Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

I'll only add that the descriptions and examples in the 61000 generics are 
pretty clear.  Like everything else with EMC, there are shades of grey.
___ 


Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  | 
  Regulatory Compliance Engineering 




From:
"Ghery S. Pettit" 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
12/10/2015 09:15 AM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Ian,
 
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth 
exactly what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A 
environments.  They aren’t domestic environments.  Others may disagree, 
but that’s how I view it.
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Dear colleagues.
 
Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.
 
However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would 
be considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a 
range of products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that 
can be used in large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be 
useful. Obviously the “bedroom” product is easy to define but the products 
used in large auditoriums or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They 
are all powered from the same 13A ac socket as the “bedroom” product.  The 
old standard we used to apply i.e. EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the 
environments with some examples so helped to define which products were 
Class A or Class B. It would have been helpful if EN 55032 had a similar 
section.
 
Regards;
 
Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.
 
Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com
 
 
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But 
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects. 
 
1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical 
efficiency regulations to determine if scoped for a product.
2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product’s stated EMC 
limits to scope effective building/electrical code sections.
 
To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a 
margin well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A 
compliance. So Mr. Pettit’s assertion could be supported for these 
particular cases.
 
Brian
 
 
From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be 
as you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my 
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement 
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was 
because I worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn’t 
buy into that game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at 
least had a lot of influence on it, and I didn’t buy into that game.  But, 
the other major manufacturers that I dealt with also didn’t buy into it. 
So, please back up your assertions with data.
 
While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B 
shouldn’t be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken 
exception to it. 
 
I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being 
Class B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is 
not a new issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for 
products being sold into the European market.  A box which connected to 
the telecom network was Class B, but anything else in the system 
(mainframe) only had to meet Class A.  So, what was the environment in the 
machine room?  Class A, of course.  But, regulators had their 
requirements.  J
 
Ghery
 
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)
 
I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any 
form to be able to discuss this topic.
Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a 
clear image of the discussions in CISPR I
and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.
 
A simple division in Classes A and B (or Industrial versus residential or 
Domestic) cannot be s

Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Rodney Davis]

Some additional details are required to provide possibilities.

  *   is this gbit Ethernet or less?
  *   does this interface provide or accept 802.3 af/at power?
  *   is the product housed in a metal enclosure or plastic?
  *   are CM caps installed at the center taps and where are they terminated 
(line and load side)?
  *   is bob-smith termination used and what is the ground reference?

I have yet in my career actually witnessed any drop of packets or link due to 
immunity. I do Note you are testing 10V/m? Is this for an industrial 
application?


Rodney Davis


From: Joe Randolph 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails


I agree with the other responses that it is unusual for Ethernet to fail CM 
susceptibility at such low frequencies.  There is likely something wrong with 
either the test fixture or the design of the Ethernet interface circuit.



At one time it was allowable to use either a direct-injection CDN or an EM 
clamp to perform this test.  If you still have this option, try performing the 
test both ways.



Regarding the Ethernet interface circuit, your first line of defense is the 
common-mode capacitor(s) connected to the center taps of the Ethernet 
transformer windings.  Your description implies that you may have a so-called 
“mag jack” that places all the Ethernet magnetics inside the RJ-45 housing.  
These offer less flexibility with the common-mode capacitor(s) on the cable 
side, but they usually manage to pass the test.  Look carefully at what you 
have in the circuit to see if there are any obvious implementation errors.





Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

j...@randolph-telecom.com

http://www.randolph-telecom.com



From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails





Immunity problems with Ethernet normally are a CM-to-DM conversion problem

caused by bad symmetry somewhere.  (unless the interference takes place 
elsewhere

ie before the Ethernet chips)



Don’t expect much of ferrite in the frequencies below 80 Mhz.

Conducted immunity is injected out of 150 Ohms CM impedance, so

10-150 ohms of ferrite added impedance may reduce current up to

6 dB only.  Check the tables of ferrite CM impedance at the problem frequency.

Only big ferrites might impact the result, and they are not what you want.

Go for a better transformer set, and good symmetry in lay-out and termination 
impedances.

Are the 2 middle taps of the Ethernet ferrites been terminated correctly (at 
both sides)?



A CM choke (4/8 coils ) of 1 to 5 mH might give a solution.



Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager





+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing

+ Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---

This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and
delete the material from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.



From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Thursday 10 December 2015 10:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails



I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on 
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet 
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more 
recommended?

Re: [PSES] EN 61000-4-8 test for medical equipment per EN 60601-1-2

[Patrick]

Marina -
A new version of the standard is in process of being adopted, and this test
is one of the areas that is evolving.

Regarding power frequency magnetic fields:

1-The IEC 60601-1-2 {Edition 3} has no exceptions that I can find.

2-However, IEC 60601-1-2 {Edition 4} includes a note regarding power
frequency magnetic fields.
Table 4 of the {Edition 4} includes this note:
"d) Applies only to ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS with magnetically sensitive
components or circuitry."


Based on the above info, if a medical product is testing and declaring to
{Edition 4} then this exclusion is available.  Otherwise, the test is
required.

Hope this helps.
-Patrick

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:27 PM, MARINA PEYZNER 
wrote:

> Dear members.
>
> Does anybody can point me out the mandatory of request for Power Frequency
> Magnetic Field testing for medical equipment even if none magnetic
> sensitive elements are in the EUT ?
>
> If this test is a must regardless of existence or not these elements.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Rodney Davis]

Wow, funny how easy it is to forget what the discussion is about.. Ghery I 
agree with you. Complying to a standard means just that. Meeting the 
requirements of the standard which defines the criteria. Referring to normative 
and informative references does not change the scope or definition of the base 
standard.


So as long as someone does not build a dwelling at center field I agree the 
stadium would be considered Class A commercial environment...


Notwithstanding customers requirement which always over rules any law


Rodney Davis


From: Ghery S. Pettit 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment


The question is about CISPR 32 (EN 55032), not the generic standards.



From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:22 AM
To: 'Ghery S. Pettit'
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



I regret that the standards disagree with you. See the Scope clauses of IEC/EN 
61000-6-1 and -2.



With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, UK

www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

[http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/me.jpg]

Demon Internet - J. M. WOODGATE AND ASSOCIATES
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
J. M. WOODGATE AND ASSOCIATES . Electronics Design, Standards and Marketing 
Consultants. 3 Bramfield Road East, RAYLEIGH,Essex, SS6 8RG, England. J. M. 
Woodgate B.Sc ...





From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: 10 December 2015 16:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Ian,



I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth exactly 
what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A environments.  
They aren't domestic environments.  Others may disagree, but that's how I view 
it.

>

-


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


NOTE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential and/or 
protected by legal privilege. Any unauthorized review, use, copy, disclosure or 
distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify Mitel immediately and destroy all copies of this 
e-mail. Mitel does not accept any liability for breach of security, error or 
virus that may result from the transmission of this message.

-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Joe Randolph]

I agree with the other responses that it is unusual for Ethernet to fail CM 
susceptibility at such low frequencies.  There is likely something wrong with 
either the test fixture or the design of the Ethernet interface circuit.

 

At one time it was allowable to use either a direct-injection CDN or an EM 
clamp to perform this test.  If you still have this option, try performing the 
test both ways.

 

Regarding the Ethernet interface circuit, your first line of defense is the 
common-mode capacitor(s) connected to the center taps of the Ethernet 
transformer windings.  Your description implies that you may have a so-called 
“mag jack” that places all the Ethernet magnetics inside the RJ-45 housing.  
These offer less flexibility with the common-mode capacitor(s) on the cable 
side, but they usually manage to pass the test.  Look carefully at what you 
have in the circuit to see if there are any obvious implementation errors.

 

 

Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

  j...@randolph-telecom.com

  http://www.randolph-telecom.com

 

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

 

 

Immunity problems with Ethernet normally are a CM-to-DM conversion problem

caused by bad symmetry somewhere.  (unless the interference takes place 
elsewhere

ie before the Ethernet chips)

 

Don’t expect much of ferrite in the frequencies below 80 Mhz.

Conducted immunity is injected out of 150 Ohms CM impedance, so

10-150 ohms of ferrite added impedance may reduce current up to

6 dB only.  Check the tables of ferrite CM impedance at the problem frequency.

Only big ferrites might impact the result, and they are not what you want.

Go for a better transformer set, and good symmetry in lay-out and termination 
impedances.

Are the 2 middle taps of the Ethernet ferrites been terminated correctly (at 
both sides)?

 

A CM choke (4/8 coils ) of 1 to 5 mH might give a solution.

 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



 

+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing

+ Education

Web:www.cetest.nl   (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---

This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

 

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Thursday 10 December 2015 10:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

 

I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on 
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet 
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more 
recommended? 

 

Regards

Amund

 

 

-


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) 

Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Rodney Davis]

I caution you about using beads or chokes on Ethernet. Great risk of killing 
the eye at 100m thereby reducing the distance significantly.  You may want to 
complete some functional tests before wasting your time at an EMI lab.



Rodney Davis


From: Douglas Smith 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:08 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

How much did it fail by? You need to know this.

This test is often done in error by test labs resulting in a 6 dB over test. 
Make sure they are applying the current limit loophole that is allowed for many 
cases, often for Ethernet cables.

Be sure the failure is in your equipment not the aux equipment by making the 
injection probe directional.

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone:  408-858-4528
Office:702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org


On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:26, Amund Westin  wrote:

I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on 
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet 
by introducing ferrite beads? ... or is a Common Mode Choke Array more 
recommended?



Regards

Amund





-


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:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
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>>


NOTE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential and/or 
protected by legal privilege. Any unauthorized review, use, copy, disclosure or 
distribution of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please notify Mitel immediately and destroy all copies of this 
e-mail. Mitel does not accept any liability for breach of security, error or 
virus that may result from the transmission of this message.

-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Ghery S. Pettit]

The question is about CISPR 32 (EN 55032), not the generic standards.

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:22 AM
To: 'Ghery S. Pettit'
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

I regret that the standards disagree with you. See the Scope clauses of
IEC/EN 61000-6-1 and -2.

 

With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, UK

www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

 

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 10 December 2015 16:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Ian,

 

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth exactly
what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A environments.
They aren't domestic environments.  Others may disagree, but that's how I
view it.

> 


-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Brian O'Connell]

Do not disagree with this point, and the Klingon High Command has forbidden 
disagreement with Mr. Woodgate, for many a good reason of canon, there is this:

"This generic EMC immunity standard is applicable if no relevant dedicated 
product or
product-family EMC immunity standard exists."

It would be nice if the more common product family EMC standards had more 
explicit scope statements, and were separated like 6-1 and 6-2. 

Brian


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:22 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

I regret that the standards disagree with you. See the Scope clauses of IEC/EN 
61000-6-1 and -2.

With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, UK
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 10 December 2015 16:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Ian,

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth exactly 
what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A environments.  
They aren't domestic environments.  Others may disagree, but that's how I view 
it.
> 
-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Douglas Smith]

Dan is correct, but first make sure the lab did the test correctly, most do not
in my experience leading to often a 6 dB over test. When I have pointed this out
to test labs during testing, they always correct their testing when shown the
paragraph about the current limit.
After the test is run correctly. it may be the other side of the Ethernet that
is the problem instead of the EUT.
After these are exhausted, then look at your circuit as per Dan's excellent
suggestions.

Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 [tel:408-858-4528] Office: 
702-570-6108 [tel:702-570-6108] Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: 
http://dsmith.org

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 06:16, Dan Roman, N.C.E.  wrote:
Amund,
You did not mention if it was 100Base-T or Gigabit but I have found both to be
pretty robust in immunity testing. I would look first at what may be causing
what you have to lose communication rather than try to filter out common mode
currents. Because it is a differential interface a poorly constructed cable can
contribute to problems if the wires that make up the pairs are of considerably
different lengths. Same goes for the PCB routing, are the pairs treated as such
and very well constrained with each other in length and pair spacing? -- Dan 
Roman, N.C.E.
Senior Member, IEEE
IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org 
[dan.ro...@ieee.org] [http://www.ieee-pses.org/] http://www.ieee-pses.org 
[http://www.ieee-pses.org] On 12/10/15, Amund Westin 
wrote:I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1. Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2. The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted
by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more
recommended?



Regards

Amund





-

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 [emc-p...@ieee.org] >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
[http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html] http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
[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/] http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
[http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/] can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < sdoug...@ieee.org [sdoug...@ieee.org] >
Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org [mcantw...@ieee.org] >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher < j.bac...@ieee.org [j.bac...@ieee.org] >
David Heald < dhe...@gmail.com [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 < 
emc-p...@ieee.org [emc-p...@ieee.org] >

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
[http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html] http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
[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/] http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
[http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/] can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < sdoug...@ieee.org [sdoug...@ieee.org] >
Mike Cantwell < mcantw...@ieee.org [mcantw...@ieee.org] >

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
dis

Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[John Woodgate]

I regret that the standards disagree with you. See the Scope clauses of
IEC/EN 61000-6-1 and -2.
 
With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, UK
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 
From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 10 December 2015 16:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Ian,
 
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth exactly
what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A environments.
They aren't domestic environments.  Others may disagree, but that's how I
view it.
> 

-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Douglas Smith]

How much did it fail by? You need to know this.
This test is often done in error by test labs resulting in a 6 dB over test.
Make sure they are applying the current limit loophole that is allowed for many
cases, often for Ethernet cables.
Be sure the failure is in your equipment not the aux equipment by making the
injection probe directional.

Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 [tel:408-858-4528] Office: 
702-570-6108 [tel:702-570-6108] Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: 
http://dsmith.org

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:26, Amund Westin  wrote:
I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).



Possible actions:



1. Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)



2. The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted
by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.



Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more
recommended?







Regards



Amund

-

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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Douglas Smith]

Your option #2 may kill the Ethernet signal unless the beads are 4 or more
terminal common mode ones.

Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 [tel:408-858-4528] Office: 
702-570-6108 [tel:702-570-6108] Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: 
http://dsmith.org

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:26, Amund Westin  wrote:
I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).



Possible actions:



1. Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)



2. The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted
by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.



Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more
recommended?







Regards



Amund

-

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] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Ian,

 

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but in my opinion (worth exactly
what you are paying for it) these would be examples of Class A environments.
They aren't domestic environments.  Others may disagree, but that's how I
view it.

 

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Dear colleagues.

 

Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.

 

However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would be
considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a range of
products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that can be used
in large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be useful. Obviously
the "bedroom" product is easy to define but the products used in large
auditoriums or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They are all powered
from the same 13A ac socket as the "bedroom" product.  The old standard we
used to apply i.e. EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the environments with some
examples so helped to define which products were Class A or Class B. It
would have been helpful if EN 55032 had a similar section.

 

Regards;

 

Ian McBurney

Design & Compliance Engineer.

 

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial Estate,

Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK

T: 01326 372070

E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

 

 

From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects. 

 

1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical
efficiency regulations to determine if scoped for a product.

2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product's stated EMC limits
to scope effective building/electrical code sections.

 

To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a margin
well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A compliance. So
Mr. Pettit's assertion could be supported for these particular cases.

 

Brian

 

 

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be
as you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was because
I worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn't buy into
that game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at least had a lot
of influence on it, and I didn't buy into that game.  But, the other major
manufacturers that I dealt with also didn't buy into it.  So, please back up
your assertions with data.

 

While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B
shouldn't be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken
exception to it.  

 

I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being
Class B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is not
a new issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for
products being sold into the European market.  A box which connected to the
telecom network was Class B, but anything else in the system (mainframe)
only had to meet Class A.  So, what was the environment in the machine room?
Class A, of course.  But, regulators had their requirements.  J

 

Ghery

 

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)

 

I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any form
to be able to discuss this topic.

Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a
clear image of the discussions in CISPR I

and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.

 

A simple division in Classes A and B (or Industrial versus residential or
Domestic) cannot be seen as a regulatory statement. Division in classes is a
common thing within all standards and has nothing to do with regulatory
aspects. Different  test levels are defined for  different types of
equipment taking in consideration their targeted environment (being not
industrial or residential) . 

 

The European Commission's opinion on this subject is clear. EN standards
should create a separate set of limits for 2 classes

as described. The infamous Class A statement in CISPR22 ac

Re: [PSES] Test message

[McBurney, Ian]

Hello john;

I received your email today at 12:12 UK time.

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 10 December 2015 14:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Test message

I think my posts about EMC environments are not being reflected. Has anyone 
seen my quotes from the Scopes of 61000-6-1 and -2?

With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, 
UK www.jmwa.demon.co.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: 
Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.

-

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] Test message

[John Woodgate]

I think my posts about EMC environments are not being reflected. Has anyone
seen my quotes from the Scopes of 61000-6-1 and -2?

With best wishes. OOO - Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh, UK
www.jmwa.demon.co.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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Dan Roman, N.C.E.]

Amund,You did not mention if it was 100Base-T or Gigabit but I have found both to be pretty robust in immunity testing.  I would look first at what may be causing what you have to lose communication rather than try to filter out common mode currents.  Because it is a differential interface a poorly constructed cable can contribute to problems if the wires that make up the pairs are of considerably different lengths.  Same goes for the PCB routing, are the pairs treated as such and very well constrained with each other in length and pair spacing?  -- Dan Roman, N.C.E.Senior Member, IEEEIEEE Product Safety Engineering Societymailto:dan.ro...@ieee.orghttp://www.ieee-pses.org On 12/10/15, Amund Westin wrote: I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).Possible actions:1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more recommended?  RegardsAmund  -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-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.htmlFor 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] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Charlie Blackham]

Ian

You might want to look at definitions in CISPR 11 and cite those in your 
application of other emissions standards under the EMC Directive.

class A equipment
equipment suitable for use in all establishments other than domestic and those 
directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used for domestic
purposes

class B equipment
equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and in establishments 
directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used for domestic

CISPR 11 also defines:
Low voltage, LV
A set of voltage levels used for the distribution of electricity and whose 
upper limit is generally accepted to be 1000 V ac
[IEV 601-01-26:1985]

Regards
Charlie


From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: 10 December 2015 11:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Dear colleagues.

Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.

However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would be 
considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a range of 
products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that can be used in 
large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be useful. Obviously the 
"bedroom" product is easy to define but the products used in large auditoriums 
or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They are all powered from the same 
13A ac socket as the "bedroom" product.  The old standard we used to apply i.e. 
EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the environments with some examples so helped to 
define which products were Class A or Class B. It would have been helpful if EN 
55032 had a similar section.

Regards;

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But 
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects.


1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical efficiency 
regulations to determine if scoped for a product.

2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product's stated EMC limits to 
scope effective building/electrical code sections.

To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a margin 
well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A compliance. So Mr. 
Pettit's assertion could be supported for these particular cases.

Brian


From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be as 
you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my 
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement 
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was because I 
worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn't buy into that 
game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at least had a lot of 
influence on it, and I didn't buy into that game.  But, the other major 
manufacturers that I dealt with also didn't buy into it.  So, please back up 
your assertions with data.

While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B 
shouldn't be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken 
exception to it.

I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being Class 
B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is not a new 
issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for products being 
sold into the European market.  A box which connected to the telecom network 
was Class B, but anything else in the system (mainframe) only had to meet Class 
A.  So, what was the environment in the machine room?  Class A, of course.  
But, regulators had their requirements.  :)

Ghery

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)

I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any form to 
be able to discuss this topic.
Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a clear 
image of the discussions in CISPR I
and several of my close EMC friends have been par

Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Rodney Davis]

By the way I would assume both the ‎Stadium and Theatre as Commercial 
environments


From: Rodney Davis
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Rodney Davis
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Ian, pretty simple situation. Look at your product, if it can be sold for the 
bedroom Class B, However if due to cost and size and the likelihood being 
extremely low Class A.


A piece of commercial equipment notwithstanding home use will be Class B. So 
the question you must ask your self is will this equipment find it's way in  
the home


The definition is really a marketing decision.  If you Market the product in 
catalogs and magazines to entice people to purchase and use the product in the 
home then Class B.


Rodney Davis


From: McBurney, Ian 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment


Dear colleagues.



Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.



However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would be 
considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a range of 
products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that can be used in 
large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be useful. Obviously the 
“bedroom” product is easy to define but the products used in large auditoriums 
or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They are all powered from the same 
13A ac socket as the “bedroom” product.  The old standard we used to apply i.e. 
EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the environments with some examples so helped to 
define which products were Class A or Class B. It would have been helpful if EN 
55032 had a similar section.



Regards;



Ian McBurney

Design & Compliance Engineer.



Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial Estate,

Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK

T: 01326 372070

E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com





From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But 
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects.



1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical efficiency 
regulations to determine if scoped for a product.

2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product’s stated EMC limits to 
scope effective building/electrical code sections.



To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a margin 
well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A compliance. So Mr. 
Pettit’s assertion could be supported for these particular cases.



Brian





From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be as 
you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my 
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement 
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was because I 
worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn’t buy into that 
game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at least had a lot of 
influence on it, and I didn’t buy into that game.  But, the other major 
manufacturers that I dealt with also didn’t buy into it.  So, please back up 
your assertions with data.



While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B 
shouldn’t be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken 
exception to it.



I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being Class 
B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is not a new 
issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for products being 
sold into the European market.  A box which connected to the telecom network 
was Class B, but anything else in the system (mainframe) only had to meet Class 
A.  So, what was the environment in the machine room?  Class A, of course.  
But, regulators had their requirements.  :)



Ghery



From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)



I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any form to 
be able to discuss this topic.

Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a clear 
image of the discussions in CISPR I

and several of 

Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[Rodney Davis]

Ian, pretty simple situation. Look at your product, if it can be sold for the 
bedroom Class B, However if due to cost and size and the likelihood being 
extremely low Class A.


A piece of commercial equipment notwithstanding home use will be Class B. So 
the question you must ask your self is will this equipment find it's way in  
the home


The definition is really a marketing decision.  If you Market the product in 
catalogs and magazines to entice people to purchase and use the product in the 
home then Class B.


Rodney Davis


From: McBurney, Ian 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 6:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment


Dear colleagues.



Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.



However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would be 
considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a range of 
products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that can be used in 
large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be useful. Obviously the 
“bedroom” product is easy to define but the products used in large auditoriums 
or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They are all powered from the same 
13A ac socket as the “bedroom” product.  The old standard we used to apply i.e. 
EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the environments with some examples so helped to 
define which products were Class A or Class B. It would have been helpful if EN 
55032 had a similar section.



Regards;



Ian McBurney

Design & Compliance Engineer.



Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial Estate,

Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK

T: 01326 372070

E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com





From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But 
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects.



1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical efficiency 
regulations to determine if scoped for a product.

2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product’s stated EMC limits to 
scope effective building/electrical code sections.



To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a margin 
well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A compliance. So Mr. 
Pettit’s assertion could be supported for these particular cases.



Brian





From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be as 
you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my 
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement 
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was because I 
worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn’t buy into that 
game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at least had a lot of 
influence on it, and I didn’t buy into that game.  But, the other major 
manufacturers that I dealt with also didn’t buy into it.  So, please back up 
your assertions with data.



While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B 
shouldn’t be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken 
exception to it.



I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being Class 
B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is not a new 
issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for products being 
sold into the European market.  A box which connected to the telecom network 
was Class B, but anything else in the system (mainframe) only had to meet Class 
A.  So, what was the environment in the machine room?  Class A, of course.  
But, regulators had their requirements.  :)



Ghery



From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment



Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)



I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any form to 
be able to discuss this topic.

Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a clear 
image of the discussions in CISPR I

and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.



A simple division in Classes A and B (or Industrial versus residential or 
Domestic) cannot be seen as a regulatory statement. Division in classes is a 
common thing within all standards and has nothing to do with regulat

Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

[McBurney, Ian]

Dear colleagues.

Many thanks for your responses, they have all made interesting reading.

However; I am no wiser regarding whether sports stadia or theatres would be 
considered Class A or Class B environments. As a manufacturer of a range of 
products that can be used in bedrooms through to products that can be used in 
large stadia, examples of class A and Class B would be useful. Obviously the 
"bedroom" product is easy to define but the products used in large auditoriums 
or stadia are more difficult to categorise. They are all powered from the same 
13A ac socket as the "bedroom" product.  The old standard we used to apply i.e. 
EN 55103-1:2009 did specify the environments with some examples so helped to 
define which products were Class A or Class B. It would have been helpful if EN 
55032 had a similar section.

Regards;

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: 09 December 2015 22:11
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Thread has some good artifacts of compliance engineering philosophy. But 
industry has determined some resultant intended side effects.


1.   EMC standards and limits are referenced by some electrical efficiency 
regulations to determine if scoped for a product.

2.   Some AHJs and governments have used the product's stated EMC limits to 
scope effective building/electrical code sections.

To wit, have seen some equipment that where the test data indicates a margin 
well below Class B limits, but the report indicates Class A compliance. So Mr. 
Pettit's assertion could be supported for these particular cases.

Brian


From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 12:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Again, if you feel that the division between Class A and Class B should be as 
you describe, get your national committee to push it.  Personally, my 
experience does not back up your assertion that the warning statement 
encourages manufacturers to go with Class A.  But, perhaps that was because I 
worked (I retired from them in June) for Intel and they didn't buy into that 
game.  Perhaps that was because I set the policy, or at least had a lot of 
influence on it, and I didn't buy into that game.  But, the other major 
manufacturers that I dealt with also didn't buy into it.  So, please back up 
your assertions with data.

While I agree with you that a simple division between Class A and Class B 
shouldn't be viewed as regulatory, others at higher pay grades have taken 
exception to it.

I also agree that some equipment being Class A and other equipment being Class 
B creates difficulties for companies integrating the two.  This is not a new 
issue, I remember this being a problem nearly 30 years ago for products being 
sold into the European market.  A box which connected to the telecom network 
was Class B, but anything else in the system (mainframe) only had to meet Class 
A.  So, what was the environment in the machine room?  Class A, of course.  
But, regulators had their requirements.  :)

Ghery

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:50 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Hi Ghery, (and all other members of this group)

I do not think that one needs to be member of CISPR I WG2 or WG4 in any form to 
be able to discuss this topic.
Ample documentation is available within the national committees, to get a clear 
image of the discussions in CISPR I
and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.

A simple division in Classes A and B (or Industrial versus residential or 
Domestic) cannot be seen as a regulatory statement. Division in classes is a 
common thing within all standards and has nothing to do with regulatory 
aspects. Different  test levels are defined for  different types of equipment 
taking in consideration their targeted environment (being not industrial or 
residential) .

The European Commission's opinion on this subject is clear. EN standards should 
create a separate set of limits for 2 classes
as described. The infamous Class A statement in CISPR22 actually encourages 
manufacturers to test and mark their products to industrial test levels and 
market them in residential environments. That actually is a regulatory aspect 
IMHO, as it overrules the requirements from the EC and the mandates given to 
CENELEC in creating harmonized standards.

This unlevel playing field  creates a tremendous amount of extra work for 
manufacturers that integrate ITE OEM product in

Re: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

 

Immunity problems with Ethernet normally are a CM-to-DM conversion problem

caused by bad symmetry somewhere.  (unless the interference takes place 
elsewhere

ie before the Ethernet chips)

 

Don’t expect much of ferrite in the frequencies below 80 Mhz.

Conducted immunity is injected out of 150 Ohms CM impedance, so

10-150 ohms of ferrite added impedance may reduce current up to

6 dB only.  Check the tables of ferrite CM impedance at the problem frequency.

Only big ferrites might impact the result, and they are not what you want.

Go for a better transformer set, and good symmetry in lay-out and termination 
impedances.

Are the 2 middle taps of the Ethernet ferrites been terminated correctly (at 
both sides)?

 

A CM choke (4/8 coils ) of 1 to 5 mH might give a solution.

 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager







+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing

+ Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---

This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

 

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Thursday 10 December 2015 10:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

 

I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on 
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet 
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more 
recommended? 

 

Regards

Amund

 

 

-


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] Conducted RF injected on Ethernet cable ... fails

[Amund Westin]

I have a failure when testing Conducted RF injected (IEC/EN61000-4-6) on 
Ethernet cable. Lose communication in the test range 20-80MHz (10Vrms 80% AM).

Possible actions:

1.  Snap on ferrite inside the EUT (do not want this action)

2.  The RJ45 connector on the EUT has a little PCB and ferrite beads can be 
mounted by cutting the traces and place the beads onto each lines.

Anybody who has a positive experience, eliminate immunity failures on Ethernet 
by introducing ferrite beads? … or is a Common Mode Choke Array more 
recommended? 

 

Regards

Amund

 

 


-

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: