Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ken Javor]

No criticism of how a LISN is calibrated.  That wasn't the point. The point
was that LISN impedance uncertainty affects the measurement of conducted
emissions differently by mode, so that the overall uncertainty of the
measurement of CE is different from that of the LISN impedance. Also, while
the point of a 50 uH LISN is in fact to provide that impedance, the original
limit was based on the rf susceptibility of radios operating below 30 MHz,
and that susceptibility was to the rf potential caused by various electronic
loads. It wasn't about current at all.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



> From: Ralph McDiarmid 
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:36:35 +
> To: Ken Javor , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"
> 
> Conversation: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> Subject: RE: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> Perhaps all that is needed is to know is the Insertion Loss of the LISN.  Some
> manufacturers provide this for every s/n.
> 
> The LISN is only there to provide a known impedance to the source of emission
> so that RF current can be measured with  repeatability.  I do understand that
> CM and DM currents will have different (and unknown) source impedance and that
> those impedances will be a function of frequency, but I feel that's beside the
> point.  
> 
> I have to assume the folks at CISPR understood those topics and that they
> likely deliberated long and hard and did lots of measurements both in the lab
> and in the field before agreeing on the LISN as a standard transducer for the
> evaluation of conducted RF emission.
> 
> If there were something fundamentally wrong with the method of measurement, I
> suspect it would have been uncovered long ago.
> 
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:10 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> The point of the cm vs. dm discussion is that the effect of LISN impedance is
> not so important for dm as for cm, speaking very generally, so that the effect
> of uncertainty in LISN impedance on dm emissions is less than for cm. But we
> don't separately measure cm and dm, so we don't know, looking at any specific
> signal, what the uncertainty is, even if we have nailed down the uncertainty
> of the LISN impedance. And you don't need two LISNs to separate modes, but
> that is another discussion.
> 
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 

-

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] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Perhaps all that is needed is to know is the Insertion Loss of the LISN.  Some 
manufacturers provide this for every s/n.

The LISN is only there to provide a known impedance to the source of emission 
so that RF current can be measured with  repeatability.  I do understand that 
CM and DM currents will have different (and unknown) source impedance and that 
those impedances will be a function of frequency, but I feel that's beside the 
point.  

I have to assume the folks at CISPR understood those topics and that they 
likely deliberated long and hard and did lots of measurements both in the lab 
and in the field before agreeing on the LISN as a standard transducer for the 
evaluation of conducted RF emission.

If there were something fundamentally wrong with the method of measurement, I 
suspect it would have been uncovered long ago.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

The point of the cm vs. dm discussion is that the effect of LISN impedance is 
not so important for dm as for cm, speaking very generally, so that the effect 
of uncertainty in LISN impedance on dm emissions is less than for cm. But we 
don't separately measure cm and dm, so we don't know, looking at any specific 
signal, what the uncertainty is, even if we have nailed down the uncertainty of 
the LISN impedance. And you don't need two LISNs to separate modes, but that is 
another discussion.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ken Javor]

The point of the cm vs. dm discussion is that the effect of LISN impedance
is not so important for dm as for cm, speaking very generally, so that the
effect of uncertainty in LISN impedance on dm emissions is less than for cm.
But we don't separately measure cm and dm, so we don't know, looking at any
specific signal, what the uncertainty is, even if we have nailed down the
uncertainty of the LISN impedance. And you don't need two LISNs to separate
modes, but that is another discussion.




Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Ralph McDiarmid 
> Reply-To: Ralph McDiarmid 
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:32:14 +
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> Sorry, I guess we drifted a little off topic, and that's my fault.  If you
> want to characterize a LISN for the purpose of defining an measurement
> "uncertainty budget" then I suppose all that is needed is a carefully written
> test procedure.  I doubt a Network Analyzer is required, I think a signal
> generator and a scope would suffice.
> 
> What parameter of a LISN matters for determining its measurement uncertainty?
> I can only think of the impedance "seen"  the DUT.  As the impedance gradually
> moves away from the ideal 50 ohm resistive, then I think less signal reaches
> the EMI receiver, and that is the "uncertainty" or maybe error is a better
> term.  I really cannot see how CM vs DM comes into play at all; the LISN
> measures both as far as I know, so one cannot separate the two, without using
> a second LISN connected to a second power pole of the DUT.  I think save to
> say that most DUTs will have a least two power poles, a "line" and a "neutral
> for connection to the a.c. mains.
> 
> I think some manufactures provide a graph or two plotting something (perhaps
> insertion loss versus frequency) for that serial number.
> 
> I hope that helped a little.
> 
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:28 PM
> To: Ralph McDiarmid ;
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> It's not quite as simple as it may appear. Mr Javor points out that it
> measures two mixtures of DM and CM voltages, which is not helpful either in
> fixing a design or in determining the consequent radiated emission (due to the
> CM component alone).
> 
> The 50 ohms is indeed the input resistance of the SA. But it's not necessarily
> (not likely to be) the impedance looking back down the mains lead to the EUT.
> All it does is to help produce consistent results, it doesn't do anything to
> help the results to be representative of real world conditions.
> 
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J
> M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
> 
> UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:33 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> My understanding:
> 
> A LISN seems to be a simple device, which has three ports: an input, an
> output, and a sense port.  The sense port connects to the spectrum analyzer or
> EMI receiver, with the input port connecting to mains, and the output port
> connecting to the power terminals of the device under test (DUT).
> 
> What impedance is important?  I assume it is that impedance which is "seen"
> by the DUT when it is connected to the output port of the LISN.  I think it is
> that impedance which is 'stabilized' over a given bandwidth for the purpose of
> a repeatable measurement environment.
> 
> When we talk about a "50 ohm LISN", isn't it the EMI receiver that provides
> the 50 ohms? Both above and below the design bandwidth of the LISN (AMN),
> there will be reactance (inductive or capacitive) that begins to affect the
> impedance seen by the DUT, which moves the load impedance further away from
> the ideal 50 ohms.
> 
> 
> Ralph McDiarmid
> Product Compliance
> Engineering
> Solar Business
> Schneider Electric
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:21 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
> 
> Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself
> serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much better
> than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside, consider that
> differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative to that of the
> LISN, and 

Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Sorry, I guess we drifted a little off topic, and that's my fault.  If you want 
to characterize a LISN for the purpose of defining an measurement "uncertainty 
budget" then I suppose all that is needed is a carefully written test 
procedure.  I doubt a Network Analyzer is required, I think a signal generator 
and a scope would suffice.

What parameter of a LISN matters for determining its measurement uncertainty?  
I can only think of the impedance "seen"  the DUT.  As the impedance gradually 
moves away from the ideal 50 ohm resistive, then I think less signal reaches 
the EMI receiver, and that is the "uncertainty" or maybe error is a better 
term.  I really cannot see how CM vs DM comes into play at all; the LISN 
measures both as far as I know, so one cannot separate the two, without using a 
second LISN connected to a second power pole of the DUT.  I think save to say 
that most DUTs will have a least two power poles, a "line" and a "neutral for 
connection to the a.c. mains.

I think some manufactures provide a graph or two plotting something (perhaps 
insertion loss versus frequency) for that serial number.

I hope that helped a little.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

It's not quite as simple as it may appear. Mr Javor points out that it measures 
two mixtures of DM and CM voltages, which is not helpful either in fixing a 
design or in determining the consequent radiated emission (due to the CM 
component alone).

The 50 ohms is indeed the input resistance of the SA. But it's not necessarily 
(not likely to be) the impedance looking back down the mains lead to the EUT. 
All it does is to help produce consistent results, it doesn't do anything to 
help the results to be representative of real world conditions.

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

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

My understanding:

A LISN seems to be a simple device, which has three ports: an input, an output, 
and a sense port.  The sense port connects to the spectrum analyzer or EMI 
receiver, with the input port connecting to mains, and the output port 
connecting to the power terminals of the device under test (DUT). 

What impedance is important?  I assume it is that impedance which is "seen"
by the DUT when it is connected to the output port of the LISN.  I think it is 
that impedance which is 'stabilized' over a given bandwidth for the purpose of 
a repeatable measurement environment.  

When we talk about a "50 ohm LISN", isn't it the EMI receiver that provides the 
50 ohms? Both above and below the design bandwidth of the LISN (AMN), there 
will be reactance (inductive or capacitive) that begins to affect the impedance 
seen by the DUT, which moves the load impedance further away from the ideal 50 
ohms.  


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself 
serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much better 
than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside, consider that 
differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative to that of the 
LISN, and therefore act as voltage sources, whose amplitude doesn't correspond 
much to changes in LISN amplitude.  Common mode emissions tend to be current 
sources and therefore common mode emission amplitudes track closely with 
changes in LISN impedance.  But we don't measure these modes separately, but 
rather as vector sums on the phase conductor, and vector differences on 
neutral, so we have no idea what the effect of the LISN impedance on any 
particular emission measured actually is.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Mac Elliott 
Reply-To: Mac Elliott 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

All, 

We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance 
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty 
budget. 

Does anyone happen to 

Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I agree that the AMN (LISN) is intended only to provide consistent (more or 
less) results, not to represent a real-world impedance at RF.  I don't know how 
much that impedance changes from site to site;  quite a lot I'll bet.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Ralph McDiarmid ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

It's not quite as simple as it may appear. Mr Javor points out that it measures 
two mixtures of DM and CM voltages, which is not helpful either in fixing a 
design or in determining the consequent radiated emission (due to the CM 
component alone).

The 50 ohms is indeed the input resistance of the SA. But it's not necessarily 
(not likely to be) the impedance looking back down the mains lead to the EUT. 
All it does is to help produce consistent results, it doesn't do anything to 
help the results to be representative of real world conditions.

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

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

My understanding:

A LISN seems to be a simple device, which has three ports: an input, an output, 
and a sense port.  The sense port connects to the spectrum analyzer or EMI 
receiver, with the input port connecting to mains, and the output port 
connecting to the power terminals of the device under test (DUT). 

What impedance is important?  I assume it is that impedance which is "seen"
by the DUT when it is connected to the output port of the LISN.  I think it is 
that impedance which is 'stabilized' over a given bandwidth for the purpose of 
a repeatable measurement environment.  

When we talk about a "50 ohm LISN", isn't it the EMI receiver that provides the 
50 ohms? Both above and below the design bandwidth of the LISN (AMN), there 
will be reactance (inductive or capacitive) that begins to affect the impedance 
seen by the DUT, which moves the load impedance further away from the ideal 50 
ohms.  


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself 
serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much better 
than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside, consider that 
differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative to that of the 
LISN, and therefore act as voltage sources, whose amplitude doesn't correspond 
much to changes in LISN amplitude.  Common mode emissions tend to be current 
sources and therefore common mode emission amplitudes track closely with 
changes in LISN impedance.  But we don't measure these modes separately, but 
rather as vector sums on the phase conductor, and vector differences on 
neutral, so we have no idea what the effect of the LISN impedance on any 
particular emission measured actually is.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Mac Elliott 
Reply-To: Mac Elliott 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

All, 

We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance 
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty 
budget. 

Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go through 
the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there would 
appreciate it if you could share.

Have a great day

Mac Elliott
-


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) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[John Woodgate]

It's not quite as simple as it may appear. Mr Javor points out that it
measures two mixtures of DM and CM voltages, which is not helpful either in
fixing a design or in determining the consequent radiated emission (due to
the CM component alone).

The 50 ohms is indeed the input resistance of the SA. But it's not
necessarily (not likely to be) the impedance looking back down the mains
lead to the EUT. All it does is to help produce consistent results, it
doesn't do anything to help the results to be representative of real world
conditions.

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

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

My understanding:

A LISN seems to be a simple device, which has three ports: an input, an
output, and a sense port.  The sense port connects to the spectrum analyzer
or EMI receiver, with the input port connecting to mains, and the output
port connecting to the power terminals of the device under test (DUT). 

What impedance is important?  I assume it is that impedance which is "seen"
by the DUT when it is connected to the output port of the LISN.  I think it
is that impedance which is 'stabilized' over a given bandwidth for the
purpose of a repeatable measurement environment.  

When we talk about a "50 ohm LISN", isn't it the EMI receiver that provides
the 50 ohms? Both above and below the design bandwidth of the LISN (AMN),
there will be reactance (inductive or capacitive) that begins to affect the
impedance seen by the DUT, which moves the load impedance further away from
the ideal 50 ohms.  


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself
serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much
better than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside,
consider that differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative
to that of the LISN, and therefore act as voltage sources, whose amplitude
doesn't correspond much to changes in LISN amplitude.  Common mode emissions
tend to be current sources and therefore common mode emission amplitudes
track closely with changes in LISN impedance.  But we don't measure these
modes separately, but rather as vector sums on the phase conductor, and
vector differences on neutral, so we have no idea what the effect of the
LISN impedance on any particular emission measured actually is.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Mac Elliott 
Reply-To: Mac Elliott 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

All, 

We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty
budget. 

Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go
through the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there
would appreciate it if you could share.

Have a great day

Mac Elliott
-


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) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html
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 

Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ralph McDiarmid]

My understanding:

A LISN seems to be a simple device, which has three ports: an input, an output, 
and a sense port.  The sense port connects to the spectrum analyzer or EMI 
receiver, with the input port connecting to mains, and the output port 
connecting to the power terminals of the device under test (DUT). 

What impedance is important?  I assume it is that impedance which is "seen" by 
the DUT when it is connected to the output port of the LISN.  I think it is 
that impedance which is 'stabilized' over a given bandwidth for the purpose of 
a repeatable measurement environment.  

When we talk about a "50 ohm LISN", isn't it the EMI receiver that provides the 
50 ohms? Both above and below the design bandwidth of the LISN (AMN), there 
will be reactance (inductive or capacitive) that begins to affect the impedance 
seen by the DUT, which moves the load impedance further away from the ideal 50 
ohms.  


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself 
serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much better 
than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside, consider that 
differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative to that of the 
LISN, and therefore act as voltage sources, whose amplitude doesn't correspond 
much to changes in LISN amplitude.  Common mode emissions tend to be current 
sources and therefore common mode emission amplitudes track closely with 
changes in LISN impedance.  But we don't measure these modes separately, but 
rather as vector sums on the phase conductor, and vector differences on 
neutral, so we have no idea what the effect of the LISN impedance on any 
particular emission measured actually is.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Mac Elliott 
Reply-To: Mac Elliott 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

All, 

We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance 
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty 
budget. 

Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go through 
the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there would 
appreciate it if you could share.

Have a great day

Mac Elliott
-


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) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html 
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
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 

Re: [PSES] Composite Systems and Intentional Radiators

[Michael Derby]

Hello,

 

I'm re-sending this because I received comments that nobody had answered it
(and I guess people were expecting me to answer it  :) )

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Sent: 08 September 2017 09:18
To: 'Grasso, Charles' ;
'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' 
Subject: RE: [PSES] Composite Systems and Intentional Radiators

 

Hi Charles,

 

I added some comments in red text to your mail below...

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com] 
Sent: 07 September 2017 18:17
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Composite Systems and Intentional Radiators

 

Hello,

 

I am soliciting help in the interpretation of FCC rules as to what makes an
intentional radiator and the application
of standards as a result.

 

The scenario:  A product is designed and tested as an unintentional radiator
and 15.109/15.107 and/or ANSI C63.4 etc
test levels and methods are performed.   A WiFi dual band radio is now added
(not as a module) by redesign and the final product
is ready for authorization. My thought process is as follows - please tell
me if I have erred:

 

1.   Test the Unintentional Portion of the new product to 15.109/15.107
etc.radio is in rcv mode.

Yes, correct. 

 

2.   Test the WiFI radio portion of the product to 15.209/ANSI C63.10
and

You mentioned in your text above that the WiFi is "not as a module", and
therefore I do not know if the WiFi module has had any testing yet, or not.

The product now needs certification (because you say the module is not
certified), so you will be applying to a TCB, based on the final product (I
assume that is your plan, from your message above).

If the WiFi module has been tested (to 15.247 and 15.407), then you may be
able to ask the module manufacturer for the test results, and, if they
remain applicable to your installation of the module, you could include the
conducted antenna port measurements from the module, in your application for
certification of the final product.

If the WiFi module has not been tested (to 15.247 and 15.407), then you will
need to test those items, either at the host level or the module level.

In all cases, the radiated intentional (transmitter) emissions (15.209) will
need to be fully tested at the host level, because the final product is the
one being certified.

 

3.   A product is born. 

Congratulations.

 

 

Note though there is a very specific wording in numbers 1 and 2. Considering
the composite nature of the FCC rules, I am under
the impression that the limits for the unintentional portion of the radio
apply ONLY to the non-radio portions of the spec and
the limits for the intentional portion apply ONLY to the radio.  

Am I correct?

You are correct - mostly.

 

You can, if you wish, stop your WiFi from transmitting while you are
performing your 15.107 and 15.109 testing.   So, you're correct there.

 

When doing your 15.209 emissions, you are looking for the emissions from the
transmitter, such as harmonics, intermodulation products, band edges, etc.
So, you are not specifically looking at your product's other emissions.
But, considering the similarity between the 15.209 limits and the 15.109
limits, you should not see any emissions exceeding 15.209, if you have
already tested 15.107.

(If you are saying that the WiFi is a Class B emissions limit, and the host
product is a Class A emissions limit, then read 15.31(k) and see that you
can apply the 15.107 Class A limits to the emissions which are not from the
transmitter).

 

But finally, I would add this caveat...

 

If you test 15.109 with the transmitter off and it passes, you're happy.

If you test 15.209 and focus on the transmitter and it passes, you're happy.

But, if during those tests, you notice that somehow a combination of module
and host is actually failing one of the limits but it's possible to somehow
ignore it (e.g., turning the transmitter on for the 15.209 emissions,
somehow causes the unintentional radiator emissions to increase and fail the
limit) (perhaps the module draws a lot of current?)... You should fix it.
You should not say "that's not my problem".

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Michael.

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Charles Grasso

(w) 303-706-5467

 

-


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 

[PSES] Test

[Grasso, Charles]

Thanks

Charles Grasso
(w) 303-706-5467


-

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] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Ken Javor]

Off-topic response. Grinding an axe.  Clearly the network analyzer itself
serves as a limit on the achievable uncertainty, but it should be much
better than what is needed (+/-20% in the military world).  That aside,
consider that differential mode emissions tend to be low impedance relative
to that of the LISN, and therefore act as voltage sources, whose amplitude
doesn¹t correspond much to changes in LISN amplitude.  Common mode emissions
tend to be current sources and therefore common mode emission amplitudes
track closely with changes in LISN impedance.  But we don¹t measure these
modes separately, but rather as vector sums on the phase conductor, and
vector differences on neutral, so we have no idea what the effect of the
LISN impedance on any particular emission measured actually is.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Mac Elliott <0a115b29e815-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: Mac Elliott 
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

All, 

We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty
budget. 

Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go
through the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there
would appreciate it if you could share.

Have a great day

Mac Elliott
-


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] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[Mac Elliott]

All, 
We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance 
verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty 
budget. 
Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go through 
the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there would 
appreciate it if you could share.
Have a great day
Mac Elliott

-

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] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[John Woodgate]

That's what it SHOULD be, but for some reason it was proposed to withdraw
from EN 62368-1 the text that allows parts conforming to the older standards
to be used, with no date of withdrawal specified. Many National Committees
have said that it must not be withdrawn until 2020-12-20, but there is no
official decision yet, hence chaos.. 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Bostjan.
 
I was informed by a testing agency that the DOW was the same as EN 60950
i.e. 20-12-2020.
 
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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:58
To: McBurney, Ian  >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Ian,
 
EN 60065:2014 has a DoW 17.11.2017. This is in two months.
 
For this standard CENELEC and OJ show the same DoW.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:54 AM
To: Boštjan Glavič  >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Bostjan.
 
Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?
 
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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Dear all,
 
There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still
DoW 20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It
is very important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN
60950-1 into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
-

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. 
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, 

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[McBurney, Ian]

Hello Bostjan.

I was informed by a testing agency that the DOW was the same as EN 60950 i.e. 
20-12-2020.

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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:58
To: McBurney, Ian ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Hello Ian,

EN 60065:2014 has a DoW 17.11.2017. This is in two months.

For this standard CENELEC and OJ show the same DoW.

Best regards,
Bostjan

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:54 AM
To: Boštjan Glavič >; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Hello Bostjan.

Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?

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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan


-


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.
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: 

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[John Woodgate]

See my recent post  about chaos. It applies to EN 60950-1 as well as EN
60065.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Bostjan.
 
Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?
 
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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Dear all,
 
There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still
DoW 20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It
is very important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN
60950-1 into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
-

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  > 

-

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] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[McBurney, Ian]

Hello Bostjan.

Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?

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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan


-


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: 

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[John Woodgate]

Yes, well, it's all in chaos. Several National Committees have asked CENELEC
to change that date to 20 December 2020 or later.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Ian,
 
EN 60065:2014 has a DoW 17.11.2017. This is in two months.
 
For this standard CENELEC and OJ show the same DoW.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:54 AM
To: Boštjan Glavič  >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Bostjan.
 
Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?
 
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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Dear all,
 
There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still
DoW 20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It
is very important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN
60950-1 into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
-

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  > 

-

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 

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hello Ian,

EN 60065:2014 has a DoW 17.11.2017. This is in two months.

For this standard CENELEC and OJ show the same DoW.

Best regards,
Bostjan

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:54 AM
To: Boštjan Glavič ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Hello Bostjan.

Do you know if EN 60065:2014 has the same withdrawal date as EN 60950?

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: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan


-


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: 

Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hello Nick,

Thank you for this clarification.

Best regards,
Bostjan

From: Hooper, Nick [mailto:nick.hoo...@ul.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Hello Bostjan

The EU Commission are "aware" of this, the last update to the LVD OJEU was to 
add "take into account the new status of the 60335-2-9"
There are a number of updates in the pipeline and they are working with CENELEC.

Best Regards
Nick

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan


-


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 e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely 
upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for any errors, 
omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any attachments.
-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[John Woodgate]

There should be an explanation of such things at the top of the OJ list, but
that would require intelligence, which is contrary to policy.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Hooper, Nick [mailto:nick.hoo...@ul.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Hello Bostjan
 
The EU Commission are "aware" of this, the last update to the LVD OJEU was
to add "take into account the new status of the 60335-2-9"
There are a number of updates in the pipeline and they are working with
CENELEC.
 
Best Regards
Nick
 
From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Dear all,
 
There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still
DoW 20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It
is very important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN
60950-1 into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
-

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 e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy
or rely upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender
by reply e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s).
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for
any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any
attachments.
-

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

-

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] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[John Woodgate]

I have flagged this up to the BSI committee, which may produce an
explanation.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW
 
Dear all,
 
There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still
DoW 20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It
is very important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN
60950-1 into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.
 
Best regards,
Bostjan
 
 
-

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] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[Hooper, Nick]

Hello Bostjan

The EU Commission are "aware" of this, the last update to the LVD OJEU was to 
add "take into account the new status of the 60335-2-9"
There are a number of updates in the pipeline and they are working with CENELEC.

Best Regards
Nick

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si]
Sent: 11 September 2017 09:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan


-


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 e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely 
upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for any errors, 
omissions, corruption or virus in this message or any attachments.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] EN 62368-1:2014 DoW

[Boštjan Glavič]

Dear all,

There was new EU official journey published on Sep 08 2017, however still DoW 
20.06.2019 is mentioned for EN 62368-1. Is anyone familiar about it? It is very 
important topic for customer who need to change certification for EN 60950-1 
into EN 62368-1. Cenelec web page shows DoW as Dec 20, 2020.

Best regards,
Bostjan



-

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: