Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Generic EMC Precedence over Basic Standards and Fast Transient and Surge Immunity Questions

[Gary McInturff]

From the link suggested below.
“In some cases they may be completely adequate in themselves for use with 
particular products and may be used for product certification. This in turn 
relieves a product committee from developing a new standard and is very much in 
line with the IEC's forward-looking approach to its EMC work.”

From the scope of EN6000-6-1
“This generic EMC immunity standard is applicable if no relevant dedicated 
product or product-family EMC immunity standard exists”

So if no product standard exists use EN6000-6-1, but I would use the product 
standard if it is available, for example for ITE, audio and video there is 
66032 emissions and sometime in the future 66035 (I think) will describe the 
immunity requirements for those products in their typical environments. Really 
the difference between the two is the analysis done by the standards groups on 
what is or is not appropriate for that product usage.

I don’t have any real argument with Bill’s over-test to protect yourself, but 
there is a time and cost associated with that in production entry, including 
test fees, to unit cost if unnecessary components are shipped with every 
product. So choose wisely but take advantage of the standards writers knowledge 
that may exist for your product classification.




From: Rajneesh Raveendran [mailto:rajneesh.raveend...@seagate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Generic EMC Precedence over Basic Standards and 
Fast Transient and Surge Immunity Questions

Hi Philip,

The precedence is EMC product standards --> Generic EMC standards --> Basic EMC 
publications.

The Basic EMC publications act as building blocks for Generic EMC standards & 
EMC Product standards.

The Generic EMC standards act as building blocks for EMC Product standards.

You can get more info at the link - 
http://www.iec.ch/emc/basic_emc/

Regards,
Rajneesh

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Philip Stevenson 
> wrote:

Dear List Members



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 references  a number of 
"Basic Standards" which are associated with each of each of the EMC Immunity 
Test Requirements.



I have been advised that the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 
test requirements have precedence over the referenced "Basic Standards". Is 
this correct?



My reason for asking relates to the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 
61000-6-1 Surge and Fast Transient Immunity Test Requirements for a DC Power 
Input of a product. This test requirement references "Basic Standards" IEC 
61000-4-5and IEC 61000-4-4  in Table 3.



The following questions relate to a product which is powered from a 28V dc 
output from a 230V ac Mains Powered COTS DC Power Supply.



Surge Immunity Question:



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Table 3 Surge Immunity 
Test Requirement refers to Basic Standard IEC 61000-4-5.



As previously stated the Product is powered from a 28V dc output from a 230V ac 
Mains Powered COTS DC Power Supply via a shielded cable assembly which is less 
than 10 metres in length.



In the Basic Standard IEC 61000-4-5: 2014 Section 7.6 it states that "No test 
shall be required for cables according to the manufacture's specification are 
less than or equal to 10 metres."



Whereas the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Surge Immunity 
Test Requirement caveat "c" states that "Apparatus with a DC power input port 
intended for use with a AC-DC Adaptor shall be tested on the AC power input to 
the AC-DC Adaptor".



As the products DC power input cable assembly is shielded the Basic Standard 
implies no testing is required. Whereas the Generic EMC Immunity Standard 
implies the AC power input to the COTS DC Power Supply needs to be tested. My 
question is which of these test requirements has precedence?



Fast Transient Question:



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Table 3 Fast Transient 
Immunity Test Requirement caveat "d" states that "Apparatus with a DC power 
input port intended for use with a AC-DC Adaptor shall be tested on the AC 
power input to the AC-DC Adaptor".



I have been advised that the Fast Transient Immunity test needs to be performed 
on the DC Power Input cable.



My question again is which of these test requirements has precedence?



I would be grateful for any advise or guidance the members can provide on these 
matters. If you prefer to reply to me be directly instead of via the list my 
personal Email address is pw...@hotmail.co.uk.







Regards





Philip Stevenson

-

Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

[Ken Javor]

If I understand the message below, it¹s not that fuzzy. One can predict
electric field intensity in the far field as a function of cable cm current.
So there is a number to work with from the get-go. Of course the final check
has to be an RE test, but if the cm current meets the computed cm limit,
than the RE from that cable should meet the RE limit.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: Bill Owsley 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:21:02 +
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Ok, so call me lazy, real lazy !
clamp on your probe, measure a number, and then work to reduce that number
by twice what is needed to meet the limit, then re-test.
Repeat, if necessary.
The really big trick in this process is knowing how to reduce the measured
number of the problem that has shown up.  Sucks to be you.
ps. I have used that same technique for years.  It works really well when
done with relative measurements.
pps. a couple of products needed more than halving the number measured at
the beginning.
ppps. correct fixes usually kill the problem, not just reduce it.  But there
are exceptions.



 


 
>  
>  
>  
>   
> 
>  From: Ken Javor 
>  To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>  Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 4:25 PM
>  Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>   
>  
> 
> Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> I re-read the query and see I didn¹t address the actual question. The current
> probe inserts an impedance given by the transfer impedance divided by the
> winding turns ratio.  Once you have measured the transfer impedance and
> computed the inserted impedance, you can then judge the inserted impedance
> against the cable impedance itself to assess any perturbation of the quantity
> to be measured.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor 
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:15:55 -0600
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> 
> A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its opening.
> The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may affect how much
> current flows through the conductor, but not the measurement thereof.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> 
> From: Amund Westin 
> Reply-To: Amund Westin 
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> 
> Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
> Probing a lot of cables inside a rack and try to find the source.
> Will make a current probe by a ferrite core (two halves, a few turns wire and
> coax plug) as many EMI experts have posted on the web and on this forum.
> Then find the Zt[dBohm], so make a measurement on a cable and verify the
> readings on the spectrum.
>  
> But when clamping on the current probe, which is a ferrite, does that change
> the cable impedance and therefore actually changes the real current flow, so
> my reading will not be true? ... or am I missing some fundamental theory here?
> ...
>  
> #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 

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

[Ken Wyatt]

Ken is correct. Near field probes are good for finding sources, but current 
probes are better for characterizing the emissions from cables. However, if the 
EUT has a leaky enclosure, or other radiating structures besides cables, you'll 
really need to monitor the emissions from a distance while you're 
troubleshooting. I've found a distance of 1m works well. For small EUTs, I 
place them at one end of a bench and set up a small monitoring antenna and 
spectrum analyzer at the other. I've written many articles on this technique. 
Take a look at The EMC Blog in EDN.com. I also wrote an article on how to make 
and use current probes for Interference Technology. 

Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services
Woodland Park, CO
k...@emc-seminars.com
Sent from my iPhone.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ken Javor 
> Date: January 14, 2016 at 5:14:36 PM MST
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> Reply-To: Ken Javor 
> 
> IMO, a near field probe gets you back to where Bill Owlsley was at: you are X 
> dB over the limit on the test site, so you wave a probe around and look for X 
> dB reduction in signal from whatever change was made, hoping the probe picks 
> up something proportional to the RE field at three or ten meters.
> 
> Whereas with a current probe, even without any site testing, a common mode 
> conducted emission (CMCE) limit can be determined based on the three or ten 
> meter RE limit, and then the design work is done on the cable before any 
> testing at any site.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> From: "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
> Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com" 
> 
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:33 -0800
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> 
> Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?
> ___
>  
> 
> Ralph McDiarmid  |  Schneider Electric  |  Solar Business  |   CANADA  |   
> Regulatory Compliance Engineering 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor  
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
> Date: 01/13/2016 01:22 PM 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents 
> 
> 
> 
> A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its opening. 
>  The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may affect how much 
> current flows through the conductor, but not the measurement thereof.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> From: Amund Westin 
> Reply-To: Amund Westin 
> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
> To: 
> Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
> 
> Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
> Probing a lot of cables inside a rack and try to find the source.
> Will make a current probe by a ferrite core (two halves, a few turns wire and 
> coax plug) as many EMI experts have posted on the web and on this forum. 
> Then find the Zt[dBohm], so make a measurement on a cable and verify the 
> readings on the spectrum. 
>  
> But when clamping on the current probe, which is a ferrite, does that change 
> the cable impedance and therefore actually changes the real current flow, so 
> my reading will not be true? ... or am I missing some fundamental theory 
> here? ...
>  
> #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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> 

Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?
___ 


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




From:
Ken Javor 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
01/13/2016 01:22 PM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents



A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its 
opening.  The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may 
affect how much current flows through the conductor, but not the 
measurement thereof.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Amund Westin 
Reply-To: Amund Westin 
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
Probing a lot of cables inside a rack and try to find the source.
Will make a current probe by a ferrite core (two halves, a few turns wire 
and coax plug) as many EMI experts have posted on the web and on this 
forum. 
Then find the Zt[dBohm], so make a measurement on a cable and verify the 
readings on the spectrum. 
 
But when clamping on the current probe, which is a ferrite, does that 
change the cable impedance and therefore actually changes the real current 
flow, so my reading will not be true? ... or am I missing some fundamental 
theory here? ...
 
#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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
emc-p...@ieee.org>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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


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] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[Ken Javor]

³Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. ³

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what
you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov¹t
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
superfluous, it¹s damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance issues, I
thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving of
consideration.  

FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE

By Richard L. Cassin   |
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:53AM
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring
of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
What then will the compliance counsel do?
"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case basis
-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG
Caldwell told a gethering
  of compliance officers in
New York.
Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
counsel will assess:
* Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers provide
strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate compliance policies?
* Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within the
company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to necessary
resources? Of course, we won¹t expect that a smaller company has the same
compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company.
* Are the institution¹s compliance policies clear and in writing? Are they
easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into languages
spoken by the company¹s employees?
* Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are effectively
communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for employees
to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include direction
regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise?
* Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them up to
date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially important if
a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business, especially a
foreign one. 
* Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include both
incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is discipline
even handed? The department does not look favorably on situations in which
low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are terminated, but
the more senior people who either directed or deliberately turned a blind
eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action sends the wrong
message -- to other employees, to the market and to the government -- about
the institution¹s commitment to compliance.
* Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
consultants to the company¹s expectation that its partners are also serious
about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language in a
contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business
relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and
policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist regardless
of geographic location.
Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head of
the SEC's enforcement division, spoke to
  the National Society of Compliance
Professionals at the group's annual event in DC.
He started with a disclaimer: "[T]he views I express here today are my own
and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or its staff."
Then he said something every compliance officer and corporate director and
C-suiter should hear and remember: "I have found that you can predict a lot
about the likelihood of an enforcement action by asking a few simple
questions about the role of the company¹s compliance department in the
firm."
Here are those "simple" questions:
* Are compliance personnel included in critical meetings?
* Are their views typically sought and followed?
* Do compliance officers report to the CEO and have significant visibility
with the board? 
* Is the compliance department viewed as an important partner in the
business and not simply as a 

Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

[McDiarmid, Ralph]

I though this funny that one of the preferred skills is, "Able to type at 
a rate of at least 50 wpm"

I think my mom could do 60 wpm in about 1950 on a manual typewriter.  I 
think I can do about 40 wpm on a good day on a keyboard;  50 would be take 
some training and dedication.
___ 


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




From:
"Brian O'Connell" 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
01/14/2016 01:57 PM
Subject:
[PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job



Saw this on the SpaceX web site.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/8459

damn, makes me wish that my specialty is EMC.

-

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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__



-

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] Current probe for CM currents

[CR]

On 1/14/2016 5:20 PM, McDiarmid, Ralph wrote:

Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?


That's good for finding a source. but as Ken points out, its not 
accurate enough for quantitative evaluation. FWIW... a SA  chamber or an 
OATS aren't all that hot either,according to a 2001 paper.*


*Reproducibility and Uncertainty in Radiated Emission Measurements at 
Open Area Test Sites and in Semi-anechoic

Chambers Using a Spherical Dipole Radiator, Tae-Weon Kang and Hyo-Tae Kim
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 43, NO. 4, 
NOVEMBER 2001 677


Cortland Richmond

-

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] Current probe for CM currents

[Ken Javor]

IMO, a near field probe gets you back to where Bill Owlsley was at: you are
X dB over the limit on the test site, so you wave a probe around and look
for X dB reduction in signal from whatever change was made, hoping the probe
picks up something proportional to the RE field at three or ten meters.

Whereas with a current probe, even without any site testing, a common mode
conducted emission (CMCE) limit can be determined based on the three or ten
meter RE limit, and then the design work is done on the cable before any
testing at any site.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com"

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:33 -0800
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?

___ 

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



From: Ken Javor 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG,
Date: 01/13/2016 01:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents




A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its
opening.  The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may
affect how much current flows through the conductor, but not the measurement
thereof.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Amund Westin 
Reply-To: Amund Westin 
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a «homemade» current probe.
Probing a lot of cables inside a rack and try to find the source.
Will make a current probe by a ferrite core (two halves, a few turns wire
and coax plug) as many EMI experts have posted on the web and on this forum.
Then find the Zt[dBohm], so make a measurement on a cable and verify the
readings on the spectrum.
 
But when clamping on the current probe, which is a ferrite, does that change
the cable impedance and therefore actually changes the real current flow, so
my reading will not be true? ... or am I missing some fundamental theory
here? ...
 
#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 email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__
-


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] spacex EMC tst engr job

[Brian Gregory]

  Just so's all of you know;  Hawthorn isn't exactly the jewel of the west! 
Colorado Brian 

-- Original Message --
From: Ed Price 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:25:03 -0800


Yes, that 50 WPM typing requirement disqualifies me too. I only type with two 
fingers, and even that skill is degraded when I need to use one finger for 
signaling.
 
Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA


 
From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
 
I though this funny that one of the preferred skills is, "Able to type at a 
rate of at least 50 wpm" 

I think my mom could do 60 wpm in about 1950 on a manual typewriter.  I think I 
can do about 40 wpm on a good day on a keyboard;  50 would be take some 
training and dedication. 
___ 

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



From:
"Brian O'Connell" 
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date:
01/14/2016 01:57 PM
Subject:
[PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job
 



Saw this on the SpaceX web site.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/8459

damn, makes me wish that my specialty is EMC.



-
 
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] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[alfred1520list]

And now the fire catching hover boards are hard to buy, but not because no one 
wants to buy. Why?

On January 14, 2016 10:08:50 PM PST, "Ghery S. Pettit"  
wrote:
>Amen to that.
>
> 
>
>Ghery Pettit
>
> 
>
>From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:59 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
>compliance?
>
> 
>
>"Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. "
>
>Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it
>what
>you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The
>gov't
>instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
>superfluous, it's damaging.
>
>Ken Javor
>Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
>  _  
>
>From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"
><058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
>Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
>To: 
>Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
>compliance?
>
>As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance
>issues, I
>thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving
>of
>consideration.  
>
>FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE
>-compliance-defense-takes.html>
>-compliance-defense-takes.html> 
>By Richard L. Cassin  
>  | Wednesday, November
>11,
>2015 at 7:53AM
>Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's
>hiring
>of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
>recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
>What then will the compliance counsel do?
>"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case
>basis
>-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye,"
>AAG
>Caldwell told a gethering
>ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>
>ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>  of compliance officers
>in
>New York.
>Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
>counsel will assess:
>
>*  Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers
>provide strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate
>compliance
>policies? 
>*  Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within
>the company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to
>necessary resources? Of course, we won't expect that a smaller company
>has
>the same compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company. 
>*  Are the institution's compliance policies clear and in writing? Are
>they easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into
>languages spoken by the company's employees? 
>*  Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are
>effectively communicated to all employees? Are its written policies
>easy for
>employees to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should
>include
>direction regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues
>arise? 
>*  Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them
>up to date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially
>important if a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another
>business,
>especially a foreign one. 
>*  Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include
>both incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is
>discipline even handed? The department does not look favorably on
>situations
>in which low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are
>terminated, but the more senior people who either directed or
>deliberately
>turned a blind eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action
>sends
>the wrong message -- to other employees, to the market and to the
>government
>-- about the institution's commitment to compliance. 
>*  Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
>consultants to the company's expectation that its partners are also
>serious
>about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language
>in a
>contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business
>relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws
>and
>policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist
>regardless
>of geographic location.
>
>Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head
>of
>the SEC's enforcement division, spoke to
>

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Amen to that.

 

Ghery Pettit

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

 

"Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. "

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what
you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov't
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
superfluous, it's damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance issues, I
thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving of
consideration.  

FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE

 
By Richard L. Cassin  
  | Wednesday, November 11,
2015 at 7:53AM
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring
of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
What then will the compliance counsel do?
"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case basis
-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG
Caldwell told a gethering

  of compliance officers in
New York.
Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
counsel will assess:

*   Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers
provide strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate compliance
policies? 
*   Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within
the company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to
necessary resources? Of course, we won't expect that a smaller company has
the same compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company. 
*   Are the institution's compliance policies clear and in writing? Are
they easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into
languages spoken by the company's employees? 
*   Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are
effectively communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for
employees to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include
direction regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise? 
*   Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them
up to date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially
important if a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business,
especially a foreign one. 
*   Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include
both incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is
discipline even handed? The department does not look favorably on situations
in which low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are
terminated, but the more senior people who either directed or deliberately
turned a blind eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action sends
the wrong message -- to other employees, to the market and to the government
-- about the institution's commitment to compliance. 
*   Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
consultants to the company's expectation that its partners are also serious
about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language in a
contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business
relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and
policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist regardless
of geographic location.

Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head of
the SEC's enforcement division, spoke to

 the National Society of Compliance
Professionals at the group's annual event in DC.
He started with a disclaimer: "[T]he views I express here today are my own
and do not 

Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

[Ed Price]

Yes, that 50 WPM typing requirement disqualifies me too. I only type with
two fingers, and even that skill is degraded when I need to use one finger
for signaling.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: McDiarmid, Ralph [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

 

I though this funny that one of the preferred skills is, "Able to type at a
rate of at least 50 wpm" 

I think my mom could do 60 wpm in about 1950 on a manual typewriter.  I
think I can do about 40 wpm on a good day on a keyboard;  50 would be take
some training and dedication. 

___ 

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





From: 

"Brian O'Connell"  


To: 

EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 


Date: 

01/14/2016 01:57 PM 


Subject: 

[PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

 

  _  




Saw this on the SpaceX web site.

 
http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/8459

damn, makes me wish that my specialty is EMC.





-

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] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

[Bill Owsley]

If you can measure common mode noise on a cable, you have a problem from the 
port !!
Note the world famous Ott's math on this effect in his 1st edition.  Might be 
in his 2nd too.

I have used both e-field and h-field (current clamp) at the same time.
We are engineers so figure out how I did that!
And since some of the work is below 30 MHz, I have also added a loop antenna 
for a 3rd measurement.
My approach is if I find any emission, locally, near field, bench stuff, that 
varies by position over the area of the product, then I have a problem.  
E-field scan,using a o'scope probe.  H-field scan usually using a personally 
built small loop, and any other sort of scan, conducted or radiated, that I can 
make up at the moment.
I work for a homogeneous field in the scans over the area of the product.
My assumption is that if I find a homogeneous field, then there are no or low 
emission gradients which can equate to a field at a distance.  So get creative, 
and redundant, by different methods for measuring the emissions.
Ironic, I am good at mashing all emissions, and then they hand me an 
intentional radiator and ask that I don't kill the fundamental.  What ?  You 
mean I have to pick what to mash, and what not to mash?  
Ok, so I caught on quick enough to keep the job.  


ps. I suffer from not being able to use a leaky enclosure.  I don't get any 
shielding for the products.
Cable shielding that is bogus terminated, but at the low frequencies of 
interests, it works.  
Then I have to deal with the higher frequencies, the harmonics !!!Plastic 
covers and pcb and cables up to 15 KW or more of digital BS to make an analog 
signal.
And then 'normal' digital signals for the ADC circuits all in the middle of 
this.
Management is like, we have done it this way for over 25 years and so we are 
not changing it now.  
It works (I have to make it work) so don't change anything.  Sucks to be me - 
but I do like a challenge.




 

 
  From: Ken Wyatt 
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:24 PM
 Subject: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
   
Ken is correct. Near field probes are good for finding sources, but current 
probes are better for characterizing the emissions from cables. However, if the 
EUT has a leaky enclosure, or other radiating structures besides cables, you'll 
really need to monitor the emissions from a distance while you're 
troubleshooting. I've found a distance of 1m works well. For small EUTs, I 
place them at one end of a bench and set up a small monitoring antenna and 
spectrum analyzer at the other. I've written many articles on this technique. 
Take a look at The EMC Blog in EDN.com. I also wrote an article on how to make 
and use current probes for Interference Technology. 
Kenneth WyattWyatt Technical Services
Woodland Park, COken@emc-seminars.comSent from my iPhone.
Begin forwarded message:


From: Ken Javor 
Date: January 14, 2016 at 5:14:36 PM MST
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
Reply-To: Ken Javor 





Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currentsIMO, a near field probe gets you back 
to where Bill Owlsley was at: you are X dB over the limit on the test site, so 
you wave a probe around and look for X dB reduction in signal from whatever 
change was made, hoping the probe picks up something proportional to the RE 
field at three or ten meters.

Whereas with a current probe, even without any site testing, a common mode 
conducted emission (CMCE) limit can be determined based on the three or ten 
meter RE limit, and then the design work is done on the cable before any 
testing at any site.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "McDiarmid, Ralph" 
Reply-To: "ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com" 

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 14:20:33 -0800
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Would a Near Field probe be a better choice?
___ 

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



From: Ken Javor  
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, 
Date: 01/13/2016 01:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents 



A current probe measures the net current on the conductor within its opening.  
The impedance of the circuits attached to that conductor may affect how much 
current flows through the conductor, but not the measurement thereof.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Amund Westin 
Reply-To: Amund Westin 
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 18:48:23 +0100
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Planning to do some EMI troubleshooting with a 

[PSES] spacex EMC tst engr job

[Brian O'Connell]

Saw this on the SpaceX web site.

http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/8459

damn, makes me wish that my specialty is EMC.

-

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: