[PSES] CB EMC

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Under CB scheme, can a CB certificate be issued based an emission test
report/standard only?  Or, does it require to be supported by both emission
and immunity test reports/standards?

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your comments.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] Japan PSE Approval

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,

Is EMC compliance a mandatory requirement to obtain Japan PSE approval for
a lighting equipment?  If yes, does it require emissions only (CISPR 15)?
Or. does it require both emissions and immunity compliance?

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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


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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://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] CISPR35

[Brian O'Connell]

For the good people of the EMC Kingdom, such as the inhabitants of CISPR SC I.

Gazing into your crystal balls, any guess on OJ publication and/or national 
committee harmonization with CISPR35? Will this require a 2d edition for global 
adoption and whirled peas?

Thanks,
Brian

-

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] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

[Peter Tarver]

In general, and for UL and CSA in particular, crimped terminals are evaluated 
for the number, size, stranding and types of wire under the crimp.

In most cases, only single wires are evaluated, unless the manufacturer 
specifies that they want additional testing.

Wire sizes are critical for any particular crimp design. Too large and all 
strands might not consolidate well under the crimp or might prevent adequate 
“squish” of the crimped joint and the crimp will fail. Too small and the crimp 
will never hold. Either case could serve sources of risk of fire and electric 
shock.

For UL standards, the default stranding is Class B. Other stranding counts 
require additional evaluation. I suspect, but have not confirmed, the same is 
true for CSA standards. It is not necessarily true that the more strands these 
better, since too many strands can form a poor crimp and the crimp tool or the 
crimp itself can cut or nick strands, which is not a good result. (I have asked 
both UL and CSA about decimating strands to get a wire size to fit into a 
connector crimp and was told this was unacceptable. An understandable response.)

Copper is the default wire type used for evaluation. Evaluations using aluminum 
conductors (or anything more exotic) must be done separately.

There is no magic method to find crimp terminals that are safety certified for 
multiple conductors under a crimp. They do exist, but it requires creative 
internet searches and contacting suppliers. Make certain you get copies of 
their certification test reports to verify any claims.


Regards,

Peter Tarver

The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. 
It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in 
any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please immediately notify the sender and delete or destroy any copy 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] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[John Woodgate]

Fundamentally, a loop is potentially more accurate than a rod, because the use
of a rod with the 51.5 dB conversion factor is valid only in the far field, and
the (inner) boundary of the far field is not well-defined, especially on real
test sites. Below about 10 MHz, the boundary of the far field may be too far
away from the EUT for measurements to be practicable.
 
Note that the formula 2D^2/lambda is valid only for D>>lambda, and for a
broadside array.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

But there was a technical reason for doing so. Not saying right or wrong,
because don't have direct experience, but the reason for making loop
measurements to an electric field requirement was because there was a
prejudice against using a rod antenna, because they felt the loop made more
accurate measurements.  Again, not saying it was the right thing to do, only
it was done intentionally, understanding all the issues.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> Reply-To: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:37:43 +0100
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> Many standards express the limits for magnetic field measurements in dBuV/m,
> so in E-field. Most also indicate the relation of 51.5 dB to be added
> to convert H-field  into E-field , ignoring close field effects.
> The 60 cm loop is an old beast, and so are test conventions.
> 
> 
> 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 2014/30/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> 
> Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under
> construction)
> 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.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:38
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!
> 
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO ­ Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J
> M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
> 
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> Agreed Ken.  In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
>> the specified antenna factor is what it is.
> 
> I have to concur.  I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on
> measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.
> 
> 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: 

Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[Sundstrom, Mike]

Not much different from any other in situ testing I've ever done. Guess I 
looked like a mad scientist and didn't know it.

Thanks,

Michael Sundstrom
Garmin Compliance Engineer
2-2606
(913) 440-1540
KB5UKT

"We call it theory when we know much about something but nothing works,
and practice when everything works but nobody knows why."  -- Albert 
Einstein

-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 8:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from 
> 20*log(377).
>
>
Sure, but now we're back to how close we are -- wavelengths -- to the emitter. 
20*log(??)

Low frequencies can be tricky,  and I once had to double-check a test lab (not 
yours) results at a vendor, dragging the EUT out to their parking lot then 
wheeling a cart with a 6510 loop antenna, battery, AOR
AR5000 receiver and RMS voltmeter [all mine] away to see  how fast the signal 
dropped with distance compared to 3m.

A fun time was NOT had, but I probably came across as a mad scientist.
Again. At least no one ran out of a chamber...


Cortland Richmond KA5S

-

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


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

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

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

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

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



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of 
the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be Garmin 
confidential and/or Garmin legally privileged. If you have received this email 
in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any 
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including 
attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank 
you.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[Ken Javor]

But there was a technical reason for doing so. Not saying right or wrong,
because don't have direct experience, but the reason for making loop
measurements to an electric field requirement was because there was a
prejudice against using a rod antenna, because they felt the loop made more
accurate measurements.  Again, not saying it was the right thing to do, only
it was done intentionally, understanding all the issues.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> Reply-To: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:37:43 +0100
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> Many standards express the limits for magnetic field measurements in dBuV/m,
> so in E-field. Most also indicate the relation of 51.5 dB to be added
> to convert H-field  into E-field , ignoring close field effects.
> The 60 cm loop is an old beast, and so are test conventions.
> 
> 
> 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 2014/30/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> 
> Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under
> construction)
> 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.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:38
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!
> 
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO ­ Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J
> M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
> 
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General
> Use]
> 
> On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> Agreed Ken.  In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and
>> the specified antenna factor is what it is.
> 
> I have to concur.  I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on
> measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.
> 
> 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: 
> 
> -
> 
> 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:  

Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

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

Many standards express the limits for magnetic field measurements in dBuV/m, so 
in E-field. Most also indicate the relation of 51.5 dB to be added
to convert H-field  into E-field , ignoring close field effects.
The 60 cm loop is an old beast, and so are test conventions.


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 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
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.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 28 February 2017 10:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> Agreed Ken.  In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and 
> the specified antenna factor is what it is.

I have to concur.  I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on measuring 
the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.

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: 

-

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

Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[John Woodgate]

Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> Agreed Ken.  In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and 
> the specified antenna factor is what it is. 

I have to concur.  I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on 
measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.

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: 

-

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] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[Cortland Richmond]

On 2/27/2017 11:58 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Agreed Ken.  In this case the e-field conversion is irrelevant, and 
the specified antenna factor is what it is. 


I have to concur.  I am recalling issues with the FCC's insistence on 
measuring the E-field of Access BPL emissions with a loop antenna.


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: 

[PSES] Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)]

Hi All

Thanks for all your help.

I had a reply from R which stated that by changing the units in the 
Transducer Correction Table to dBuA/m and then entering the Loop Antenna Values 
(dBS/m) into the table the software will automatically correct the result when 
the measurement is carried out. So far the measurements are working out 
correctly.

Regards
Andy




 Andrew Price
 Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
 Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)

 Leonardo MW Ltd
 Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
 Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
 
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com
 leonardocomapany.com
HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS / SPACE

* Please consider the environment before printing this email.




Leonardo MW Ltd
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex SS14 
3EL
A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.


-

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] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[John Woodgate]

This a different issue. While the field strength outside a simple loop (a model 
for the EUT) falls off predictably (but  not as 1/r initially, as the field 
from the far side of the loop is not negligible), an EUT may require a much 
more complicated model, producing a field that falls off either more slowly or 
far faster than that of a simple loop.

I have studied this extensively for hearing loops, and I, and loop system 
manufacturers, have software to model the fields.

One thing to watch out for is that if you try to plot the field strength in a 
place with a reinforced concrete floor, the reinforcement greatly reduces the 
field strength so the results are not meaningful.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from 
> 20*log(377).
>
>
Sure, but now we're back to how close we are -- wavelengths -- to the emitter. 
20*log(??)

Low frequencies can be tricky,  and I once had to double-check a test 
lab (not yours) results at a vendor, dragging the EUT out to their 
parking lot then wheeling a cart with a 6510 loop antenna, battery, AOR 
AR5000 receiver and RMS voltmeter [all mine] away to see  how fast the 
signal dropped with distance compared to 3m.

A fun time was NOT had, but I probably came across as a mad scientist. 
Again. At least no one ran out of a chamber...


Cortland Richmond KA5S

-

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] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[John Woodgate]

Precisely. The question is about the magnetic domain only. No need to introduce
voltage or 51.5 dB or near/far field. They are all totally irrelevant.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates
Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]
 
If we go all the way back to the OP:
The customer has requested an extended magnetic field emission test over the
range 100kHz to 2MHz with a limit defined in dBpT.
The antenna to be used is an EMCO 6512 which has it correction factors provided
in dBS/m which the emission software used does not recognise.
So is there a conversion factor that enables the right correction factor to be
entered or is the conversion factor only used once a result is obtained??

We can see that whether we are in the far field or not doesn't matter at all.

If we were using an electric field probe (say a 41" rod) to measure to a limit
expressed in dBuA/m or dBpT, then we would absolutely have to make an assumption
about the impedance of the wave in order to use a pure electric field
measurement to get at magnetic field characterization.

But that is not the case: we are using a shielded loop which not only inherently
measures the magnetic field, but rejects the electric field.  So we have a limit
expressed in units of magnetic flux density, which in air is directly
proportional to magnetic field (the 2 dB factor discussed previously) and we
have a loop antenna factor that gets us from the EMI receiver measured rf
potential to the magnetic field impinging on the loop that induced it.

Problem solved; case closed.

P.S.  For any who aren't convinced or don't follow the logic, look at the
antenna factors here:

http://www.ets-lindgren.com/charts/6512

Both factors are the same except for the 51.5 dB ohm offset, discussed
previously and both clearly exhibit the Faraday Law response of a loop to a
magnetic field as a function of increasing frequency. One can even derive the
loop inductance by looking at where the Faraday Law proportionality to frequency
flattens out: that is where the 50 ohm receiver impedance begins to load the
inductive output impedance of the loop.  It is not the magnetic antenna factor
that is in question; it is the electric field antenna factor that makes the
assumption of a plane wave. The magnetic field will be measured precisely; the
electric field measured using this loop is a guesstimate based on a far-field
assumption.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



> From: Cortland Richmond  >
> Reply-To:  >
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:13:53 -0500
> To:  >
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CORRECTION (wrong page) Passive Loop Emissions [General 
> Use]
> 
> On 2/27/2017 7:53 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
>> I think Ken's rational makes sense to me, since the 51.5 is derived from 
>> 20*log(377).
>> 
>> 
> Sure, but now we're back to how close we are -- wavelengths -- to the emitter.

> 20*log(??)
> 
> Low frequencies can be tricky,  and I once had to double-check a test 
> lab (not yours) results at a vendor, dragging the EUT out to their 
> parking lot then wheeling a cart with a 6510 loop antenna, battery, AOR 
> AR5000 receiver and RMS voltmeter [all mine] away to see  how fast the 
> signal dropped with distance compared to 3m.
> 
> A fun time was NOT had, but I probably came across as a mad scientist. 
> Again. At least no one ran out of a chamber...
> 
> 
> Cortland Richmond KA5S
> 
> -
> 
> 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