Re: [PSES] 461 CE102 Attenuator Value

[Ed Price]

Ken:

 

Whenever I wrote an EMCTP, I typically included a 10 dB pad for CE102,
especially if I felt (yes, a very subjective guess) that the system would be
relatively quiet. And when I actually got into a test, if the system was
extraordinarily quiet, I would suggest going to a 3 dB pad. 

 

Interesting that you prefer placing the pad at the LISN output port for
matching reasons. I typically have done that, but only for the reason of not
liking to convey any higher amplitude signals through a coax than is
necessary. It's always a weird feeling to find you have been doing the right
thing for the wrong reason.

 

That's an unfortunate prediction about the keepers of 461; I had thought
that they lived and worked in the real world, where such data (when and if
you can get your hands on it) is regularly used to guess integration risk. I
can assure those "officials" that, for instance, if I were evaluating three
power supplies to integrate into my system, and all claimed 461 compliance,
I would still want to review their actual test data. All others things
aside, I would much rather buy the 30 dB under model than the 7 dB under
model.

 

Ed Price

El Cajon, CA

USA

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 461 CE102 Attenuator Value

 

Ed,

I don't recall why the specific value of 20 dB was selected, but you have
hit on all the reasons a pad is necessary.

The first reason is the issue of protecting the EMI receiver/analyzer, and I
suspect the largest pad was chosen for that job that would maintain the
required sensitivity.

As you say, modern EMI receivers/analyzers are a good match to 50 Ohms as
longs as there is some attenuation in front of the mixer; if zero
attenuation is selected there is a problem with match, but that isn't the
case for CE102, but only the stricter RE102 limits.  The 20 dB pad is
important in converting the LISN EMI port to 50 Ohms; I have been
complaining for a number of years that the 20 dB pad needs to be placed at
the LISN EMI port rather than somewhere else.  See Figure CE102-3 between
-461E vs. -461F as a result of such complaints.

All MIL-STD-461 limits/test methods are tailorable, so if there is some good
reason to reduce the 20 dB pad to a lower value, that may be suggested to
the customer.

Finally, while I sympathize with and share your desire to use EMI test data
not just for pass/fail compliance but for information, that is most
assuredly not the official reason for MIL-STD-461, and any assertion
otherwise will be met with withering condemnation, from any official source.


  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[Huang, Tim]

I supposed different agency has difference preference.

They have no reason to reject your IEC60950 CB report of the power adaptor 
unless the power adaptor can't pass the different testing according to IEC60065.


Regards
Tim
From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

Dear Members,

Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of my 
collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory document 
to support the comment.

We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB 
certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC 60065 
CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).

Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin
-


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

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

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

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] cable -v- BS 7671

[Peter Tarver]

Make that BS 7671

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tarver
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 15:00
>
> Hi.
>
> The UK are cosigners to the HAR agreement.  However, BS
> 7671 calls out a number of BS standards for cables, but
> does not mention  cable.
>
> Can  cables be used in the UK and meet BS 7671?
> What sort of limitations are there?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] cable -v- BS 75671

[Peter Tarver]

Hi.

The UK are cosigners to the HAR agreement.  However, BS 7671 calls out a
number of BS standards for cables, but does not mention  cable.

Can  cables be used in the UK and meet BS 7671?  What sort of
limitations are there?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver


This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended 
recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. 
If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] FCC - Frequency Range of Investigation for Intentional Radiator

[Grasso, Charles]

Hello Grace - That's correct of the module is certified. However the original 
post only indicated a
wireless device. So, assuming that it's NOT a module then the frequency range 
of testing is
from the LOWEST frequency used in the system to the 10th harmonic of the 
transmitter.

Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:13 AM
To: Larry Stillings
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: FCC - Frequency Range of Investigation for Intentional Radiator

Larry,

Please find FCC's response, dated July 22, 2010, for your information:



"
Office of Engineering and Technology






Inquiry:

For a class B digital device, with clocks/oscillators below 108 MHz, that 
incorporates an FCC certified 2.4GHz spread spectrum transmitter module, how 
high in frequency should this device be tested, 1GHz or the fifth harmonics of 
2.4GHz?


Response:
When a transmitter certified as a module is used within a host, the host 
testing  for Part 15B should treat the transmitter  as establishing the highest 
frequency used in the device (@ 2.4) and under 15.33  (b) (1)  use the 5th 
harmonic.
 "

With regards,
Grace Lin






On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Larry Stillings 
mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>> wrote:

Hello All,

I need clarification on the following. If a wireless device, in this 
case a Zigbee transceiver uses a 16 MHz Oscillator, and other digital circuitry 
in the device uses oscillators down to 18.432 kHz.

Is the Radiated Frequency Range of Investigation from the "transmitter 
circuitry" of 16 MHz and up to 25 GHz in this case, or from the 18.432 kHz 
frequency used in the digital circuitry?

Just trying to determine if I need the customer to bring their unit 
back, as initially they told me 16 MHz, and now I am finding three other 
oscillators that are below the 16 MHz, but only used in the digital portion of 
the circuitry.

This brings up an interesting point, because the FCC is very clear that 
all frequency oscillators shall be listed in the block diagram and the rules do 
not differentiate between unintentional (digital) and intentional circuitry.


Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
www.complianceworldwide.com

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
-


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 
>

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


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 
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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
L

Re: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[Grace Lin]

Thank you so much, Richard.

You pointed out a good approach.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Richard Nute  wrote:

> **
>
> Hi Grace:
>
>
> Since the lab has requested a 60065 CB, I would seek a
> second CB, for IEC 60065, rather than argue with the lab.
>
> The physical construction of a power adapter meets both
> standards.  The terminology differs, and the CB differs.
>
> This should be a paperwork endeavor with no testing.  Just
> copy the relevant requirements from the 60950-1 CB into the
> 60065 CB.  You can prepare the draft, then submit it
> together with the 60950-1 CB to your favorite NCB (and a
> sample, of course).  Then, just pay the money.
>
> You don't have to ask your power adapter suppler to do
> the work.  You can do it yourself with your favorite NCB.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> *From:* emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] *On Behalf Of *Grace
> Lin
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:52 AM
> *To:* emc-p...@ieee.org
> *Subject:* AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1
>
> Dear Members,
>
> Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of
> my collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory
> document to support the comment.
>
> We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB
> certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC
> 60065 CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).
>
> Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Best regards,
> Grace Lin
>
>

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[Richard Nute]

 
Hi Grace:
 
 
Since the lab has requested a 60065 CB, I would seek a 
second CB, for IEC 60065, rather than argue with the lab.
 
The physical construction of a power adapter meets both
standards.  The terminology differs, and the CB differs.  
 
This should be a paperwork endeavor with no testing.  Just
copy the relevant requirements from the 60950-1 CB into the
60065 CB.  You can prepare the draft, then submit it 
together with the 60950-1 CB to your favorite NCB (and a
sample, of course).  Then, just pay the money.
 
You don't have to ask your power adapter suppler to do 
the work.  You can do it yourself with your favorite NCB.
 
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1


Dear Members,
 
Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of
my collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory
document to support the comment. 
 
We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB
certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC
60065 CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).
 
Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.
 
Best regards,
Grace Lin   


-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] US MIL-STD

[Ken Wyatt]

Apparently, they upgraded their links without telling you! The thought of it!  
:-)

The Assist site has updated the links. Please update your bookmarks and 
favorites to reflect the new links:

Home

https://assist.daps.dla.mil/online/start/

Quick Search

https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/

Shopping Wizard

https://assist.daps.dla.mil/wizard/

Feedback

https://assist.daps.dla.mil/feedback/

___
Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
Woodland Park, CO
Email Me! | Web Site | Blog
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn

On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Helge Knudsen wrote:

> US MIL-STD


-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] US MIL-STD

[Helge Knudsen]

Hi group,

 

I use to have access to US MIL-STD trough ASSISTS-ONLINE at
 http://assist.daps.dla.mil/ but this link
seems to be out of service or not accessible any more, does anyone know
where MIL-STD can be downloaded from?

 

Best regards

 

Helge Knudsen

 

Denmark 

 

 


-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] 461 CE102 Attenuator Value

[Ken Javor]

Ed,

I don¹t recall why the specific value of 20 dB was selected, but you have
hit on all the reasons a pad is necessary.

The first reason is the issue of protecting the EMI receiver/analyzer, and I
suspect the largest pad was chosen for that job that would maintain the
required sensitivity.

As you say, modern EMI receivers/analyzers are a good match to 50 Ohms as
longs as there is some attenuation in front of the mixer; if zero
attenuation is selected there is a problem with match, but that isn¹t the
case for CE102, but only the stricter RE102 limits.  The 20 dB pad is
important in converting the LISN EMI port to 50 Ohms; I have been
complaining for a number of years that the 20 dB pad needs to be placed at
the LISN EMI port rather than somewhere else.  See Figure CE102-3 between
­461E vs. -461F as a result of such complaints.

All MIL-STD-461 limits/test methods are tailorable, so if there is some good
reason to reduce the 20 dB pad to a lower value, that may be suggested to
the customer.

Finally, while I sympathize with and share your desire to use EMI test data
not just for pass/fail compliance but for information, that is most
assuredly not the official reason for MIL-STD-461, and any assertion
otherwise will be met with withering condemnation, from any official source.


  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Ed Price 
Organization: ESP Labs
Reply-To: 
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:27:46 -0700
To: 
Subject: 461 CE102 Attenuator Value

Ken:
 
Why did the committee settle on the value of 20 dB for the CE102 attenuator?
 
I know that transient current changes in the LISN load can cause energy to
be coupled into the analyzer, possibly damaging the analyzer input, so some
protection is a good idea. And, if you do have a high signal level, it¹s
better practice to reduce it externally rather than risk the attenuators
within your analyzer. OTOH, I hate to see a ³flat line² instead of the real
analyzer noise floor plus very low-level signals, when measuring really
quiet test specimens. I realize that contemporary analyzers have a noise
floor way, way below the limit value, but that¹s not a good reason to give
away 20 dB of sensitivity.
 
I realize that there is also a question of impedance matching of the
analyzer input to the 50-Ohm feed system. True, that used to be a problem
with the equipment we now have on our collection shelves (like an NF-105 or
NM-50), but is impedance error still a real issue with contemporary
analyzers?
 
MIL testing is not just a ³pass / fail² concept; you are also gathering data
that other engineers may need to evaluate for future system integration
(possibly at limits more stringent than your current testing).
 
So, why is 20 dB specified; why not 10 dB or 6 dB or 3 dB or even 0 dB?
Could the standard allow attenuation to be optional? If some attenuation is
felt to be necessary, could a 3 dB attenuator be specified as the minimum,
with possibly larger values ³recommended²?
 
 

Ed Price
El Cajon, CA
USA
 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 6:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: inquiry concerning MIL STD 461E, CE102 test.
 
As a member of the committee that writes MIL-STD-461, I second Ed¹s advice:
option 3 is the only correct technique.
  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-


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


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 



-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[McInturff, Gary]

Right smack in the middle of this myself. The answer received so far is it's 
one directional. UL will accept a 60950 power supply with 60065 equipment, but 
they cannot have a full CB report written because EU or parts of it (as 
explained to me) won't allow it.

Most maddening is that our customer wanders over to the store and finds cameras 
indicating they are listed to 60950 (information technology equipment). Yet UL 
says, and I would tend to agree, that a camera is not a computer, and won't 
allow this product under that standard. The camera (infra-red imager actually), 
does charge with a USB port, but can't be operated while charging. The 
customers legal staff said it would then be a computer peripheral. Heavy sigh!. 
It can't even be used for its intended purpose connected to the computer for 
charging, doesn't transfer, store, manipulate data, no Von Neumann 
architecture, and yet the legal beagals call it a computer peripheral.

Sorry that's my rant for the day - but there are lots of folks that make 60065 
chargers. Go out to UL's online directory, and enter AZSQ into the UL category 
code, and also enter power supply into the key word field, and you'll get a 
list of manufactures and model numbers for 60065 evaluated power supplies. 
We'll hope for you maybe - I can't get my design engineers to do it, they would 
rather I fight the dragon. I'm going for a beer - its going to be one of those 
days :)


http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/cgifind.new/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.html



Gary

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

Dear Members,

Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of my 
collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory document 
to support the comment.

We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB 
certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC 60065 
CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).

Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin
-


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

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

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

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[Ken Wyatt]

This may shed some light on your question.

http://data.ul.com/pagos/PAG60950.asp?Num=1.1&Bullet=1
___
Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
Woodland Park, CO
Email Me! | Web Site | Blog
Subscribe to Newsletter
Connect with me on LinkedIn

On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Grace Lin wrote:

> Dear Members,
>  
> Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of my 
> collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory document 
> to support the comment. 
>  
> We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB 
> certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC 
> 60065 CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).
>  
> Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.
>  
> Best regards,
> Grace Lin   
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> 


-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Color of Mains Wiring (DC supply)

[N.Shani]

Short and sweet: No.

There are some conventions people adopted over the years which may be
confusing: where in AC/DC feed, the DC side is Red for (+) and Black for
(-), in some -48 V systems I've seen the reverse.

What is important is the correct polarity marking such as -48 (-) and
Return (+).

Cheers,
N. Shani

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 01:53, Kannan Dhamodharan <
kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com> wrote:

>  Dear Members,
>
> ** **
>
> Are there standard color coding used for DC supply wiring in North America
> (example: BS7671 in UK) ?  Especially for telecom installations. 
>
> Appreciate your help in advance. 
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks and Regards
>
> Kannan
>

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] 461 CE102 Attenuator Value

[Ed Price]

Ken:

 

Why did the committee settle on the value of 20 dB for the CE102 attenuator?

 

I know that transient current changes in the LISN load can cause energy to
be coupled into the analyzer, possibly damaging the analyzer input, so some
protection is a good idea. And, if you do have a high signal level, it's
better practice to reduce it externally rather than risk the attenuators
within your analyzer. OTOH, I hate to see a "flat line" instead of the real
analyzer noise floor plus very low-level signals, when measuring really
quiet test specimens. I realize that contemporary analyzers have a noise
floor way, way below the limit value, but that's not a good reason to give
away 20 dB of sensitivity.

 

I realize that there is also a question of impedance matching of the
analyzer input to the 50-Ohm feed system. True, that used to be a problem
with the equipment we now have on our collection shelves (like an NF-105 or
NM-50), but is impedance error still a real issue with contemporary
analyzers?

 

MIL testing is not just a "pass / fail" concept; you are also gathering data
that other engineers may need to evaluate for future system integration
(possibly at limits more stringent than your current testing).

 

So, why is 20 dB specified; why not 10 dB or 6 dB or 3 dB or even 0 dB?
Could the standard allow attenuation to be optional? If some attenuation is
felt to be necessary, could a 3 dB attenuator be specified as the minimum,
with possibly larger values "recommended"?

 

 

Ed Price

El Cajon, CA

USA

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 6:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: inquiry concerning MIL STD 461E, CE102 test.

 

As a member of the committee that writes MIL-STD-461, I second Ed's advice:
option 3 is the only correct technique.
  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] AC Power Adapter, IEC 60065 vs IEC 60950-1

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Can an IEC 60950-1 power adapter be used with an IEC 60065 device?  Two of
my collleagues told me yes.  However, they couldn't find any regulatory
document to support the comment.

We have an IEC 60065 device under CB evaluation.  The power adapter's CB
certificate is under IEC 60950-1, not IEC 60065.  The lab requests an IEC
60065 CB certificate for the power adapter (OEM).

Thank you very much and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] FCC - Frequency Range of Investigation for Intentional Radiator

[Grace Lin]

Larry,

Please find FCC's response, dated July 22, 2010, for your information:


*"*

*Office of Engineering and Technology*

 *Inquiry:*

For a class B digital device, with clocks/oscillators below 108 MHz, that
incorporates an FCC certified 2.4GHz spread spectrum transmitter module,
how high in frequency should this device be tested, 1GHz or the fifth
harmonics of 2.4GHz?



*Response: *

*When a transmitter certified as a module is used within a host, the host
testing  for Part 15B should treat the transmitter  as establishing the
highest frequency used in the device (@ 2.4) and under 15.33  (b) (1)  use
the 5th harmonic. *

 "

With regards,
Grace Lin






On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Larry Stillings <
la...@complianceworldwide.com> wrote:

> **
>
> Hello All,
>
> I need clarification on the following. If a wireless device, in
> this case a Zigbee transceiver uses a 16 MHz Oscillator, and other digital
> circuitry in the device uses oscillators down to 18.432 kHz.
>
> Is the Radiated Frequency Range of Investigation from the
> "transmitter circuitry" of 16 MHz and up to 25 GHz in this case, or from
> the 18.432 kHz frequency used in the digital circuitry?
>
> Just trying to determine if I need the customer to bring their
> unit back, as initially they told me 16 MHz, and now I am finding three
> other oscillators that are below the 16 MHz, but only used in the digital
> portion of the circuitry.
>
> This brings up an interesting point, because the FCC is very
> clear that all frequency oscillators shall be listed in the block diagram
> and the rules do not differentiate between unintentional (digital) and
> intentional circuitry.
>
> Larry K. Stillings
> Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
> *Test Locally, Sell Globally!***
> *FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking*
> 357 Main Street
> Sandown, NH 03873
> (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
> *www.complianceworldwide.com* 
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
> notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your
> employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>  -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>

-

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 


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: