Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Monrad Monsen]

Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.

The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their 
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers.  We did 
ESD, voltage dips & interrupts, and shock & vibration testing on our 
products long before Europe came up with immunity requirements.  Had 
studies been done on typical surges seen at customer sites along with 
developing surge test equipment, we would have done surge testing as 
well even without a regulatory requirement.


What did regulation add? We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m, 
but I have never seen a product fail this testing at this low level.  
Instead, this testing is an overhead cost to products that may have 
small changes that would not be impacted by this particular test.  In 
actuality, our company chooses to add radiated immunity test 
requirements at 12V/m level at spot frequencies in wireless bands.  
Again, why do we do this?  Do ensure our products do well at customer 
sites and to maintain our corporate reputation.  However, it is best to 
allow the manufacturer/designer to focus efforts and cost to areas that 
benefit the customer the most ... so costs can be controlled for the 
customer (the customer ultimately pays for development work done on the 
product).


Hate to say it in this discussion list, but most reliability is gained 
by having good functional testing of the code and Beta testing.  We have 
to be careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  Today, the 
standards committees are going beyond the original intent (reduce 
interference by mandating emissions limits) and now are trying to become 
too scientific about the exact measurement uncertainty and careful 
characterization of the nonconductive table, etc.  All of this is 
occurring even though the number of FCC interference complaints per year 
has dropped to almost non-existent.   Also, I never see any electrical 
fast transient (EFT) failures at the European mandated levels.  We 
already re-use the many of the same power supply designs and filter 
designs for many generations of products. In our case, the EFT test is a 
waste of time for most product releases, but we have to complete the 
record because of a regulatory burden (not just Europe, but now for 
South Korea).   My point is ... don't add unnecessary test cost burden.  
Let the manufacturer focus development and test time on what is of value 
to the customer.


I happen to be involved in the international standards committees 
because the main thing we want is consistency so the same product can be 
sold worldwide.  The ultimate goal should be one standard, one test, one 
mark, and worldwide acceptance.  Personally, I would prefer that FCC 
drop all use of ANSI standards and strictly adopt the international 
emissions standard.  I certainly don't want FCC to add immunity 
requirements.


Please remember that customers are smarter than some in government give 
them credit for.  They know that they get what they pay for. If they 
purchase from a solid known brand, they may pay more but they will get a 
reliable product that will last them for years to come.  However, no one 
in India would want to pay double the price for a printer compared to 
the price the same printer is offered in USA ... but India's government 
that almost mandates in-country testing forces this kind of higher 
pricing in their country. Regulation strikes again.


Research -- yes.
Regulation -- no. (Exceptions may be for a valid safety concern for 
customer or excessive interference potential neighbors.)


Monrad
Note:  All opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own and are not 
necessarily those of any company I work for or have worked for.


On 9/15/2015 1:32 PM, Rodney Davis wrote:


How many big companies survive if their only market is USA.  Pretty 
safe to say almost all major players have a European, and other 
regions of export and hence though not specifically requiring 55024 
most product sold I think would be safe to say meet immunity.



Too expensive to have a fully approved variant and a second variant 
 approved for NA.





*From:* dward 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it 
as impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be. This 
includes EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the 
idea that personal safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work 
in a socialist type environment, but not in here.


Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from 
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive 
use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that 
is 

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ted Eckert]

Let me add yet another point of view.

In the United States and Canada, the step-down transformer that serves any give 
house may only supply 5 - 12 other houses. Residential and commercial customers 
are on separate transformers. Even in the denser cities, it is unlikely that 
any commercial or industrial equipment will be connected directly to mains that 
supply residential customers. This reduces the likelihood of transients from 
industrial equipment affecting consumer equipment. In Europe, there are many 
places where commercial and residential customers share a connection. The 
consumer equipment will be more directly affected by transients from industrial 
equipment. There is a similar difference that could explain why radiated 
immunity is not required in North America. Consumer products are typically 
further from noise sources.

That said, I don't see a difference for ESD or lightning surges. However, it is 
possible that there just are fewer cases of interference in North America 
because of the different ways we build cities and power grids.

This is just my theory, but I would expect that if interference were a problem 
in the United States, we would hear more people complaining about it. If there 
is one thing Americans like to do, it is to complain. They are even happier if 
they can blame somebody else for a problem. As such, I am taking the lack of 
visible complaints for a possible lack of the problem of interference.

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.

From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.

The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their 
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers.  We did ESD, 
voltage dips & interrupts, and shock & vibration testing on our products long 
before Europe came up with immunity requirements.  Had studies been done on 
typical surges seen at customer sites along with developing surge test 
equipment, we would have done surge testing as well even without a regulatory 
requirement.

What did regulation add? We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m, but I 
have never seen a product fail this testing at this low level.  Instead, this 
testing is an overhead cost to products that may have small changes that would 
not be impacted by this particular test.  In actuality, our company chooses to 
add radiated immunity test requirements at 12V/m level at spot frequencies in 
wireless bands.  Again, why do we do this?  Do ensure our products do well at 
customer sites and to maintain our corporate reputation.  However, it is best 
to allow the manufacturer/designer to focus efforts and cost to areas that 
benefit the customer the most ... so costs can be controlled for the customer 
(the customer ultimately pays for development work done on the product).

Hate to say it in this discussion list, but most reliability is gained by 
having good functional testing of the code and Beta testing.  We have to be 
careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  Today, the standards 
committees are going beyond the original intent (reduce interference by 
mandating emissions limits) and now are trying to become too scientific about 
the exact measurement uncertainty and careful characterization of the 
nonconductive table, etc.  All of this is occurring even though the number of 
FCC interference complaints per year has dropped to almost non-existent.   
Also, I never see any electrical fast transient (EFT) failures at the European 
mandated levels.  We already re-use the many of the same power supply designs 
and filter designs for many generations of products. In our case, the EFT test 
is a waste of time for most product releases, but we have to complete the 
record because of a regulatory burden (not just Europe, but now for South 
Korea).   My point is ... don't add unnecessary test cost burden.  Let the 
manufacturer focus development and test time on what is of value to the 
customer.

I happen to be involved in the international standards committees because the 
main thing we want is consistency so the same product can be sold worldwide.  
The ultimate goal should be one standard, one test, one mark, and worldwide 
acceptance.  Personally, I would prefer that FCC drop all use of ANSI standards 
and strictly adopt the international emissions standard.  I certainly don't 
want FCC to add immunity requirements.

Please remember that customers are smarter than some in government give them 
credit for.  They know that they get what they pay for.  If they purchase from 
a solid known brand, they may pay more but they will get a reliable product 

Re: [PSES] Getting 2 emails for many posts on the forum - is it just me?

[John Woodgate]

In message <009b01d0ef5d$a6273a10$f275ae30$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 
2015, Ed Price  writes:



Probably much further than 111 million miles.

I?m very hopeful that any decent alien race will have finagled the 
speed of light limit.


They have, but as all decent SF stories tell us, it can't be finagled 
this far down the Sun's gravity well.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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 Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Robert Dunkerley]

>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 
>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 
>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)

Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of 
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.
--


Where does it give the definition of a 'screened port' for use with EMC 
standards? For example, would a coax bnc type cable meet this requirement, as 
long as it had a 'braided screen' as opposed to foil?

Just a little confused, as this exemption would seem to cover the majority of 
signal cables.
---
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 
2015, Ed Price  writes:


True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 
1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. 
We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.


It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC 
committees on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the 
Convenership of one.


Immunity is for other people, right?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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 Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

Ravinder

 

W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean
counting for the US market!) L

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the
cost becomes the key driver.

 

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of
these countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are
designed to meet these requirements. 

 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

 

My personal view.

 

Regards

 

Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

  ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com

 

 

5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

  www.hgst.com

 

-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [ 
mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation.
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out
of 10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

 

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as
any other functional specification but whether it's done through
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ 
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < 
009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price <
 edpr...@cox.net> writes:

 

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC
committees on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the
Convenership of one.

 

Immunity is for other people, right?just

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
 www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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:

 

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-
2Dpstc.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz
4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=t7oXi6LZLk9Q
UYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8= 

 

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_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z
1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lV
A_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok=  can be used for 

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Brian O'Connell]

A significant portion of 'white' gear appliance equipment, made and sold in 
North America, does not meet any basic stuff in CISPR14.2, but agree that most 
of the ITE/AV/industrial stuff has been tested and certified per the EMC or 
RTTE directives.

Should be noted that some of the appliance safety standards indirectly require 
immunity.

The expectation of a North American-based global corporation to self-regulate 
is not unreasonable. My employer is a supplier to several F500 companies, and 
their level of product control and testing indicates that they are interested 
in both controlling costs and controlling product reliability.

Where most large western companies lose control in their pursuit of the bottom 
line is at their Asian or Latin American factories where any number of unknown 
shenanigans routinely occur. A good design does not always survive the 
factory...

Per the OP, the few products with a USB port were taken to a MS461 lab where 
RS/CS gurus live. They have saved our bacon more than once (mmm, bacon).

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

My personal view.

Regards

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital company
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com


5601 Great Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95119
www.hgst.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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as 
impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes 
EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal 
safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type 
environment, but not in here.  

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended 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.

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Ravinder

 

W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier 
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what 
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean 
counting for the US market!) :(

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

 

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

 

My personal view.

 

Regards

 

Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

  ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com

 

 

5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

  www.hgst.com

 

-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [  
mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

 

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [  
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message <  
009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price < 
 edpr...@cox.net> writes:

 

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

 

Immunity is for other people, right?just

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See   
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering 

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

I think it's also interesting and significant that many industries - and
certainly many sections of the telecomms and IT industries - have to specify
their own immunity requirements to ensure that the kit will work correctly
in the end-use environments, but that probably leads to
duplications/variations in those requirements (as is also true in the
various regional/national Defence EMC requirements - but even that is slowly
changing towards common requirements throughout NATO) , and is something
which I find quite astonishing for such a large and technologically-advanced
country. 

 

That in turn probably leads to higher overall costs, whereas, were there to
be common mandatory requirements, then fewer tests would be required i.e.
"one size fits all" as is pretty much the case in the EU and other regions
with common technical requirements - OTOH, maybe this is a crafty "hidden
barrier to trade" which does not break the WTO rules and helps knowledgeable
US manufacturers in their own backyards!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 03:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Gary:

 

True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 1934
in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren't so important anymore, while
the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. We expect our laws
and regulations to evolve to address the important issues of the day,
junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

Immunity problems may manifest themselves as product quality issues (fitness
for use, truth in advertising) or safety issues (inadvertant activation,
erratic reliability, failure to respond), so maybe the FCC shouldn't be the
lead agency. OTOH, immunity control is technically so closely related with
established FCC emission regulations (and our industry that helps enforce
them) that I don't see it making any sense to get another authority
involved. Agency cooperation isn't unheard of; for example, the FCC and FAA
share requirements for radio tower marking, lighting and location.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a
far different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions
coming from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be
detrimental to the public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They
were never set up or intended to protect the general public - even the CB
and Ham radio stuff was to protect the public communications and not our
neighbors TV. Although proper design, frequency allocation and usage would
cut down on that type of interference. They do mention immunity but only in
so much as to let you know that properly operating public communications
equipment could cause problems - and the consumer should deal with it
because the FCC has no authority to mandate it for non- public
telecommunications equipment. 

 

Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the
minute I suppose.

 

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ 
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM

To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message

, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis <
 rodney.da...@mitel.com>

writes:

 

>Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section

>15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for 

>reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

 

Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough'
without immunity standards?

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
 www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated 
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley  writes:


Where does it give the definition of a 'screened port' for use with EMC 
standards?


In EN 555103-2 itself.

For example, would a coax bnc type cable meet this requirement, as long 
as it had a 'braided screen' as opposed to foil?


Yes, if the connector variant is suitable for the cable and is assembled 
correctly. Using a cable with a BNC having a bush with a too-large 
internal diameter and/or an incompatible internal construction would not 
comply. There must be a reliable 360 degree screen to connector body 
contact.


Just a little confused, as this exemption would seem to cover the 
majority of signal cables.


Braided screens are much less common that they used to be. There are 
many more foil screens with drain wires. But the requirements also 
include very low-inductance terminations of the screen to the connector 
at both ends.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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 Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other people, right?just
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=t7oXi6LZLk9QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8=
 

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_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lVA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok=
  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_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=MBC-PWkSTEdeV_H3SE5E5EPsKwSScsy8M4MdESoVsWI=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=LjdwUv5zHYB3ySMXNcEZdm5qwGtHal09S1fn1PyFDE8=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=tT_yY90TkyzdkSVMHn2qyiXL4O15CdyApX6TfWVVI9Y=
 

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 Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ravinder Ajmani]

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

My personal view.

Regards

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital company
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com


5601 Great Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95119
www.hgst.com

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other people, right?just
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 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:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=t7oXi6LZLk9QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8=
 

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_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lVA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok=
  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_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=MBC-PWkSTEdeV_H3SE5E5EPsKwSScsy8M4MdESoVsWI=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=LjdwUv5zHYB3ySMXNcEZdm5qwGtHal09S1fn1PyFDE8=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=tT_yY90TkyzdkSVMHn2qyiXL4O15CdyApX6TfWVVI9Y=
 

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<615de2313b58495c8b21dea995bda...@s-ais-exch01-13.esterline.net>, dated 
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Gary McInturff  writes:


Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. 
A business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit 
without justification - poor product performance, competitive 
advantage, regulation.


But therein lies an anomaly. Those US experts are employed to help write 
immunity standards by the businesses you say, correctly in many cases, 
do not favour anything that might increase total product cost. (Immunity 
doesn't add much to the hardware cost of a good design, but immunity 
testing is an additional cost.)


Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure 
out of 10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one 
etc.


ESD is a special case; immunity to radiated RF is a more tractable 
phenomenon.


My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as 
important as any other functional specification but whether it's done 
through self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny 
question.


Agreed in principle; this is a universal question. Consider 
self-enforcement of speed limits, or homicide.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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 Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Rodney Davis]

How many big companies survive if their only market is USA.  Pretty safe to say 
almost all major players have a European, and other regions of export and hence 
though not specifically requiring 55024 most product sold I think would be safe 
to say meet immunity.


Too expensive to have a fully approved variant and a second variant  approved 
for NA.




From: dward 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question


As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as 
impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes 
EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal 
safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type 
environment, but not in here.





Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended 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.



From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Ravinder



W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier 
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what 
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean 
counting for the US market!) :(



John Allen

W.London, UK



-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.



However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements.



The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.



My personal view.



Regards



Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com





5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

www.hgst.com



-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.



My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.



-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message 
<009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>,
 dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price > 
writes:



>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.



It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and 

[PSES] Yankee politics and enginering, was RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Brian O'Connell]

Good People,

Some background of the political environment for Yankee engineering. 

Europeans expect to get their technical and philosophical sensibilities 
returned from their states. Their assumption is valid more oft than not because 
the state is small and the bureaucracy is relatively responsive and somewhat 
competent. Also, the executive of most EU states respond to the electorate as 
only parliamentary systems may (note the recent and rapid changes in Australia 
and UK). 

The American electorate, which is not necessarily the constituency , is insular 
and is loath to listen to the technical specialist. The technocracy does not 
trust the politicos, the politico thinks her constituency is ignorant and at 
times will intentionally misinform her constituency , and the constituency 
cannot afford to grant any significant level trust to anyone. And since there 
is no legitimate remaining 'Fourth Estate' in America, the ability of any group 
to discern and afford trust to any other group is limited.

Americans cannot assume that the state is able to competently administer and 
implement; so any extension of technology regulations are greeted with caution 
and mistrust.

Other than that, things are great - the local ales are damn good, and the 
burritos are most excellent.

Brian

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as 
impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes 
EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal 
safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type 
environment, but not in here.  


​
Dennis Ward

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Ravinder

W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier 
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what 
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean 
counting for the US market!) ☹

John Allen
W.London, UK

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

My personal view.

Regards

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital company
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com


5601 Great Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95119
www.hgst.com

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other 

Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

[Brian O'Connell]

If you have nothing between the p/s and mains, and you cannot detect any 
surges, and there are no similar operating conditions for the failed units, 
then:

1. have QC look at all of the component PCNs.
2. audit factory ESD from component receiving to final test and packing.
3. audit all internal ECNs for changes to control circuit and layout.

Recommend three immediate p/s comparative tests to see is something changed 
from old to new stuff
1. efficiency.
2. waveforms on the main switch(s) (g/s and g/d) during turn-on and load-steps.
3. conducted emissions.

Brian

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Our company's Service Department provides monthly field repair reports to our 
R department who looks for patterns and high fallout of components. Over the 
last 6 to 12 months, we have noticed a high fallout of Power Supplies in the 
United States. However, we have not been able to find the reason for the 
fallout. The power supplies have all shown arc damage to the AC front end, 
signs of arcing and traces burned or vaporized, blown fuses, and shorted FETs 
and/or Rectifiers. These failures have occurred on several different locations, 
on different power supply models, different manufactures and on different 
instruments. Some instruments have been in service for years; some for only a 
few weeks before they fail. Some instruments even have surge suppression 
modules installed and though the power supplies fail the surge modules tested 
out fine. The failures did not occur during any known lightning storm or any 
other known transient. Very strange.

Of those of you who read these emails, have you experienced an unusual increase 
in such field failures in the last year? 

Anyone have an idea of what might be causing this increase?

We test our products and power supplies to the IEC 61000-4-4 and 4-5 fast 
transient and surge immunity tests. We actually test beyond what is required 
for CE in Europe (often to the limit of our test equipment which is 5kV) and we 
audit every family of products about once a year. We have performed additional 
testing of production power supplies of known models that have failed in the 
field yet no unusual problems have been found.  We also perform radiated and 
conducted RF immunity tests, ESD, voltage dips and dropouts, frequency 
variation testing, and harmonic and inter-harmonic immunity tests with no 
discernable problems found.

We have AC Line Analyzers running for months at several customer locations and 
have not detected any unusual transients or reason for the high fallout of 
power supplies.

Two weeks ago we had a power supply blow in one of our own labs on an 
instrument that had been running for several years. Two R engineers were sent 
over to investigate. They changed out the power supply and verified the 
instrument was running properly. As they turned to walk out of the room, POW!!, 
the power supply in the instrument next to the one they just fixed blew up. A 
power line analyzer has been running ever since but not unusual transients have 
been detected, yet. 

Are we missing something? Is there additional transient tests that we are not 
performing that we should be?  Is there something we should be looking for and 
are not? Has this last year been unusually bad for power grid problems, sun 
spots, alien transmissions, ??

We are stumped. Thanks for any advice and comments. 

The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. 
-

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

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 

Re: [PSES] Yankee politics and engineering, was RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ken Javor]

A cogent description of present USA gov't and societal dyslexia.

One other issue is that not all standards are levied and enforced by
government, nor need they be.

USB is a standard, so is Ethernet.  Televisions measure their picture
quality vs. rf input level performance against an EIA standard. Engine oil
viscosity is an SAE standard. There are thousands of industrial standards
for materials and processes.

It isn't obvious to me that if there existed a burning need for immunity
requirements, that it couldn't be done within the industry. Then if someone
fudged on it and claimed compliance when there wasn't any, it would become
an issue to be adjudicated in the (gov't) court system like any other fraud,
but without involvement of a gov't regulator.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Brian O'Connell 
> Reply-To: Brian O'Connell 
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:28:03 +
> To: 
> Conversation: Yankee politics and enginering, was RF Common Mode Immunity Test
> Question
> Subject: [PSES] Yankee politics and enginering, was RF Common Mode Immunity
> Test Question
> 
> Good People,
> 
> Some background of the political environment for Yankee engineering.
> 
> Europeans expect to get their technical and philosophical sensibilities
> returned from their states. Their assumption is valid more oft than not
> because the state is small and the bureaucracy is relatively responsive and
> somewhat competent. Also, the executive of most EU states respond to the
> electorate as only parliamentary systems may (note the recent and rapid
> changes in Australia and UK).
> 
> The American electorate, which is not necessarily the constituency , is
> insular and is loath to listen to the technical specialist. The technocracy
> does not trust the politicos, the politico thinks her constituency is ignorant
> and at times will intentionally misinform her constituency , and the
> constituency cannot afford to grant any significant level trust to anyone. And
> since there is no legitimate remaining 'Fourth Estate' in America, the ability
> of any group to discern and afford trust to any other group is limited.
> 
> Americans cannot assume that the state is able to competently administer and
> implement; so any extension of technology regulations are greeted with caution
> and mistrust.
> 
> Other than that, things are great - the local ales are damn good, and the
> burritos are most excellent.
> 
> Brian
> 
> From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:38 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
> 
> As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as
> impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes
> EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal
> safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type
> environment, but not in here. 
> 
> 
> ​
> Dennis Ward
> 
> From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
> 
> Ravinder
> 
> W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier
> post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what
> you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean
> counting for the US market!) ☹
> 
> John Allen
> W.London, UK
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
> Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
> 
> Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries
> self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect
> public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the
> cost becomes the key driver.
> 
> However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of
> these countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU
> regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed
> to meet these requirements.
> 
> The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC
> requirements, but now has fallen behind.
> 
> My personal view.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ravinder Ajmani
> HGST, a Western Digital company
> ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com
> 
> 
> 5601 Great Oaks Parkway
> San Jose, CA 95119
> www.hgst.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question
> 
> Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A
> business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost 

[PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

[Kunde, Brian]

Our company's Service Department provides monthly field repair reports to our 
R department who looks for patterns and high fallout of components. Over the 
last 6 to 12 months, we have noticed a high fallout of Power Supplies in the 
United States. However, we have not been able to find the reason for the 
fallout. The power supplies have all shown arc damage to the AC front end, 
signs of arcing and traces burned or vaporized, blown fuses, and shorted FETs 
and/or Rectifiers. These failures have occurred on several different locations, 
on different power supply models, different manufactures and on different 
instruments. Some instruments have been in service for years; some for only a 
few weeks before they fail. Some instruments even have surge suppression 
modules installed and though the power supplies fail the surge modules tested 
out fine. The failures did not occur during any known lightning storm or any 
other known transient. Very strange.

Of those of you who read these emails, have you experienced an unusual increase 
in such field failures in the last year?

Anyone have an idea of what might be causing this increase?

We test our products and power supplies to the IEC 61000-4-4 and 4-5 fast 
transient and surge immunity tests. We actually test beyond what is required 
for CE in Europe (often to the limit of our test equipment which is 5kV) and we 
audit every family of products about once a year. We have performed additional 
testing of production power supplies of known models that have failed in the 
field yet no unusual problems have been found.  We also perform radiated and 
conducted RF immunity tests, ESD, voltage dips and dropouts, frequency 
variation testing, and harmonic and inter-harmonic immunity tests with no 
discernable problems found.

We have AC Line Analyzers running for months at several customer locations and 
have not detected any unusual transients or reason for the high fallout of 
power supplies.

Two weeks ago we had a power supply blow in one of our own labs on an 
instrument that had been running for several years. Two R engineers were sent 
over to investigate. They changed out the power supply and verified the 
instrument was running properly. As they turned to walk out of the room, POW!!, 
the power supply in the instrument next to the one they just fixed blew up. A 
power line analyzer has been running ever since but not unusual transients have 
been detected, yet.

Are we missing something? Is there additional transient tests that we are not 
performing that we should be?  Is there something we should be looking for and 
are not? Has this last year been unusually bad for power grid problems, sun 
spots, alien transmissions, ??

We are stumped. Thanks for any advice and comments.

The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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


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] Yankee politics and enginering, was RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
, dated Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Brian O'Connell 
 writes:


Other than that, things are great - the local ales are damn good, and 
the burritos are most excellent.


But politics and political philosophy are off-topic. It is to be hoped 
that this list will not go the way of the newsgroup 
sci.electronics.design, which turned into an on-going political riot.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
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: