Re: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields

[Mike Sherman]

At www.evs.ee you can get this preview for free 
https://www.evs.ee/preview/evs-en-62493-2015-en.pdf 
and buy the full standard for 19 euros. 

Mike Sherman 
Graco Inc. 

- Original Message -

From: "Pete Perkins" <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
To: "EMC-PSTC"  
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 1:19:50 PM 
Subject: Re: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related 
to human exposure to electromagnetic fields 



Andy, 



I have not used 62493 so I’m not familiar with the details; I looked it up on 
the IEC website to get an idea as to what it covered and reported their 
summary. 



In reading thru this I see several points here. 

1) The broad band radiation up to 300MHz must be for radiated emissions; 

2) light itself is very limited in frequency and bandwidth so this must apply 
to the SMPS which are driving the lamps. Interestingly enough I have seen quite 
robust Touch Current measurements from LED lighting SMPS; which will eventually 
be tamed by proper Touch Current measurements which include the up to 1Mhz HF 
portion allowed by the human body response to HF current. But note that these 
HF components exist and can give rise to both conducted and radiated emissions; 

3) SAR measurements indicate radiated emissions which would apply to LED 
systems (including their SMPS) which are worn on or close to the human body in 
their application. 



Perhaps someone else on this thread has more definite insight into the 
application and the need for these requirements; it would be good to hear from 
them. 




:>) br, Pete 



Peter E Perkins, PE 

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant 

PO Box 23427 

Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 



503/452-1201 



IEEE Life Fellow 

p.perk...@ieee.org 





From: McCallum, Andy  
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 7:52 AM 
To: Pete Perkins  
Subject: RE: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related 
to human exposure to electromagnetic fields 




Pete 



Thanks yes it is LED so not an issue. Out of interest what type of lighting 
does it cover? The exemption list is quite comprehensive. 



Andy 




From: Pete Perkins [ mailto:peperkin...@cs.com ] 
Sent: 29 March 2018 19:11 
To: McCallum, Andy < andy.mccal...@mottmac.com >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: RE: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related 
to human exposure to electromagnetic fields 




Andy, 



Just to clarify: 



Abstract; IEC 62493:2015 applies to the assessment of lighting equipment 
related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields. The assessment consists of 
the induced internal electric field for frequencies from 20 kHz to 10 MHz and 
the specific absorption rate (SAR) for frequencies from 100 kHz to 300 MHz 
around lighting equipment. This second edition cancels and replaces the first 
edition published in 2009. This edition constitutes a technical revision. This 
edition includes the following significant technical changes with respect to 
the previous edition: 
a) identification of lighting product types deemed to comply with the standard 
without the need for test; 
b) deletion of the need for CISPR-15-compliance as a prerequisite for IEC 62493 
compliance; 
c) inclusion of the consequences of the ICNIPR 2010 guidelines for (up to 100 
kHz); 
d) adding some guidance to the Van der Hoofden test head method to improve 
reproducibility of results; 
e) inclusion of compliance demonstration method for products having intentional 
radiators. 



Does your lighting product fall under the exemption? 




:>) br, Pete 



Peter E Perkins, PE 

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant 

PO Box 23427 

Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 



503/452-1201 



IEEE Life Fellow 

p.perk...@ieee.org 





From: McCallum, Andy < andy.mccal...@mottmac.com > 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:28 AM 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related to 
human exposure to electromagnetic fields 




Anyone have any experience of this standard? Do any lighting systems get close 
to the ICNIRP limits? 



Any thoughts welcome 



Andy 

- 
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields

[Pete Perkins]

Andy,

 

   I have not used 62493 so I'm not familiar with the details; I
looked it up on the IEC website to get an idea as to what it covered and
reported their summary.  

 

   In reading thru this I see several points here. 

1) The broad band radiation up to 300MHz must be for radiated emissions;  

2) light itself is very limited in frequency and bandwidth so this must
apply to the SMPS which are driving the lamps.  Interestingly enough I have
seen quite robust Touch Current measurements from LED lighting SMPS; which
will eventually be tamed by proper Touch Current measurements which include
the up to 1Mhz HF portion allowed by the human body response to HF current.
But note that these HF components exist and can give rise to both conducted
and radiated emissions;   

3) SAR measurements indicate radiated emissions which would apply to LED
systems (including their SMPS) which are worn on or close to the human body
in their application.  

 

   Perhaps someone else on this thread has more definite insight
into the application and the need for these requirements; it would be good
to hear from them.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: McCallum, Andy  
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 7:52 AM
To: Pete Perkins 
Subject: RE: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment
related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields

 

Pete

 

Thanks yes it is LED so not an issue. Out of interest what type of lighting
does it cover? The exemption list is quite comprehensive. 

 

Andy

 

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com] 
Sent: 29 March 2018 19:11
To: McCallum, Andy  >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment
related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields

 

Andy,

 

   Just to clarify:  

 

Abstract; IEC 62493:2015 applies to the assessment of lighting equipment
related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields. The assessment consists
of the induced internal electric field for frequencies from 20 kHz to 10 MHz
and the specific absorption rate (SAR) for frequencies from 100 kHz to 300
MHz around lighting equipment. This second edition cancels and replaces the
first edition published in 2009. This edition constitutes a technical
revision. This edition includes the following significant technical changes
with respect to the previous edition:
a) identification of lighting product types deemed to comply with the
standard without the need for test;
b) deletion of the need for CISPR-15-compliance as a prerequisite for IEC
62493 compliance;
c) inclusion of the consequences of the ICNIPR 2010 guidelines for (up to
100 kHz);
d) adding some guidance to the Van der Hoofden test head method to improve
reproducibility of results;
e) inclusion of compliance demonstration method for products having
intentional radiators.  

 

   Does your lighting product fall under the exemption?  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: McCallum, Andy  > 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] BS EN 62493:2015 Assessment of lighting equipment related to
human exposure to electromagnetic fields

 

Anyone have any experience of this standard?  Do any lighting systems get
close to the ICNIRP limits?

 

Any thoughts welcome

 

Andy

-


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/

Re: [PSES] [SI-LIST] Re: Measurement Dilema - THE EXPLANATION!

[Istvan Novak]

Hi Doug,

It was great to chat with you.
Here is a brief summary of the technical details we spoke (Doug, correct 
me if I cite something incorrectly).


Staying with the question how could someone show and demonstrate the 
amount of current the oscillator pumps into the circuit, there are a 
couple of simple possibilities:
- measuring the current flowing in the wire between the oscillator 
output and the probes.  With this we need to be careful so that the 
measuring probe and instrument wont alter the setup's behavior too much.
- measuring the change of DC supply current going into the oscillator 
between unloaded state (its output disconnected from the probes), versus 
when the oscillator output is connected to the probes.  Here we have a 
better chance to create a setup that only minimally alters the original 
scenario: we can use a miniature battery powered current meter.  We can 
also measure the DC supply current on the oscillator separately when we 
connect a tuned circuit to its output drawing approximately 40mA at 
specific harmonics.


When we do one or both of the above tests while we rearrange the probe 
cables to get maximum signal on the oscilloscope input, we can notice 
that the AC current supplied by the oscillator has two distinct states: 
there is a case when the oscillator supplies several times ten 
milliamperes, but there is also another state, when the oscillator 
hardly supplies any AC current.  This letter case can further be tested 
by inserting a very small capacitance between the oscillator output and 
the probe loops: we will still get about the same big signal on the 
oscilloscope input.  When I reproduced Doug's experiment at home, this 
latter case was accidentally the first I stumbled across.  This case 
corresponds to a parallel resonance instead of a series resonance, 
requiring only a very small amount of current feeding the circuit.  The 
Q of the tuned circuit will amplify the small injected current, so the 
current flowing in the ground lead wire of the oscilloscope probe is 
comparable to what we get in the series resonance case.  As we keep 
moving the probe cables, we can 'tune' the circuit through a set of 
series and parallel resonances.


Thanks again Doug for sharing your interesting experiments!

Regards,
Istvan Novak


Istvan Novak wrote:

Great! Lets talk over the phone, will call you after work.

At the end though I think SI-list readers may also be interested in ways
we come up with to demonstrate further aspects of your intriguing
experiment.

Regards,

Istvan Novak


On 4/6/2018 1:49 AM, Douglas Smith wrote:

Actually the oscillator is producing about the same current it would into a 
short circuit, 40 mA) because it is driving a very low impedance of a series 
resonant circuit!
Istvan, let’s talk on the phone to save s lot of typing.
Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 Office: 702-570-6108 Email: 
d...@dsmith.org Website: http://dsmith.org
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 21:07, Istvan Novak  wrote:
Doug,

Thank you for sharing your interesting experiments. These always
trigger my curiosity to look a little further. In my basement lab I
came up with a small series of experiments to separate the possible
different coupling mechanisms from the oscillator to the oscilloscope
input. Though I did not intend to replicate your exact setup, I believe
it was conceptually and essentially similar enough that the results may
apply to a large number of setups, including yours. From all of the
different tests my conclusion is that the oscillator is not supplying a
significant amount of current to produce the effect in question. I have
not had the good fortune yet to see your full live demonstration, plus
as you say you have much more data than what you publish, so it very
well could be that you already have done similar experiments and came to
similar conclusions. Therefore I would like to hear the thoughts of
those list members who did not attend your demonstrations, what kind of
experiments would they suggest to prove or disprove my conclusion.

Regards,

Istvan Novak



On 1/30/2018 12:06 PM, Douglas Smith wrote:

I did that experiment a long time ago, almost 30 years ago, when
developing this experiment, which is described in my book.

Reducing ground lead length to near zero eliminates the effect almost
completely with no other changes in the experimental setup. You still
see a little effect about 1/50 of before, due to the shield transfer
impedance of the probe cables. A tiny ground lead always swamps shield
transfer impedance of practical shielded cables. I do that experiment
for my classes as an extension of this experiment.

My live experiments are always more complete than the versions I
publish both to keep published versions reasonably short and to
provide extra value to live experiments. I usually have ten times the
data I actually publish!

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108

Re: [PSES] Power Integrity Question

[Istvan Novak]

Yes and no.
The coupling path was closing through the user PCB...


John Woodgate wrote:


That should be warned about in the data sheet. Internal EMC problems 
tend to be rare, which is good, but because they are rare, there 
should be warnings if they can occur.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-09 13:19, Istvan Novak wrote:
And examples can be even more strange: we had DC-DC converter modules 
failing to work properly because one of the converter's power pins 
feeding an internal linear regulator picked up noise from the same 
converter.


Regards,
Istvan Novak



John Woodgate wrote:
I agree. One particular point is keeping a trace connected to an 
inverting input very short, even if that means including a 
low-value  'stopper' resistor close to the chip. That point has 
quasi-infinite sensitivity but infinitesimal impedance only within 
the op-amp pass band. Above the pass-band, it is an antenna 
connected to a diode. And yes, it can pick up power rail noise.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-09 04:27, Doug Smith wrote:

Hi Ken and the group,

Many analog circuits, as well as the analog parts of large ICs that 
you mention, do have response to GHz noise even 1 MHz unity gain 
opamps! Low frequency op amps can  generate a DC offset on their 
inputs from GHz digital noise or radio signals, a common problem 
for the last  45 years since I first observed it. Power supply 
rejection of op amps goes to pot pretty quickly with frequency as 
well. High frequency effects therefore are important even to low 
speed analog circuits. In some ways, one must lay out the low 
frequency analog circuit using microwave techniques to keep RF 
noise at bay. The circuit features must be keep really small,, 
including the bypass capacitors being kept extremely close (< 100 
mils) to the op amp.


45 years ago, faced with opamp problems from RF noise I developed 
some techniques for keeping the op amps happy. I discuss these in 
my upcoming course.


Doug

University of Oxford, Course Tutor
Department for Continuing Education
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
--
Doug Smith
P.O. Box 60941
Boulder City, NV 89006-0941
TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013
Mobile: 408-858-4528
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Web: http://www.dsmith.org
--





-

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:  

Re: [PSES] Power Integrity Question

[Istvan Novak]

And examples can be even more strange: we had DC-DC converter modules 
failing to work properly because one of the converter's power pins 
feeding an internal linear regulator picked up noise from the same 
converter.


Regards,
Istvan Novak



John Woodgate wrote:
I agree. One particular point is keeping a trace connected to an 
inverting input very short, even if that means including a low-value  
'stopper' resistor close to the chip. That point has quasi-infinite 
sensitivity but infinitesimal impedance only within the op-amp pass 
band. Above the pass-band, it is an antenna connected to a diode. And 
yes, it can pick up power rail noise.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-09 04:27, Doug Smith wrote:

Hi Ken and the group,

Many analog circuits, as well as the analog parts of large ICs that 
you mention, do have response to GHz noise even 1 MHz unity gain 
opamps! Low frequency op amps can  generate a DC offset on their 
inputs from GHz digital noise or radio signals, a common problem for 
the last  45 years since I first observed it. Power supply rejection 
of op amps goes to pot pretty quickly with frequency as well. High 
frequency effects therefore are important even to low speed analog 
circuits. In some ways, one must lay out the low frequency analog 
circuit using microwave techniques to keep RF noise at bay. The 
circuit features must be keep really small,, including the bypass 
capacitors being kept extremely close (< 100 mils) to the op amp.


45 years ago, faced with opamp problems from RF noise I developed 
some techniques for keeping the op amps happy. I discuss these in my 
upcoming course.


Doug

University of Oxford, Course Tutor
Department for Continuing Education
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
--
Doug Smith
P.O. Box 60941
Boulder City, NV 89006-0941
TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013
Mobile: 408-858-4528
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Web: http://www.dsmith.org
--





-

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] Power Integrity Question

[John Woodgate]

I agree. One particular point is keeping a trace connected to an 
inverting input very short, even if that means including a low-value  
'stopper' resistor close to the chip. That point has quasi-infinite 
sensitivity but infinitesimal impedance only within the op-amp pass 
band. Above the pass-band, it is an antenna connected to a diode. And 
yes, it can pick up power rail noise.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-09 04:27, Doug Smith wrote:

Hi Ken and the group,

Many analog circuits, as well as the analog parts of large ICs that you mention, 
do have response to GHz noise even 1 MHz unity gain opamps! Low frequency op amps 
can  generate a DC offset on their inputs from GHz digital noise or radio signals, 
a common problem for the last  45 years since I first observed it. Power supply 
rejection of op amps goes to pot pretty quickly with frequency as well. High 
frequency effects therefore are important even to low speed analog circuits. In 
some ways, one must lay out the low frequency analog circuit using microwave 
techniques to keep RF noise at bay. The circuit features must be keep really 
small,, including the bypass capacitors being kept extremely close (< 100 mils) 
to the op amp.

45 years ago, faced with opamp problems from RF noise I developed some 
techniques for keeping the op amps happy. I discuss these in my upcoming course.

Doug

University of Oxford, Course Tutor
Department for Continuing Education
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
--
Doug Smith
P.O. Box 60941
Boulder City, NV 89006-0941
TEL/FAX: 702-570-6108/570-6013
Mobile: 408-858-4528
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Web: http://www.dsmith.org
--





-

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: