Re: [PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

[Richard Nute]

Hi John:


Nothing wrong.  When the ground is opened, you get
about half the mains on the (formerly) grounded
parts.  All equipment does this, including two-
wire equipment.  Even a three-wire power cord does
this!

The voltage is due to a capacitive voltage divider,
line-chassis-neutral.  The capacitances are in the
line filter and the strays due to the wiring.

The key is the current.  It is (or should be) less
than that specified in the standard.  This is
"touch" nee "leakage" current.  Measure the current
to ground and you will find any where from 0.5 mA
to 5 mA.

When you touch the chassis, the voltage drops to
about 20 volts or less, and you may feel a tingle.

The source impedance (to mains) is about 200 k
(capacitive reactance), maybe more, maybe less,
depending on the equipment.


Best regards,
Rich


On 9/5/2014 12:49 PM, John Cochran wrote:


*From:*John Cochran
*Sent:* Friday, September 05, 2014 3:47 PM
*To:* 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
*Subject:* UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

I am doing compliance testing on an outdoor computer/display and am 
having problems with complying with clause 2.2.3 of UL 60950-1 and 
clause 6.2  of UL 60950-22. When the earth ground is disconnected, 
there is an AC potential on the chassis ground that is ½ of the line 
voltage.  At 240VAC, there is 120VAC on the ground.  Since everything 
is grounded in the system and it is in an aluminum enclosure, I have 
this potential everywhere.  I cannot find an open frame AC power 
supply that does not do the same thing. What is it that I am doing 
wrong.  The UL 60950-22 standard says the maximum AC voltage that is 
acceptable is 15VAC.


*/John Cochran/*

425 Caredean Drive

Horsham, PA 19044

PHONE: 215-443-3400 X219

FAX: 215-443-3002





-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[John Woodgate]

In message 
om>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Carpentier Kristiaan 
 writes:


In which document can I find the provision that market surveillance 
testing is done, in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did 
it?


As I explained, such a provision cannot be included in a standard. It is 
extremely difficult to track down where provisions like this are 
documented. I already have one similar query in with the British 
authorities at present and I don't want to seem tiresome by adding 
another query in quick succession.


If I find the source I will let you know.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Ken Javor]

Dangerous ground indeed, and not a technical subject.

Infinitely more important than whether a device meets an EMI requirement, or
how to make it do so, but nevertheless this is not the forum for it.

However, I didn't bring the subject up.  The gentlemen who opined that if he
had nothing to hide, he didn't care who had the ability to snoop brought up
the subject.

And that opinion bears refutation. Not because he is wrong in and of his own
business, because if he doesn't care who's in his business, no one else
should, either.  But the point is that opinions like that don't exist in
solitary - enough people think like that, and those who don't become the
collateral damage in the collapse of civilization.

That may sound apocalyptic to those who equate civilization with technology,
but the equation is false. Civilization is the degree of freedom man has
from other men.  Mr. Woodgate's famous ex-Prime Minister Winston Churchill
noted that

"Civilization will not last, freedom will not survive, peace will not be
kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them
and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before which barbaric
and atavistic forces will stand in awe."

Mr. Churchill at the time was speaking of a foreign menace, but the rule
applies equally to enemies both foreign and domestic.

Any authority not tightly bound by strict rules understandable to the lay
population will accumulate as much power as it can, and it is an exponential
growth, difficult to discern at first, but as power accumulates in an
organization, it attracts those who wish to wield that power and accumulate
more, whereas when the organization had minimal power and no opportunity to
acquire more, such people were not attracted. The principal is the same as
keeping a clean food preparation surface: done right, bacterial growth is
held to minimum, but ignore proper hygienic rules and the growth of bacteria
is literally exponential.

That is the explanation behind another one of Mr. Woodgates's distinguished
forbears, Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely."

Notice that the foreign enemy in Mr. Churchill's time was legally elected
chancellor. It was only later that he unconstitutionally seized power and
became simply The Leader.  Had that constitution been stronger and properly
enforced, that wouldn't have happened and in fact it is likely that the
eventual Leader wouldn't have even run for office if he had known he would
have to be satisfied with the paltry powers of a constitutionally-bound
chief executive.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: John Woodgate 
> Reply-To: John Woodgate 
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:12:55 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
> 
> In message , dated Fri, 5
> Sep 2014, Ken Javor  writes:
> 
>> But if the question includes what difference it makes if the police can
>> track you, well that isn¹t a big deal at all. Just the difference
>> between being a subject or being a citizen. People who don¹t know or
>> care about the difference invariably become subjects, even if they
>> start out as citizens.
> 
> Dangerous ground, here, but isn't there an initial assumption that the
> police are inherently malicious? I mean, there are far too many US
> citizens for any police force to track everyone, so wouldn't they track
> people only for a good reason, unless they were malicious?
> 
> Of course, as a Brit, I am both a British Citizen AND a subject of HM
> the Queen, so the only thing I am not, by definition, is a slave.
> -- 
> OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
> Quid faciamus nisi sit?
> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
> 
> -
> 
> 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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> 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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Hi John,

In which document can I find the provision that market surveillance testing is 
done, 
in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did it?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: vrijdag 5 september 2014 21:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

In message 
<65eb7d8099b14f948b584475acc1f...@bn1pr0201mb0819.namprd02.prod.outlook.c
om>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Carpentier Kristiaan 
 writes:

>A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well 
>defined setup (cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case 
>emissions and it passes. I think finding the real worst case emission 
>for all frequencies with one and the same set-up is in practice not 
>possible in practice.

Agreed.
>
>That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market 
>surveillance campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same 
>set-up and results may fail. Would this be an issue or is it acceptable 
>that it is retested with the same set-up as the initial testing?

In Europe, there is provision that market surveillance testing is done, 
in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did it, unless that is 
obviously defective. It can't be written into standards because it's a 
'regulatory' (legal) matter.

>I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that the operational 
>conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical use.The 
>operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

Take pictures; lots of pictures, and not just 'arty' pictures of dark 
blobs; you want to see in harsh light every detail of how the test was 
set up.
>
>So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to 
>not make it best case and describe everything in the report.

I think you need to go a bit further than 'typical'. Cable length, for 
example; typical 3 m, but quite often 6 m to 10 m. Also, aim to do 
better than just meet the limits; establish a margin.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Dan Roman, N.C.E.]

Hey Gary, at least this one is relatively mundane but not necessarily benign.  The picture had GPS coordinates in the meta data inserted by the device that took the original picture (geo-tagged).  When you received a copy of the picture that meta data came along with it.  Any picture manipulation software worth its salt can strip out that information, I even think Windows 7 and 8 can do that natively in properties.  Smart phones don't necessarily have that ability built-in though they would have the option to not geo-tag the picture to begin with in the picture taking options somewhere.   -- Dan Roman, N.C.E.Senior Member, IEEEVP Communications ServicesIEEE Product Safety Engineering Societymailto:dan.ro...@ieee.orghttp://www.ieee-pses.org On 09/05/14, Gary McInturff wrote: Snooping just poked it’s little head into my life recently. There are about a bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple, Samsung, NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I posted a picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I was using asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the particular location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that location the app listed several places that were nearby and central to where the picture was actually taken. Yoicks! Oh did I mention Microsoft? J (Actually I don’t know about Microsoft Ted – primarily pulling your chain this morning) Gmac From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing. I’m curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my phone’s battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve their phone. Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don’t turn off their phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used. On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some relation to the subject at hand. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/ Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link. http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ Ted EckertCompliance EngineerMicrosoft Corporationted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  -Original Message-From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing. In message <20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Doug Powell  writes: >Ah yes,> >But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much>attenuation at all frequencies? I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid shield.--OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit?John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK -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 athttp://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules:http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators:Scott Douglas 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.htmlAttachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-u

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

Once the technology/cost allow for the tracking of everyone then that's what 
they will do.  And decide later what to do with the data.  People will come up 
with lots of ideas to do with the data once they have it.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 3:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

In message , dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, 
Ken Javor  writes:

>But if the question includes what difference it makes if the police can 
>track you, well that isn¹t a big deal at all. Just the difference 
>between being a subject or being a citizen. People who don¹t know or 
>care about the difference invariably become subjects, even if they 
>start out as citizens.

Dangerous ground, here, but isn't there an initial assumption that the police 
are inherently malicious? I mean, there are far too many US citizens for any 
police force to track everyone, so wouldn't they track people only for a good 
reason, unless they were malicious?

Of course, as a Brit, I am both a British Citizen AND a subject of HM the 
Queen, so the only thing I am not, by definition, is a slave.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

[PSES] Vietnam wireless approvals.

[S Drysdale]

Dear list members,

I was hoping some one might be able to point me in the right direction for
Vietnam wireless approvals.  The device is already FCC certified under
15.247 and is a 2.4 GHz transmitter.  I am trying to find out the
requirements for the test lab, the requirements or standards for the
product, and what is required with respect to filing once the testing is
completed.  Any advice or pointers in the right direction are appreciated.

Best Regards,
Scott Drysdale
OOO - Own Opinions Only
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/scottdrysdale

-

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

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

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

[PSES] UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

[John Cochran]

From: John Cochran
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 3:47 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: UL 60950-1 clause 2.2.3

I am doing compliance testing on an outdoor computer/display and am having 
problems with complying with clause 2.2.3 of UL 60950-1 and clause 6.2  of UL 
60950-22.  When the earth ground is disconnected, there is an AC potential on 
the chassis ground that is ½ of the line voltage.  At 240VAC, there is 120VAC 
on the ground.  Since everything is grounded in the system and it is in an 
aluminum enclosure, I have this potential everywhere.  I cannot find an open 
frame AC power supply that does not do the same thing.  What is it that I am 
doing wrong.  The UL 60950-22 standard says the maximum AC voltage that is 
acceptable is 15VAC.

John Cochran
425 Caredean Drive
Horsham, PA 19044
PHONE: 215-443-3400 X219
FAX: 215-443-3002


-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<65eb7d8099b14f948b584475acc1f...@bn1pr0201mb0819.namprd02.prod.outlook.c
om>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Carpentier Kristiaan 
 writes:


A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well 
defined setup (cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case 
emissions and it passes. I think finding the real worst case emission 
for all frequencies with one and the same set-up is in practice not 
possible in practice.


Agreed.


That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market 
surveillance campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same 
set-up and results may fail. Would this be an issue or is it acceptable 
that it is retested with the same set-up as the initial testing?


In Europe, there is provision that market surveillance testing is done, 
in case of dispute, in the way the manufacturer did it, unless that is 
obviously defective. It can't be written into standards because it's a 
'regulatory' (legal) matter.


I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that the operational 
conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical use.The 
operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.


Take pictures; lots of pictures, and not just 'arty' pictures of dark 
blobs; you want to see in harsh light every detail of how the test was 
set up.


So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to 
not make it best case and describe everything in the report.


I think you need to go a bit further than 'typical'. Cable length, for 
example; typical 3 m, but quite often 6 m to 10 m. Also, aim to do 
better than just meet the limits; establish a margin.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[John Woodgate]

In message , dated Fri, 5 
Sep 2014, Ken Javor  writes:


But if the question includes what difference it makes if the police can 
track you, well that isn¹t a big deal at all. Just the difference 
between being a subject or being a citizen. People who don¹t know or 
care about the difference invariably become subjects, even if they 
start out as citizens.


Dangerous ground, here, but isn't there an initial assumption that the 
police are inherently malicious? I mean, there are far too many US 
citizens for any police force to track everyone, so wouldn't they track 
people only for a good reason, unless they were malicious?


Of course, as a Brit, I am both a British Citizen AND a subject of HM 
the Queen, so the only thing I am not, by definition, is a slave.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Brian Oconnell]

What harm?!?! Space aliens and zombies, most obviously.

Many people have their life's data on their smartphone. Potential for financial 
or medical disaster. Also, this personal information goes to 'big' data where 
marketing dweebs generate profiles to enable sales manipulations. Nothing new 
here, just the same stuff done quicker and more efficiently. Think Pink Floyd's 
'part 2' brick song. That should fuel some paranoia.

Meh, do not have smartphone full of personal data. But my pad, has a bazillion 
technical specs, 100s of product schematics, complete sets of docs for all of 
the C and Python libs in use, 100s of pics of my cat and dogs, and some novels 
and technical books. Let them hack it - they will die of boredom.

Brian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

Snooping has been a common subject with the media recently, but realistically, 
as long as I’m not breaking any laws or post nude pictures of myself on the 
cloud, what do I care if someone is snooping my cell phone? What real harm can 
come of it? 
 
And I’m not talking about skilled hackers finding out my PIN number, because 
they can do that regardless, but what about all the normal snooping going on 
with cell phone apps such as my phone knowing what route I take to work every 
day, or what stores I frequent, or what gas stations I go to. What do I care?
 
The Other Brian
 
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
Snooping just poked it’s little head into my life recently. There are about a 
bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple, Samsung, 
NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I posted a 
picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I was using 
asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the particular 
location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that location the app 
listed several places that were nearby and central to where the picture was 
actually taken. Yoicks!
 
Oh did I mention Microsoft? ☺ (Actually I don’t know about Microsoft Ted – 
primarily pulling your chain this morning)
 
Gmac
 
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
I’m curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of 
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have 
trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its 
transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my 
phone’s battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of 
this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve 
their phone.
 
Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don’t turn off their 
phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your 
phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used. 
 
On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some 
relation to the subject at hand.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/
 
Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link.
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
In message <20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, 
Doug Powell  writes:
 
>Ah yes,
> 
>But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much 
>attenuation at all frequencies?
 
I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically 
strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid 
shield.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[John Woodgate]

In message <006201cfc938$cf4f3560$6deda020$@cs.com>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 
2014, Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> writes:


.  From my perspective the NA Recognition of component safety provides 
a unique building block capability for mfgrs in that the same 
components do not need to be re-evaluated over and over when used 
across products


This is also covered by various IEC/EN component standards and the IECEE 
scheme. Look at all the component standards normatively referenced in 
IEC 62368-1.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

[Schaefer, David]

Brian,

One point on e/E-marking - in the automotive sector, 'e' marking is going away. 
As of November, the EU is only doing certification per UN ECE R10, so requires 
the 'E' mark. 

Thanks,

David Schaefer
EMC Chief Technical Advisor
TÜV SÜD America Inc
Office: 651 638 0251
Cell: 612 578 6038
Fax: 651 638 0285




-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

In general, agree with the mfr if not part of the vehicle's original equipment 
and not a spare part identical to what was installed as original equipment. R10 
describes the mark in annex 1. The NCB or CAB that does the assessment and 
writes the report should provide marking info. For EU/EFTA and others, 
depending on the scope of the product, you may also need an 'e' mark in 
addition to the 'E' mark with a country code, but do not go there unless the 
assessor can provide a good rationale. The mark does not have to be visible 
after installed. You can provide additional marks in blood, but that can be 
corrosive.

None of this accounts for the many other national regulations for automotive 
products.

Brian


From: John McAuley [mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 7:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

All

Many regulations allow for the regulatory marks to be applied to accompanying 
documentation or packaging when the item is too small.

There does not appear to be any guidance in this respect in UN ECE R10 for EMC. 



The manufacturer does not think that the exclusion for electrical/electronic 
systems built into vehicles applies to his product.

Has anyone any experience of derogations in this respect?

Thanks

John McAuley

-

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

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

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

The mail and/or attachments are confidential and may also be legally 
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or 
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you were not the intended recipient, 
please notify us immediately by email at helpd...@tuvam.com and delete this 
message and all its attachments.

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Ken Javor]

Using apps is conditional on accepting the app developers¹ terms.

But if the question includes what difference it makes if the police can
track you, well that isn¹t a big deal at all. Just the difference between
being a subject or being a citizen. People who don¹t know or care about the
difference invariably become subjects, even if they start out as citizens.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "Kunde, Brian" 
Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:25:01 +
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

Snooping has been a common subject with the media recently, but
realistically, as long as I¹m not breaking any laws or post nude pictures of
myself on the cloud, what do I care if someone is snooping my cell phone?
What real harm can come of it?
 
And I¹m not talking about skilled hackers finding out my PIN number, because
they can do that regardless, but what about all the normal snooping going on
with cell phone apps such as my phone knowing what route I take to work
every day, or what stores I frequent, or what gas stations I go to. What do
I care?
 
The Other Brian
 

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
Snooping just poked it¹s little head into my life recently. There are about
a bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple,
Samsung, NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I
posted a picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I
was using asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the
particular location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that
location the app listed several places that were nearby and central to where
the picture was actually taken. Yoicks!
 
Oh did I mention Microsoft? J (Actually I don¹t know about Microsoft Ted ­
primarily pulling your chain this morning)
 

Gmac
 

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
I¹m curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will
have trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will
boost its transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I
find that my phone¹s battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe
reception. Users of this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead
when they retrieve their phone.
 
Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don¹t turn off
their phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket,
your phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used.
 
On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some
relation to the subject at hand.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-mak
e-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/

 
Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following
link.
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi
/helmet/ 

 
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com 
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
 
In message <20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com
 >, dated Fri, 5 Sep
2014, Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > writes:
 
>Ah yes,
> 
>But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much
>attenuation at all frequencies?
 
I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be
mechanically strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe,
with one solid shield.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
  Quid faciamus nis

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Sundstrom, Mike]

Are not forgetting site variations also?
I think the site attenuation has leeway also. I remember something like +8-0 
dB???


Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540

Whatever your discipline, become a student of excellence in all things. Take 
every opportunity to observe people who manifest the qualities of mastery. 
These models of excellence will inspire you and guide you toward the 
fulfillment of your highest potential."
-- Tony Buzan and Michael Gelb,
authors

-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

One of the reasons, many years ago, that a 'standard' setup was determined in 
both CISPR and ANSI standards was to relieve the never ending always present 
constant manipulation of cables and equipment.  While the EUT is to be 
operating in a typical use scenario, the setup should be as depicted in the 
standard.  This includes cables being bundled correctly, draped correctly and 
arranged on the test table correctly.  Variation of this setup goes back to the 
1980s when the constant equipment variations.  Let's not go back there.


Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential 
and/or legally privileged. If you have received this 

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[Pete Perkins]

Colleagues,

 

Well, altho my initial question ran far afield I thank
everyone who chimed in to respond.  

 

The discussion has been quite interesting even tho the
initial question is still left somewhat hanging.  

 

The business/cultural/legal discussion that has blossomed
shows us that the interaction between a worldwide set of manufacturers &
certifiers has not yet settled down into smooth working system.  

 

In some ways it is better than the system in place more than
35 years ago when I started working with test house certifications.  In
other ways it has become messier because of trying to institute an approval
system that is acceptable worldwide.  

 

The US based OSHA system comes from a different cultural
place than many of the other schemes instituted around the world.  The whole
US system is more driven by legal and market forces, which I fully support
in spite of the difficulties in brings.  The mfgr gets to choose their level
of exposure in providing their goods into the marketplace.  Remember,
workplace safety is not the only exposure; AHJs inspecting construction and
retailers selling products have a significant role in this process.  

 

An interesting discussion about the certification of
components ensued.  From my perspective the NA Recognition of component
safety provides a unique building block capability for mfgrs in that the
same components do not need to be re-evaluated over and over when used
across products.  (The 800lb gorilla rules here; component mfgrs have little
choice but to use their service since their customers will need that cert
for many product certs thru the same lab.)  This simplifies the initial
certification evaluation of a product and ensures that there is ongoing
surveillance of the product downstream.   The CE marking scheme could have
invoked such a method but has chosen not to do so; it's probably too late to
start one now.  

 

I understand the need of countries that institute a full
certification scheme to develop a national base of qualified staff to run
the scheme & so they invoke in-country testing to bring their staff up to
speed.  The international community ought to be supportive enough to help
them work thru that phase & get to the phase where they will fully accept CB
Reports.  This has been done in the past and is going on now in some cases.
(I know that some mfgrs are sending their CB Report and EMC reports to India
along with the product for evaluation; I sure that Indian engineers will
read them carefully during their evaluation - if they get them.)  

 

Since I commonly work with small companies here in the US
with limited staff and budget I recommend that they use a NRTL for their
safety evaluation and also get a CB Report - which contains all of the data
- plus provides a nice certificate which they can provide to anyone who asks
for proof of conformance (without revealing the details of the product
design or evaluation).  That covers a lot of bases from what I see.  

 

Again, thanx to each one who joined in.   Hopefully many
silent followers have gained some additional insight into the issues
discussed. 

 

:>) br, Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety Engineer

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201 fone/fax

p.perk...@ieee.org

 


-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Kunde, Brian]

Snooping has been a common subject with the media recently, but realistically, 
as long as I'm not breaking any laws or post nude pictures of myself on the 
cloud, what do I care if someone is snooping my cell phone? What real harm can 
come of it?

And I'm not talking about skilled hackers finding out my PIN number, because 
they can do that regardless, but what about all the normal snooping going on 
with cell phone apps such as my phone knowing what route I take to work every 
day, or what stores I frequent, or what gas stations I go to. What do I care?

The Other Brian

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

Snooping just poked it's little head into my life recently. There are about a 
bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple, Samsung, 
NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I posted a 
picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I was using 
asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the particular 
location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that location the app 
listed several places that were nearby and central to where the picture was 
actually taken. Yoicks!

Oh did I mention Microsoft? :) (Actually I don't know about Microsoft Ted - 
primarily pulling your chain this morning)

Gmac

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.


I'm curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of 
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have 
trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its 
transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my 
phone's battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of 
this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve 
their phone.



Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don't turn off their 
phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your 
phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used.



On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some 
relation to the subject at hand.



http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/



Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link.



http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



In message 
<20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>,
 dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> writes:



>Ah yes,

>

>But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much

>attenuation at all frequencies?



I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically 
strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid 
shield.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 Quid faciamus nisi sit?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



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 
m

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Gary McInturff]

Exactly. In fact before the "standard" setup the worst case setup would mean an 
examination of permutations. A system of 6 devices could have a million test 
configurations. A,B,C,D,E,F - A,C,D,E,F,B - A,C,D,E,B, F ad nausium. And a 
strict interpretation of that could mean that you do if for multiple 
frequencies of concern. From these types of problems rose the "standard" setup, 
including the infamous scrolling "H" pattern. Even the standard setup was 
abused by some. A consultant friend of mine was once called to the FCC site in 
MD because the FEDS had determine the system non-compliant for some reason. The 
standard setup includes the phrase (I believe) for typical usage. The 
consultant arrived at the test site were the FEDS had already set up the 
system. The first thing he notices was the the FED's (FCC) test engineers had 
wrapped the 6 foot keyboard cable around the monitor a couple of times. One had 
to look through the cabling to see what was actually on the screen. Yup th!
 at's pretty typical of how people use computers. Heavy sigh.
Fun to laugh at now - but getting the point at which we now find ourselves has 
had some very strange interactions with regulators and laboratories - and yes 
design engineers.



Gmac

Gmac


-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

One of the reasons, many years ago, that a 'standard' setup was determined in 
both CISPR and ANSI standards was to relieve the never ending always present 
constant manipulation of cables and equipment.  While the EUT is to be 
operating in a typical use scenario, the setup should be as depicted in the 
standard.  This includes cables being bundled correctly, draped correctly and 
arranged on the test table correctly.  Variation of this setup goes back to the 
1980s when the constant equipment variations.  Let's not go back there.


Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=AAIDaQ&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=1UqulPNgC4oaLQSkWeWBzBurrvASOFUtRggMr_i3H5Q&s=Ys0eIUGCz_O-Mp8yOR4EKjvjlSNmzL-lJCa-vpWJSGw&e=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=AAIDaQ&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=1UqulPNgC4oaLQSkWeWBzBurrvASOFUtRggMr_i3H5Q&s=Nz1c-H68UqxhNoQcvXpSk_-67Eo1MZ-eg-ejXP2yqi0&e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=AAIDaQ&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=1U

Re: [PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

[Brian Oconnell]

In general, agree with the mfr if not part of the vehicle's original equipment 
and not a spare part identical to what was installed as original equipment. R10 
describes the mark in annex 1. The NCB or CAB that does the assessment and 
writes the report should provide marking info. For EU/EFTA and others, 
depending on the scope of the product, you may also need an 'e' mark in 
addition to the 'E' mark with a country code, but do not go there unless the 
assessor can provide a good rationale. The mark does not have to be visible 
after installed. You can provide additional marks in blood, but that can be 
corrosive.

None of this accounts for the many other national regulations for automotive 
products.

Brian


From: John McAuley [mailto:john.mcau...@cei.ie] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 7:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

All

Many regulations allow for the regulatory marks to be applied to accompanying 
documentation or packaging when the item is too small.

There does not appear to be any guidance in this respect in UN ECE R10 for EMC. 



The manufacturer does not think that the exclusion for electrical/electronic 
systems built into vehicles applies to his product.

Has anyone any experience of derogations in this respect?

Thanks

John McAuley

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Gary McInturff]

Snooping just poked it's little head into my life recently. There are about a 
bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple, Samsung, 
NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I posted a 
picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I was using 
asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the particular 
location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that location the app 
listed several places that were nearby and central to where the picture was 
actually taken. Yoicks!

Oh did I mention Microsoft? :) (Actually I don't know about Microsoft Ted - 
primarily pulling your chain this morning)

Gmac

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.


I'm curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of 
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have 
trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its 
transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my 
phone's battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of 
this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve 
their phone.



Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don't turn off their 
phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your 
phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used.



On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some 
relation to the subject at hand.



http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/



Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link.



http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



In message 
<20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>,
 dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> writes:



>Ah yes,

>

>But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much

>attenuation at all frequencies?



I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically 
strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid 
shield.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 Quid faciamus nisi sit?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



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

Re: [PSES] Applicable SAR standard for a VoIP GSM Gateway

[Charlie Blackham]

Michael

The R&TTE Compliance Association have a useful Technical Guidance Note on this:
http://www.rtteca.com/TGN%2017%20Version%203%20Update%20February%202014.pdf

regards
Charlie

From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de]
Sent: 05 September 2014 15:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Applicable SAR standard for a VoIP GSM Gateway

Hi,

regarding health and safety requirements required by R&TTED 1999/5/EC:

Is compliance with EN 50385 or EN 62311 required?


Best regards

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

Globalnorm GmbH
Kurfürstenstr. 112
10787 Berlin

Phone +49 30 3229027-51
Cell +49 170 3229027
Fax +49 30 3229027-59
Mailmichael.loer...@globalnorm.de

» globalnorm.de
» Jetzt anmelden zum GLOBALNORM Product Compliance 
Newsletter.

Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

-


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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] Applicable SAR standard for a VoIP GSM Gateway

[Michael Derby]

Hi Michael,

 

Those standards look reasonable.   Sometimes it is possible that more than
one standard could apply.

 

I would recommend this TGN document for good European RF Exposure
guidance…..

 

http://www.rtteca.com/TGN%2017%20Version%203%20Update%20February%202014.pdf

 

 

Michael.

 

Michael Derby

Senior Regulatory Engineer

Director

ACB Europe

 

From: Michael Loerzer [mailto:loerzer_mob...@globalnorm.de] 
Sent: 05 September 2014 15:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Applicable SAR standard for a VoIP GSM Gateway

 

Hi,

 

regarding health and safety requirements required by R&TTED 1999/5/EC:

 

Is compliance with EN 50385 or EN 62311 required?

 

 

Best regards

 

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer

Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

 

Globalnorm GmbH

Kurfürstenstr. 112

10787 Berlin

 

Phone +49 30 3229027-51

Cell +49 170 3229027

Fax +49 30 3229027-59

Mail 
michael.loer...@globalnorm.de

 

  » globalnorm.de

  » Jetzt anmelden zum
GLOBALNORM Product Compliance Newsletter.

 

Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin

Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer

Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

 

-


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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Ted Eckert]

I'm curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of 
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have 
trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its 
transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my 
phone's battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of 
this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve 
their phone.



Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don't turn off their 
phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your 
phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used.



On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some 
relation to the subject at hand.



http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/



Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link.



http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



In message 
<20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>,
 dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Doug Powell 
mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> writes:



>Ah yes,

>

>But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much

>attenuation at all frequencies?



I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically 
strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid 
shield.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



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



For help, send mail to the list administrators:

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Kunde, Brian]

Many years ago while employed by a different company we had one of our products 
surveillance tested at a national test lab in another country. Our product 
failed radiated emissions by 2db. They said that because this was within their 
Measurement Uncertainty of 4.5db that they could not fail it and it was ok.

Is this pass/fail criteria common practice during surveillance testing?

So if you originally passed by more than the measurement uncertainty and you 
can later fail during surveillance testing by the measurement uncertainty then 
you have an 8-9 db window, which most products should pass.

The Other Brian


Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: "Allen, Chris"
Date:09/05/2014 11:39 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission


Hi Kris,



As long as the configuration that the customer / market surveillance authority 
has used is valid and representative of use and tested according to the 
standard I don't think you will have a leg to stand on.



Have a look at Whereas: (17) in the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC. It states the 
following:



" the electromagnetic compatibility assessment should confirm whether the 
apparatus meets the protection requirements in the configurations foreseeable 
by the manufacturer as representative of normal use in the intended 
applications; in such cases it should be sufficient to perform an assessment on 
the basis of the configuration most likely to cause maximum disturbance and the 
configuration most susceptible to disturbance".



It is the manufacturer's job to determine what the worst case representative 
configuration is.



Thanks,

Chris.



-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: 05 September 2014 15:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission



Hi group,



A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.

I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.



That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.

Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.



So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.



Any other thoughts?



Best regards,

Kris Carpentier



-



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



For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas 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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
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>>


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information int

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[dward]

unlikely

Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 6:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

Ah yes,

But can ‎coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much attenuation at 
all frequencies? 


Thanks, - doug

Douglas Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
  Original Message
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

In message <20140905132845.6037649.80805.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 
2014, Doug Powell  writes:

>100 dB is pretty impressive.

It's a matter of a very fine, interlocked weave.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[dward]

One of the reasons, many years ago, that a 'standard' setup was determined in 
both CISPR and ANSI standards was to relieve the never ending always present 
constant manipulation of cables and equipment.  While the EUT is to be 
operating in a typical use scenario, the setup should be as depicted in the 
standard.  This includes cables being bundled correctly, draped correctly and 
arranged on the test table correctly.  Variation of this setup goes back to the 
1980s when the constant equipment variations.  Let's not go back there.


Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

[PSES] UN ECE R10 Regulation No. 10 Labelling Requirements

[John McAuley]

All

 

Many regulations allow for the regulatory marks to be applied to
accompanying documentation or packaging when the item is too small.

 

There does not appear to be any guidance in this respect in UN ECE R10 for
EMC. 

 

 



 

 

The manufacturer does not think that the exclusion for electrical/electronic
systems built into vehicles applies to his product.

 

Has anyone any experience of derogations in this respect?

 

Thanks

 

John McAuley

 

DISCLAIMER:   The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential
and is intended solely for the use of the named addressee.  Access, copying
or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other
person is not authorised.  If you are not the intended recipient please
notify us immediately by returning the e-mail to the originator 

  _  

 

 


-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[jral...@productsafetyinc.com]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for the clarifications and status of the NRTL program.  And the link 
for updates!!

Have a nice weekend!

From: Kevin Robinson [mailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

Hi Brian,

You stated : "Do not understand the statement that components are not covered 
by NRTL program, as the standards list does include component standards: 
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/list_standards.html"

In short, we know, and we are attempting to clean up that list to remove 
standards that should no longer be on there (or ones that never should have 
been added to the list that somehow were added).  The first of what will likely 
be many Federal Register notices dealing with the list of appropriate test 
standards:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=OSHA-2013-0012-0004 . 
 Many standards that could be considered component only standards do apply in 
some instances to end products (ex. motors, transformers etc.).  Internally, it 
is a discussion that we have all the time, and we do receive comments that 
recommend the addition or deletion of test standards.

Kevin Robinson
Electrical Engineer & Senior Assessor
OSHA NRTL Program
robinson.ke...@dol.gov
202-693-1911

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Brian Oconnell 
mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com>> wrote:
As previously stated to Mr. Robinson, the industrial compliance engineering 
community very much appreciates his support of our concerns and ideas. Good 
people, this is our chance to provide some relevant industry comments. For 
example, for some product classes the default factory FUS audit interval should 
be no more than twice per year where the site has not received any variation 
notices, and there are no new product classes added to production. NRTLs should 
not be allowed to use the factory audit system as a profit center. Many other 
ideas, so let us write (link in below message).

Do not understand the statement that components are not covered by NRTL 
program, as the standards list does include component standards: 
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/list_standards.html
Perhaps there are differences in implementation. Note that a few AHJs will 
actually look up a component's 'recognition' to see if the scoped standard was 
on the NRTL list.

Brian


From: Kevin Robinson 
[mailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 12:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue
I do want to chime in here on a few issues to stop any misconceptions about the 
NRTL program.  First a disclaimer, in my former life, I worked for an NRTL, I 
now work for OSHA in the office that oversees the NRTL program.
The NRTL Program applies ONLY to end products used in the workplace.  It does 
not apply to component power supplies, plastic materials used to make 
enclosures, transformers, switches etc. that are used to make up end products.  
OSHA has no authority to regulate components (as they typically can't be used 
in the workplace alone), and as a result, components are not covered under the 
NRTL Program.  It is true that many organizations recognized by OSHA as NRTLs 
do issue certifications on components, however, they are doing so outside of 
their NRTL scope of recognition, and OSHA does not oversee the activities that 
an organization we recognize does with respect to components.  A common 
complaint that I hear is the policies of some NRTLs as to the acceptance of 
component recognitions.  As the NRTL program does not cover components, and 
OSHA has no authority to require one NRTL to accept component recognition from 
another NRTL (that authority lies with other Federal agencies !
 if the policies are determined to be anti-competitive).

With that said, OSHA and the NRTL Program do recognize the importance that 
component recognitions play in product safety certifications, and we do allow 
NRTLs to accept component certifications from another NRTL provided they can 
demonstrate that they have reviewed the component certification documents to 
ensure that the component is being properly used, and that the organization 
that granted the certification had the specific standard in their NRTL scope.

As for mutual recognition of one NRTL's certification for an end product, 
again, OSHA does not have the authority to require one NRTL to accept 
certifications from another NRTL.  We do allow this, and we have established 
some guidelines if an NRTL does accept certifications from another NRTL, but we 
can not require an NRTL to do this.  Fortunately, it is very rare when an end 
product certified by NRTL #1 is then submitted to NRTL #2.

John Tyra was sharing his experiences when working

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Allen, Chris]

Hi Kris,



As long as the configuration that the customer / market surveillance authority 
has used is valid and representative of use and tested according to the 
standard I don't think you will have a leg to stand on.



Have a look at Whereas: (17) in the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC. It states the 
following:



" the electromagnetic compatibility assessment should confirm whether the 
apparatus meets the protection requirements in the configurations foreseeable 
by the manufacturer as representative of normal use in the intended 
applications; in such cases it should be sufficient to perform an assessment on 
the basis of the configuration most likely to cause maximum disturbance and the 
configuration most susceptible to disturbance".



It is the manufacturer's job to determine what the worst case representative 
configuration is.



Thanks,

Chris.



-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: 05 September 2014 15:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission



Hi group,



A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.

I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.



That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.

Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.



So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.



Any other thoughts?



Best regards,

Kris Carpentier



-



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



For help, send mail to the list administrators:

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Hi Doug,

Assuming both labs are qualified as you say, you also make the assumption that 
the 2nd lab has full knowledge about the setup of the EUT. And that's exactly 
the problem. That 2nd lab doesn't know and thus results may be different, even 
fail, due to the relative positions of the EUT and all its cabling, sending 
other kind of traffic, etc
If the 2nd lab has the report of the first, then results would be more or less 
the same.

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: vrijdag 5 september 2014 17:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

Kris,

The test standards describe a standardized setup of the environmental 
conditions, the test equipment, the field calibrations and the UUT, all 
described in enough detail to be able to duplicate the setup at a later time.  
This is supposed to ensure that testing at another qualified lab, following the 
same rules, gets similar results.

I have had customers attempt ad hoc setups in an uncontrolled factory 
environment, which failed miserably (often poor grounding). Usually an 
explanation about the level of rigor involved is enough.  If not, it should be 
explained that for customers performing in situ evaluations they should be 
concerned about non-interference rather than getting below a certain limit.

Opinions only, ~ Doug



On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Macy 
mailto:m...@basicisp.net>> wrote:
It is my understanding that what you say is correct. From memory, PROVING 
something complies is different than VERIFYING something complies. For example, 
as a customer, or a monitoring entity, when 'verifying'; you are allowed a 
single tone over the limit, because statistically that can just happen. BUT if 
you are PROVING compliance and using a single unit, you should have at least 
2.6dB margin to the limit. And testing 3 units, be less than the limit. Isn't 
that from the VDE standards years ago?



--- 
kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com
 wrote:

From: Carpentier Kristiaan 
mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com>>
To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:35:44 +

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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

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



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
Skype: doug.powell52
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubs

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Doug Powell]

Kris,

The test standards describe a standardized setup of the environmental
conditions, the test equipment, the field calibrations and the UUT, all
described in enough detail to be able to duplicate the setup at a later
time.  This is supposed to ensure that testing at another qualified lab,
following the same rules, gets similar results.

I have had customers attempt ad hoc setups in an uncontrolled factory
environment, which failed miserably (often poor grounding). Usually an
explanation about the level of rigor involved is enough.  If not, it should
be explained that for customers performing in situ evaluations they should
be concerned about non-interference rather than getting below a certain
limit.

Opinions only, ~ Doug




On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Macy  wrote:

> It is my understanding that what you say is correct. From memory, PROVING
> something complies is different than VERIFYING something complies. For
> example, as a customer, or a monitoring entity, when 'verifying'; you are
> allowed a single tone over the limit, because statistically that can just
> happen. BUT if you are PROVING compliance and using a single unit, you
> should have at least 2.6dB margin to the limit. And testing 3 units, be
> less than the limit. Isn't that from the VDE standards years ago?
>
>
>
> --- kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com wrote:
>
> From: Carpentier Kristiaan 
> To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:35:44 +
>
> Hi group,
>
> A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined
> setup (cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and
> it passes.
> I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one
> and the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.
>
> That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market
> surveillance campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same
> set-up and results may fail.
> Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the
> same set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that
> states that the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc.
> to typical use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the
> report.
>
> So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not
> make it best case and describe everything in the report.
>
> Any other thoughts?
>
> Best regards,
> Kris Carpentier
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
>



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
Skype: doug.powell52
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Macy]

It is my understanding that what you say is correct. From memory, PROVING 
something complies is different than VERIFYING something complies. For example, 
as a customer, or a monitoring entity, when 'verifying'; you are allowed a 
single tone over the limit, because statistically that can just happen. BUT if 
you are PROVING compliance and using a single unit, you should have at least 
2.6dB margin to the limit. And testing 3 units, be less than the limit. Isn't 
that from the VDE standards years ago?



--- kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com wrote:

From: Carpentier Kristiaan 
To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 14:35:44 +

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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

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

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

[PSES] Applicable SAR standard for a VoIP GSM Gateway

[Michael Loerzer]

Hi,

 

regarding health and safety requirements required by R&TTED 1999/5/EC:

 

Is compliance with EN 50385 or EN 62311 required?

 

 

Best regards

 

Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer

Managing Director
Regulatory Affairs Specialist

 

Globalnorm GmbH

Kurfürstenstr. 112

10787 Berlin

 

Phone +49 30 3229027-51

Cell +49 170 3229027

Fax +49 30 3229027-59

Mail 
michael.loer...@globalnorm.de

 

  » globalnorm.de

  » Jetzt anmelden zum
GLOBALNORM Product Compliance Newsletter.

 

Globalnorm GmbH, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kurfürstenstr. 112, 10787 Berlin

Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Ing. Michael Loerzer

Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg HRB 105204 B, USt-ID-Nummer: DE251654448

 


-

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

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

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

[PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[John Woodgate]

In message <20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 
Sep 2014, Doug Powell  writes:



Ah yes,

But can 
coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much 
attenuation at all frequencies? 


I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be 
mechanically strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, 
with one solid shield.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[Binayak Marahatta]

Hello Sudhakar,

I am just trying to understand here. 

 India is CB Scheme member but it does not accept any CB test report and 
they also have in country test requirement using BIS standard instead 
i don't understand it . Please clarify the steps and process including 
advantage of using CB scheme in India for outside manufacturer / customer.


According to IECEE website"
The IECEE Certification Body (CB) Full Certification Scheme (CB-FCS) is an 
extension of the international IECEE CB Scheme and is an option to be 
exercised by the participants in the CB Scheme and by Applicants under the 
same IECEE management structure.

The CB-FCS is a Scheme based on the principle of mutual recognition of 
Conformity Assessment Certificates (CACs) and Conformity Assessment 
Reports (CARs) by its Members as the basis for approval or certification, 
at national level of products within the scope to the standards accepted 
for use in the IECEE System. "

http://www.iecee.org/cb_fcs/default.htm

Thank you.

Best regards,

Binayak 

www.kebamerica.com
Email: 
binayak.maraha...@kebamerica.com
Phone: 
Main Phone:  952-224-1400 

KEB products are Control Technology, Inverters, Converters, Servo systems, 
Frequency generators, Communication, EMC, Magnetic Technology, Motor and 
Gears, Elevator Technology, Medical Technology, Material Technology, 
Automotive etc. 
-

This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains confidential information 
that may be legally privileged and which is intended only for the 
addressee(s) named above. Any use by an unintended recipient is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the 
sender and delete it from your system.




From:   sudhakar wasnik <008dfaa51ca2-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:   09/04/2014 08:31 PM
Subject:Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue




India is a CB scheme member, However the " Mandatory (Compulsory) 
registration of ITE and A/V products is a national registration scheme. As 
it is the national scheme, India insist on in-country testing at BIS( 
Bureau of Indian Standards) certified labs.  The applicable standard is 
BIS ... and not IEC/EN 60950-1.

Best, 

Sudhakar 



On Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:02 PM, John Woodgate 
 wrote:


In message 

, dated Thu, 4 Sep 2014, "Tyra, John"  writes:

>India is a member if the CB scheme yet they will not accept CB 
>certifications and reports for the recent mandatory certification 
>scheme that was rolled out in that country. They insist they must do 
>complete retesting.
>
>There was a recent IECEE vote to suspend their membership in the CB 
>Scheme which I read recently failed so they are still a member so I am 
>not so sure it is an issue for an NCB to reject another NCB members 
>report.

But this is politics at work, not science and engineering.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
emc-p...@ieee.org>

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

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

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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 <
emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rule

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Doug Powell]

Ah yes,

But can ‎coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much attenuation at 
all frequencies? 


Thanks, - doug

Douglas Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01  
  Original Message  
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

In message <20140905132845.6037649.80805.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 
Sep 2014, Doug Powell  writes:

>100 dB is pretty impressive. 

It's a matter of a very fine, interlocked weave.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[John Woodgate]

In message <20140905132845.6037649.80805.13...@gmail.com>, dated Fri, 5 
Sep 2014, Doug Powell  writes:



100 dB is pretty impressive. 


It's a matter of a very fine, interlocked weave.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Doug Powell]

Wow,100 dB is pretty impressive. I have seen heavy drapery mean to set up a temporary shield room that was not that good.  And at one time a shield room I worked in had about 103 dB shielding effectiveness at 3GHz, with all steel walls and EMI gasketed seams.  Thanks, - dougDouglas Powellhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01    From: Anthony ThomsonSent: Friday, September 5, 2014 2:34 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: Anthony ThomsonSubject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.
Hi Doug,

 

If you cut through the hype, and follow the clues (the pocket claims 100dB attenuation) you arrive here:

http://www.aaronia.com/products/shielding-screening/Aaronia-X-Dream-100dB-shielding-fleece/

 

I only spent 2 minutes looking, there are likely to be other similar products.

 

Regards,

Tony

 

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 at 2:01 AM
From: "Doug Powell" 
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



‎All,

 

This is probably a curiosity. I ran across this article that claims to shield cell phones from hackers at specific operating frequencies.

 

‎http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/04/1984-anti-surveillance-fashion/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi

 

Has anyone here ‎had experience with this fabric and does it actually work?

 

Thanks, - doug

Douglas Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 
-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[John Woodgate]

In message <54097f7a.3030...@earthlink.net>, dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, CR 
 writes:



Pay for three approvals and use the one that's granted?  Ouch!


Yes, that's a danger; some test houses (not in USA, of course) would see 
a commercial advantage in being a bit lax, so more clients would come 
away satisfied, and return many times. On the other hand, another test 
house could rapidly develop a reputation for being very strict, and 
potential clients would be warned off.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Caution to those who live outside of California and got there on business!!! (Don't)

[CR]

On 9/2/2014 8:21 PM, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:

So if my employer who is not CA based but does have other direct employees in 
CA, sends me to CA for a few days to work, they have to take out the CA income 
tax too?

Seems like CA has put up a big closed for business sign.



Could be worse. Imagine California deciding to tax those portions of 
Social Security and pension income earned while having worked in 
California...



Cortland

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Battery certification issue

[CR]

On 9/4/2014 1:09 PM, Richard Nute wrote:

They use the argument that the NRTL must KNOW that the
equipment is safe through their own measurements.  They
cannot be held responsible for tests that are done by
another NRTL. 


Or liable for another's.Pay for three approvals and use the one 
that's granted?  Ouch!



Cortland

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables - a conundrum

[John Woodgate]

In message 
, dated 
Fri, 5 Sep 2014, "Pawson, James"  writes:


But John, HDMI uses a differential signalling interface which is known 
to provide low emissions!  8-)


Oh, right. So no ferrites are actually necessary, ever.

Seriously, two things:

1. If there is a shield and it's not terminated properly (keeping the 
impedance low), it can radiate stuff that comes from the grounds of the 
equipment, perhaps nothing to do with the HDMI interface itself.


2. There is/was an astonishing amount of 'don't know' about differential 
interfaces, even, apparently in some EMC standards committees, and it 
hasn't entirely gone away yet. The main point is that a signal may start 
off differential, but any impedance discontinuity in the cable or at its 
end converts some of the signal to common mode. It doesn't need much of 
a discontinuity to produce enough common-mode current to challenge the 
emission limits.


A 'pigtailed' shield can present a sufficient impedance discontinuity. 
The cable need to be treated as a 3-wire transmission line. The theory 
of 3-wire lines has already been worked out, it's nothing new.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Anthony Thomson]

Hi Doug,

 

If you cut through the hype, and follow the clues (the pocket claims 100dB attenuation) you arrive here:

http://www.aaronia.com/products/shielding-screening/Aaronia-X-Dream-100dB-shielding-fleece/

 

I only spent 2 minutes looking, there are likely to be other similar products.

 

Regards,

Tony

 

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 at 2:01 AM
From: "Doug Powell" 
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



‎All,

 

This is probably a curiosity. I ran across this article that claims to shield cell phones from hackers at specific operating frequencies.

 

‎http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/04/1984-anti-surveillance-fashion/?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget&ncid=rss_semi

 

Has anyone here ‎had experience with this fabric and does it actually work?

 

Thanks, - doug

Douglas Powell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 
-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables - a conundrum

[Pawson, James]

But John, HDMI uses a differential signalling interface which is known to 
provide low emissions!  8-)

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: 04 September 2014 19:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables - a conundrum

In message
<63e38a5b081437478c77651f3d56c64f580a3...@orsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com>,
dated Thu, 4 Sep 2014, "Pettit, Ghery"  writes:

>The problem with HDMI cables is that the HDMI standards for the cables 
>do not specify that the shields be terminated.

Is anyone complaining to HDMI about that? It seems incredible, considering the 
status of the consortium companies that developed the interface, that the EMC 
issue was not treated in depth. Even if shielding was deemed optional (why?), 
at least the termination of shielding could have been specified.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

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

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