure the 3V/m immunity limit of Item A isn't exceeded by the 47dBuV/m emissions from Item B. Based on this, I'd expect then the risk for EMC problems should be relatively low provided: 1. A minimum separation of 1m was used between Items A B; 2. No direct interconnection of A to B via cables; 3. Use of a mains filter and/or separate power supply sources for A B; 4. The nature of Item B is such that no significant low (eg.power) frequency magnetic fields are emitted; Does anyone have any experience to suggest that the minimum separation of 1m under theses conditions would not be adequate? --- 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: Switch Inrush Ratings
Taking John Woodgate's usual response to such an inquiry, I did a Google search on inrush. Surprisingly (to me), there is a wealth of reasonably good info on the web under the subject of inrush, including switches rated for inrush current. 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.
Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
If I assume that the top loaded antenna acts as a quarter wave stub, that is it is extremely efficient at radiating all the power presented at the base and not reflecting any back, and if I further assume this is CB band or higher (essentially at or above 30 MHz), then 600 Watts 5 meters away (one car length behind) yields 47 V/m (70 mA drive). If we assume a one meter separation (and ignore that we are in the near field and the scaling from 5 meters to one meter is incorrect in a worst case sort of way) then the field intensity is 235 V/m (350 mA drive). This might be the case if the cars were side-by-side. Further evidence that the 1 Amp BCI limit is too stringent. on 1/10/02 1:30 PM, Cortland Richmond at cortland.richm...@alcatel.com wrote: A worst case -- real world -- is probably just behind a radio equipped car, mounting a capacitively top-loaded antenna at its rear edge, and about 600 watts of RF. With rather less power, 100 watts, I've occasionally seen adjacent cars' engines stop when I transmit. It would be interesting to see if RF at these levels got into electric cars' motor controllers. Cortland - KA5S (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) Ken Javor wrote: ... For the case in point, an automobile, I assume the longest cable 5 meters. Five meters is a half wavelength at 30 MHz. Personally I am not aware of any requirements in the automotive world above 200 V/m, but I may be wrong on that as I haven't done any automotive consulting in at least five years. Based on 200 V/m, the bulk current injection limit would be 300 mA or 110 dBuA above 30 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per decade with decreasing frequency below 30 MHz. This is very much a worst case coupling assumption, since 1.5 mA per Volt per meter depends on plane wave illumination of a cable 5 cm above ground with the magnetic component of the field penetrating the loop formed by the cable above ground at right angles over the entire length of the cable run. --- 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: Switch Inrush Ratings
Duncan, You might want to get all the info you can get on contact ratings for mechanical relays and contactors. Then, use that information by analogy. DC operation of a switch is the more destructive by orders of magnitude than AC operation. Since the normal cycle of AC will quench any spark within 16ms/20ms, DC on the other hand provides no quenching of the spark till the contacts make. That's why you will see great differences between the AC and DC ratings of switches (the great switch mystery finally demystified). Any power ratings for switches are typically done in horsepower. Inrush, careful - I'm assuming here, might be estimated from some fudge combination of voltage and current over time. The relay people have gone through some intensive research over the years regarding MAKE/BREAK conditions, the success of various platings for the contacts, and snubber design to help with the reduction of the spark intensity (i.e. inrush problems). Regards, 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: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
A worst case -- real world -- is probably just behind a radio equipped car, mounting a capacitively top-loaded antenna at its rear edge, and about 600 watts of RF. With rather less power, 100 watts, I've occasionally seen adjacent cars' engines stop when I transmit. It would be interesting to see if RF at these levels got into electric cars' motor controllers. Cortland - KA5S (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their mood, or thought.) Ken Javor wrote: ... For the case in point, an automobile, I assume the longest cable 5 meters. Five meters is a half wavelength at 30 MHz. Personally I am not aware of any requirements in the automotive world above 200 V/m, but I may be wrong on that as I haven't done any automotive consulting in at least five years. Based on 200 V/m, the bulk current injection limit would be 300 mA or 110 dBuA above 30 MHz, decreasing 20 dB per decade with decreasing frequency below 30 MHz. This is very much a worst case coupling assumption, since 1.5 mA per Volt per meter depends on plane wave illumination of a cable 5 cm above ground with the magnetic component of the field penetrating the loop formed by the cable above ground at right angles over the entire length of the cable run. --- 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: Change of Employment
To all, I have left my post as Business Development Manager of Flextronics and have taken on the position of Southeast Area Manager for TUV Rheinland of N.A. If you need to contact me, my new information is below. Bill Ronzio Southeast Area Manager TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 919-554-3668 phone 919-554-3542 fax wron...@us.tuv.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: RF immunity 1-2GHz
I have to agree with Peter - just because it passes in one band doesn't mean it will pass in another. For argument's sake in one instance, consider the loop area of a signal and it's return - it's effective at specific frequencies/frequency bands. Also consider why the new standard(s) added the higher frequency range - perhaps there were reports of/or concerns that products compliant at 800-1000 are now failing when in proximity to products emitting in the 1-2GHz range. Can't see the argument against testing. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: FLOWERDEW, Peter [mailto:peter.flower...@plantronics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RF immunity 1-2GHz I have been 'hardening' headsets and amplifiers to meet the 80 to 1000MHz, 1KHz 80% AM modulation requirements in EN55024, 3V/m. As our product lives on peoples desks we undertook to also provide immunity to mobile phones. We covered 900MHz, 1.8GHZ, 1.9GHz and 2.45GHz switched key modulation at 200Hz 1/8 pulse ratio, 10V/m to 3V/m. These higher frequency tests were MUCH more difficult to meet than the regulatory ones. The response of a system to signals in any particular frequency band just can not normally be predicted from the response to those in some other frequency band. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [ mailto:am...@westin-emission.no mailto:am...@westin-emission.no ] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RF immunity 1-2GHz RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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/ 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: radar
From: Douglas Beckwith@MITEL on 01/10/2002 11:17 AM Aha, a man after my own heart. Now you are talking about real cars. As an ex South African living in Canada, I still can't get used to the idea of driving on the the wrong side of the road. Doug Beckwith Veit, Andy andy.v...@mts.com on 01/10/2002 08:29:14 AM Please respond to Veit, Andy andy.v...@mts.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Douglas Beckwith/Kan/Mitel) Subject: RE: radar Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? I can think of at least one good reason to take a RHD car out of the UK - its called the Lotus Super 7. There, its out in the open now. I am a British car nut. :) Rerards, Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:35 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: radar I read in !emc-pstc that John Shinn john.sh...@sanmina.com wrote (in 001f01c1992f$09f5c960$0b3d1...@hadco.comsanmina.com) about 'radar', on Wed, 9 Jan 2002: Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? There are actually more *countries* where you drive on the left. Not more RHD cars, though. (No, I don't have the list of RHD countries, but it's on the web somewhere - everything is!) Besides, it is *undeniable* that a British car has the steering wheel on the right side. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: radar
Interesting - What was intended to be a humorous remark actually received some serious response! John -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Veit, Andy Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: radar Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? I can think of at least one good reason to take a RHD car out of the UK - its called the Lotus Super 7. There, its out in the open now. I am a British car nut. :) Rerards, Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:35 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: radar I read in !emc-pstc that John Shinn john.sh...@sanmina.com wrote (in 001f01c1992f$09f5c960$0b3d1...@hadco.comsanmina.com) about 'radar', on Wed, 9 Jan 2002: Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? There are actually more *countries* where you drive on the left. Not more RHD cars, though. (No, I don't have the list of RHD countries, but it's on the web somewhere - everything is!) Besides, it is *undeniable* that a British car has the steering wheel on the right side. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: RF immunity 1-2GHz
Try putting a mobile phone next to your computer mouse! Even more fun if the computer has speakers! Peter -Original Message- From: ari.honk...@nokia.com [mailto:ari.honk...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:23 PM To: am...@westin-emission.no Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RF immunity 1-2GHz Hi, today I heard about a case where an ISDN terminal was susceptible to a DECT phone next to it while a 900 MHz GSM did not cause anything. This was in the field, not in test lab. In test lab my experience is that if it passes below 1 G it does it also above it. However, as the 1.4-2 GHz sweep takes very short time we haven't bothered with this, just testing to avoid guessing. regards Ari Honkala -Original Message- From: ext [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 10 January, 2002 13:07 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RF immunity 1-2GHz RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: radar
I read in !emc-pstc that Veit, Andy andy.v...@mts.com wrote (in 421e2204a588d111b8bf00a0c995f26801be9...@smtpgate.mts.com) about 'radar', on Thu, 10 Jan 2002: I can think of at least one good reason to take a RHD car out of the UK - its called the Lotus Super 7. There, its out in the open now. I am a British car nut. :) Whitworth or BSF? (;-) I thought you could get LHD Super 7's? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
Keith, I thought of you because of previous statements that the automotive industry wasn't testing hard enough and this seemed to me a counter-example of massive unjustified overkill. My apologies, in the future I will only respond to direct postings. Ken Javor on 1/10/02 8:52 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote: Dear Ken I have no problem with The unalterable physics of field-to-wire coupling. But I am concerned to ensure that basic physics is correctly applied in engineering issues. Can I please ask you to place any criticisms of me in the threads I am contributing to, or send them directly to me, not hide them away where I might not see them. (I hope to be able to get around to reading the week's contributions on the EMC and safety threads this weekend.) Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 09/01/02 21:49:17 GMT Standard Time, ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes: Subj:FW: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:09/01/02 21:49:17 GMT Standard Time From:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor) Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor) To:scott@jci.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Scott and other EMC engineers, I looked up the referenced spec and saw it was an AUTOMOTIVE spec. And the injection level is near CONSTANT from 1 - 400 MHz, with an injection level as high as 1 Amp at the low end (1 - 30 MHz). Keith Armstrong, pay heed. The unalterable physics of field-to-wire coupling predict that this limit implies a field intensity of at least 700 V/m up to 30 MHz and at least 150 V/m and the vehicle is over 100 m long. If there are any design impacts to meeting this requirement (and I am sure there are when every penny counts) this spec is massive overkill and needs to be completely revised. Ken Javor
RE: radar
Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? I can think of at least one good reason to take a RHD car out of the UK - its called the Lotus Super 7. There, its out in the open now. I am a British car nut. :) Rerards, Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:35 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: radar I read in !emc-pstc that John Shinn john.sh...@sanmina.com wrote (in 001f01c1992f$09f5c960$0b3d1...@hadco.comsanmina.com) about 'radar', on Wed, 9 Jan 2002: Why would someone want to take a car out of UK with the steering wheel on the wrong side? There are actually more *countries* where you drive on the left. Not more RHD cars, though. (No, I don't have the list of RHD countries, but it's on the web somewhere - everything is!) Besides, it is *undeniable* that a British car has the steering wheel on the right side. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: RF immunity 1-2GHz
Hi, today I heard about a case where an ISDN terminal was susceptible to a DECT phone next to it while a 900 MHz GSM did not cause anything. This was in the field, not in test lab. In test lab my experience is that if it passes below 1 G it does it also above it. However, as the 1.4-2 GHz sweep takes very short time we haven't bothered with this, just testing to avoid guessing. regards Ari Honkala -Original Message- From: ext [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 10 January, 2002 13:07 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RF immunity 1-2GHz RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: radar (Germany)
Hi Ed, in Germany you have speed ratings for your tires, beginning at 160 KPH (100 mph)and then on to 190, 220 and 250 and beyond (some cars really go that fast, take a Porsche or a Ferrari). BMW and Mercedes have a gentleman agreement that these cars can't exceed 250 KPH (abt 156 mph). But of course, you can always do chip tuning... NOW : It is not very often that you can go very fast on a German motorway, because of lots of traffic, and many traffic jams. Also a big percentage of the motorways are regulated for 130, 120 100 or even 80 KPH, and a lot of mobile and stationary controlling devices make nice black-and-white photos of you and the car I drive a BMW, and I think the last time I drove faster than 200 KPH is two months ago, and I don't have an ego problem with that! Anyway, if you are involved in an accident and you drove more than 130 KHP (81 MPH), the court will see negligence on your part for driving so fast. Of course it is not forbidden - but if there is a problem, you have a distinct disadvantage! My 0.02 EURO... Jochen Feldhaar --- 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: radar (Germany)
Imagine that, holding someone accountable for their own actions! What a novel concept. I doubt it would ever be accepted in the US. MOO J.Feldhaar j.feldhaar%telejet...@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/10/2002 08:00:52 AM Please respond to J.Feldhaar j.feldhaar%telejet...@interlock.lexmark.com To: Price, Ed ed.price%cubic@interlock.lexmark.com, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: radar (Germany) Hi Ed, in Germany you have speed ratings for your tires, beginning at 160 KPH (100 mph)and then on to 190, 220 and 250 and beyond (some cars really go that fast, take a Porsche or a Ferrari). BMW and Mercedes have a gentleman agreement that these cars can't exceed 250 KPH (abt 156 mph). But of course, you can always do chip tuning... NOW : It is not very often that you can go very fast on a German motorway, because of lots of traffic, and many traffic jams. Also a big percentage of the motorways are regulated for 130, 120 100 or even 80 KPH, and a lot of mobile and stationary controlling devices make nice black-and-white photos of you and the car I drive a BMW, and I think the last time I drove faster than 200 KPH is two months ago, and I don't have an ego problem with that! Anyway, if you are involved in an accident and you drove more than 130 KHP (81 MPH), the court will see negligence on your part for driving so fast. Of course it is not forbidden - but if there is a problem, you have a distinct disadvantage! My 0.02 EURO... Jochen Feldhaar --- 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: FW: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements
Ken and others, Yes, we have witnessed some very interesting deviations (as you may guess) in product performance due to the intense RF Fields/Currents seen during testing. Our designs are impacted by this test on a regular basis. We would definitely entertain the idea of making the requirement more reasonable, to better represent the vehicle environment. Regards, Scott ken.javor@emccompliance .com To: scott@jci.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: FW: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements o.ieee.org 01/09/02 04:40 PM Please respond to ken.javor Scott and other EMC engineers, I looked up the referenced spec and saw it was an AUTOMOTIVE spec. And the injection level is near CONSTANT from 1 - 400 MHz, with an injection level as high as 1 Amp at the low end (1 - 30 MHz). Keith Armstrong, pay heed. The unalterable physics of field-to-wire coupling predict that this limit implies a field intensity of at least 700 V/m up to 30 MHz and at least 150 V/m and the vehicle is over 100 m long. If there are any design impacts to meeting this requirement (and I am sure there are when every penny counts) this spec is massive overkill and needs to be completely revised. Ken Javor -- From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:23:21 -0500 To: scott@jci.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ISO 11452-4 Bulk Current Injection Test Requirements Scott, I am not familiar with the standard you cite, but am quite familiar with BCI testing in general and the equipment used specifically. The injection clamp used to 400 MHz is only good to 400 or 450 MHz, depending upon manufacturer. The current probe used to monitor CUT-injected current will either be good to 450 MHz or 1 GHz. To my knowledge, there are no current probes in general use above 1 GHz and measurement of current on an unmatched transmission line (the CUT) becomes quite problematical even at 400 MHz. So my answer, not authoritative in a specification sense, but based on the physics of the situation and the test equipment available is that you control harmonics up to 400 MHz, and don't try to measure beyond that. P.S. You should have no such problems regardless. The harmonic problem is an issue when you are at the very low end of the frequency range of an injection clamp and it is more efficient at the harmonics than at the fundamental. The high power tube amps used up to 220 MHz do have high harmonic content (-16 dBc), but you should be able to use a lower power solid-state amp with better performance, and in any case you have an easy out. There is a clamp that covers 0.01 - 100 MHz and another that covers 2 - 400 MHz. If you use the lower range clamp to 10 MHz or thereabouts you can start using the upper range clamp at a frequency where its insertion loss is flat with frequency. The lower range clamp is flat from below 1 MHz and on up. Ken on 1/9/02 2:41 PM, scott@jci.com at scott@jci.com wrote: To All, We are performing BCI testing according to the test method described in ISO 11452-4 (Test Range 1MHz - 400MHz) We are unclear on the statement described in Section 3 - Test Conditions
RF immunity 1-2GHz
RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: China authority for Radio equipment
Darren Please look at www.int-app.tuv.com. Best regards Glenn Moffat TUV International UK Tel: +44 121 634 8000 Fax: +44 121 634 8080 Hi every one, I am currently trying to get a radio device approved in China, Can any one tell me who the authority is in China, or help with a contact e mail, Fax or Phone No ? Thanks Darren. Darren Pearson --- 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.
Required separation between item with 3V/m radiated immunity and Class A (industrial) emissions?
Hi Folks. At the moment I'm examining as a generic case, the potential for interference with Item A (tested to comply with 3V/m radiated immunity) caused by Item B (tested to comply with FCC or EN Class A [industrial] emissions). Using simple inverse distance ( E2 = E1 x d1/d2 ) extrapolation (assuming dominant interfering frequencies will be in the far field), I come up with a required separation distance of approximately 75cm to ensure the 3V/m immunity limit of Item A isn't exceeded by the 47dBuV/m emissions from Item B. Based on this, I'd expect then the risk for EMC problems should be relatively low provided: 1. A minimum separation of 1m was used between Items A B; 2. No direct interconnection of A to B via cables; 3. Use of a mains filter and/or separate power supply sources for A B; 4. The nature of Item B is such that no significant low (eg.power) frequency magnetic fields are emitted; Does anyone have any experience to suggest that the minimum separation of 1m under theses conditions would not be adequate? Thanks, Peter Poulos Design Engineer Foxboro Transportation (Invensys Rail Systems Australia) --- 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.
