Re: [PSES] FW: Industrial Printer

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

That is a valuable remark.

Instead one should look-out for EN 55035 to be published; until then 
equipment legally need to comply with EN 55024  and both standards 
should be considered.


The publication date of that standard is currently unknown.

The scope of the affiliated standards EN 55022 and EN 55024 is ITE,

The scope of EN55032/EN55035 will be *multimedia equipment* and is 
larger than ITE.


Gert Gremmen

HAS Consultant RED and EMC at European Commission.

On 26-5-2018 10:47, John Woodgate wrote:


EN 55024 has only a very limited future life. I would not recommend 
applying it to a new product.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-05-26 08:50, Gert Gremmen; ce-test wrote:


Hi David,


CISPR 32 is not relevant as this is not a Harmonised European standard.

While CISPR IEC and EN standards may have similar numberings, they 
are not the same in all aspects.


EN 55032 _is_ a Harmonised European Standard (based on CISPR32) and 
applies to both Industrial and Residential ITE products, and a 
printer is a typical ITE product. So at first view EN 55032 is the 
preferred standard.That said, i did not actually see your printers.


EN 55011 has a more extended emission frequency range, and is 
probably more expensive to test as EN 55032.


The generic standards  61000-6-1/2/3/4  are supposed to be used only 
in case of absence of suitable product group standards (such as EN 
55011 and EN 55032 for emissions and EN 55024 for immunity). As that 
is the case, (as EN 55024 has no suitable test levels for (Class A) 
industrial operation), for reliable operation in an industrial 
environment the EN 61000-6-2 is the right alternative to EN 55024.


The best combination from both performance and legal view is probable 
EN 55032 Class A and EN 61000-6-2.


You might also apply just for EN 55032 and EN 55024 to obtain 
presumption of conformity and CE-mark and take a higher of field 
problems.




Gert Gremmen

HAS Consultant RED and EMC at European Commission.


On 24-5-2018 7:01, itl-emc user group wrote:


An industrial printer has been tested to EN 55011: 2009 + A1: 2010 
and EN 61000-6-2: 2005 + AC: 2006 (latest EMCD OJ).


Another industrial printer has been tested to EN 61000-6-4: 2007 + 
A1: 2011 and EN 61000-6-2: 2005 + AC: 2006 (latest EMCD OJ).


The printers are used in an industrial environment only.

Any opinions as to whether or not CISPR 32 is relevant as well.

Thanks in advance to any responses.

*Regards,***

*David Shidlowsky***| Technical Reviewer

*Address*1 Bat-Sheva St. LOD 7120101 Israel

*Tel*972-8-9186113*Fax* 972-8-9153101

*Mail*: dav...@itlglobal.org 
<mailto:dav...@itlglobal.org>/dav...@itl.co.il 
<mailto:dav...@itl.co.il>/e...@itl.co.il *Web* www.itlglobal.org 
<http://www.itlglobal.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

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

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

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



-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a mes

Re: [PSES] FW: Industrial Printer

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

Hi David,


CISPR 32 is not relevant as this is not a Harmonised European standard.

While CISPR IEC and EN standards may have similar numberings, they are 
not the same in all aspects.


EN 55032 _is_ a Harmonised European Standard (based on CISPR32) and 
applies to both Industrial and Residential ITE products, and a printer 
is a typical ITE product. So at first view EN 55032 is the preferred 
standard.That said, i did not actually see your printers.


EN 55011 has a more extended emission frequency range, and is probably 
more expensive to test as EN 55032.


The generic standards  61000-6-1/2/3/4  are supposed to be used only in 
case of absence of suitable product group standards (such as EN 55011 
and EN 55032 for emissions and EN 55024 for immunity). As that is the 
case, (as EN 55024 has no suitable test levels for (Class A) industrial 
operation), for reliable operation in an industrial environment the EN 
61000-6-2 is the right alternative to EN 55024.


The best combination from both performance and legal view is probable EN 
55032 Class A and EN 61000-6-2.


You might also apply just for EN 55032 and EN 55024 to obtain 
presumption of conformity and CE-mark and take a higher of field problems.




Gert Gremmen

HAS Consultant RED and EMC at European Commission.


On 24-5-2018 7:01, itl-emc user group wrote:


An industrial printer has been tested to EN 55011: 2009 + A1: 2010 and 
EN 61000-6-2: 2005 + AC: 2006 (latest EMCD OJ).


Another industrial printer has been tested to EN 61000-6-4: 2007 + A1: 
2011 and EN 61000-6-2: 2005 + AC: 2006 (latest EMCD OJ).


The printers are used in an industrial environment only.

Any opinions as to whether or not CISPR 32 is relevant as well.

Thanks in advance to any responses.

*Regards,***

*David Shidlowsky***| Technical Reviewer

*Address*1 Bat-Sheva St. LOD 7120101 Israel

*Tel*972-8-9186113*Fax* 972-8-9153101

*Mail*: dav...@itlglobal.org 
/dav...@itl.co.il 
/e...@itl.co.il *Web* www.itlglobal.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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


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


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


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

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

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

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




-

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] Radio modem - RED?

[Gert Gremmen / Ce-test]

If i do understand your question: 
That is why you need a technical file, several of the radio test cannot be 
applied to a modem, so it is exempted for technical reasons. It will need to 
operate while testing your system, and also during radio EMC tests. Your risk 
analysis will show what are your possibilities. And yes, it applies for RED, as 
a component in a radio (system).

Gert Gremmen 

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

> Op 27 apr. 2018 om 13:59 heeft Charlie Blackham 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Amund
>  
> Can you provide some more information on what the “radio modem” is and what 
> the system is
>  
> Regards
> Charlie
>  
> Charlie Blackham
> Sulis Consultants Ltd
> Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
> Web: www.sulisconsultants.com
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>  
> From: Amund Westin  
> Sent: 27 April 2018 05:38
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Radio modem - RED?
>  
> In a radio system, the will be several devices as the antenna, amplifiers, 
> frequency tuners, splitters and at the end a modem.
> A modem, which will be placed deep in the block chain of the radio system, 
> does it apply for RED? It’s not connected directly to an antenna and not 
> transmitting / receiving on the system frequency.
> RED guide Chapter 1.6.3.6 mentions different items that is connected to an 
> antenna, but the modem is not, it is placed further into the system.
> But if RED apply, how can you test according to a “radio system” RED standard 
> when your modem is not transmitting on that system frequency?
>  
>  
> Best regards
> Amund
>  
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 

-

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] AW: [PSES] FW: HBES/BACS Standards in the OJ

[Gert Gremmen / Ce-test]

Yes, the publication in the OK is all you need to consider for the EU. As 
Turkey is NOT a ec member they can ask what they want. 

The EC is currently creating a network of independent harmonized standards 
consultants. Once this is operational the slow publication of cenelec, etsi and 
cen standards will cease. I expect that this will be before the end of the year.
I will be part of this network for the RED and for EMCD.  Expect more news to 
come by the end of may.

Gert Gremmen

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

> Op 15 mrt. 2018 om 18:46 heeft Kevin McCandless 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Thank you Experts,
> 
> I knew I would get very valuable information from this group.
> Using the projects link provided by Bernd, I was able to determine that the 
> EMC and Safety subparts of EN 63044 have DOW's of 2020 and 2021 respectively.
> Both general standards EN 50491-1 and EN 50491-5-1 have already been 
> superseded by their EN 63044 counterparts.
> Since neither of those provide "presumption of conformity" for any directive, 
> they do not affect our current DoC's.
> 
> Does anyone have a guess as to when the next release of the EMCD OJ will be?
> 
> Thanks again for your help.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kevin
> ___
>  
> 
> Kevin McCandless   |   Schneider Electric   |   Building & IT Business - 
> EcoBuilding Division - Building Management LoB   |   Regulatory Engineer
> Phone: +1 815 381 5044   |   Direct Dial: 52344   |   Fax: +1 815 381 0749   
> |   Mobile: +1 815 323 8002
> Address: Rockford Development Center, 839 N. Perryville Rd., Rockford, IL 
> 61107, USA
> Email: kevin.mccandl...@schneider-electric.com   |   Site: 
> www.schneider-electric.com/buildings 
> 
> *** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:07 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] FW: HBES/BACS Standards in the OJ
> 
> Hi Bernd, John,
> 
> Thanks for the useful information, much appreciated.
> 
> All the best
> James
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dürrer Bernd 
> Sent: 15 March 2018 10:00
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] FW: HBES/BACS Standards in the OJ
> 
> Hello James,
> 
> EN 50491 is a series of CENELEC standards while EN 63044 is an adoption of 
> IEC standards, so probably this is part of harmonisation of European and IEC 
> standards. The Turkish customer is correct that part 1 EN 50491-1 has been 
> superseded by EN 63044-1 that is not listed in the OJ, but other parts of the 
> EN 50491 series are still valid and listed in the OJ. As EN 50491-1 has not 
> been listed in the OJ before EN 63044-1 has been published and only contains 
> general definitions and references to other standards, I doubt that it has 
> ever been listed in the OJ. So CENELEC's replacement of EN 50491-1 by EN 
> 63044-1 does also not have any impact on the presumption of conformity.
> 
> The work programme of CENELEC's CLC/TC 205 can be seen on their website:
> https://www.cenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=104:22:1045412457161701FSP_ORG_ID,FSP
> _LANG_ID:1258281,25#1
> 
> There you may check when other parts of EN 50491 will be replaced by their 
> IEC 63044 counterparts.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Bernd
> 
> Von: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. März 2018 09:11
> An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Betreff: Re: [PSES] FW: HBES/BACS Standards in the OJ
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Do you have an idea why a new series of standards are being introduced rather 
> than updating the older ones?
> 
> Thanks
> James
> 
> From: John Woodgate 
> Sent: 14 March 2018 23:19
> To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: HBES/BACS Standards in the OJ
> 
> These delays in updating the OJ list are very troublesome.  Lawyers are 
> involved, which says it all. The 63044 series (and other new, not yet listed
> standards) cannot be formally used to demonstrate conformity. A possible 
> solution is to ensure that the product passes the OJ listed standard, cite it 
> on the DoC and explain in addition in a Note to the DoC that the new standard 
> is also met. Of course, it might not be possible to satisfy both standards, 
> if they have 'absolutely conflicting' requirements (what is explicitly 
> mandatory in one is explicitly prohibited in the other) but that is probably 
> a rare case.
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates http://www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK On
> 2018-03-14 22:28, Kevin McCandless wrote:
> Hello Experts,
> 
> I didn't see my first request show up in my inbox. So I'm trying again...
> 
> A customer in Turkey has stated that the EN 50491-1 family of HBES/BACS 
> standards has been replaced by the EN 63044-1 family.
> They want a DoC drafted

Re: [PSES] EN 55032 Testing on Wired Network Port

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

EMC testing is like speeding by car. Did you ever try convince an 
officer that you drove too fast for only a few minutes by year if caught 
over-speeding?  And what did he say ?


Ports do not need testing only if inoperable at all. And even than, from 
a technical point of view it may generate interference. In my opinion, 
testing requirements end completely when a port is not accessible to the 
end-user.


And the criterion is not _troublesome_ emissions, the requirement is 
_over-the-limit_ emissions.


Like speeding by car, driving beyond speed-limits does not need to be 
troublesome (by the absence of other cars for example, or by night). 
Nevertheless, any speeding limit is enforced even if not troublesome.


But at the end, it is the manufacturer who decides if creating emissions 
over the limit is acceptable or not. But do not complain if you get caught.



Gert Gremmen


On 24-4-2018 12:52, John Woodgate wrote:


 Do you even need to justify not testing,if it doesn't produces 
troublesome emissions? The only justification I can see might be that 
it is used only for periods of a few minutes a few times a year.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-24 11:18, itl-emc user group wrote:


A device has a wired network port used for de-bugging only.

The port is not used during normal operation of the device.

Any opinions on whether or not this port should be tested?

*Regards,***

*David Shidlowsky***| Technical Reviewer

*Address*1 Bat-Sheva St. LOD 7120101 Israel

*Tel*972-8-9186113*Fax* 972-8-9153101

*Mail*: dav...@itlglobal.org 

This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information.

If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, 
disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment 
in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please 
return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender.


-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




-

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] Medical device risk assessment - faulty chargers

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

Life is consist of risk assessments!

If you cross a road, you quickly assess the risk of safely getting to 
the other side.


What you call a scientific method, is a risk assessment based on 
physical hypotheses , but the hypothesis might be wrong tomorrow, or in 
another place. But the chance of getting bitten is that low that you can 
get away with it : Risk assessment.


What we call risk assessment in medical product safety evaluation (and 
now also in LVD and other EC directives to come), is a formal method of 
ranking the risks (visualize FMEA here). Seeing them ordered and (though 
arbitrarily quantizized) allows one to compare to earlier versions of 
the product, helps placing a red line (do not cross that risk level)and 
helps in prioritizing risks.


Risk analysis is not scientific, indeed, it is a method to get hand on 
dangers of all kind of nature.


“Injuries to a living organism can be produced only by some energy 
interchange.”


Not all risk are of energetic nature:

Trivial example:  An interpretation fault risk happened in medical 
staff  paging system where both S and 5 were used to indicate the 
location of  emergencies in numbered corridors in a hospital. At that 
time 8-segment displays were common and renumbering the corridors by not 
using the S was a proposed solution. Risk assessment allowed us to find 
other hazards that might happen if a single segment was defective. 6 
versus b, 7 versus 1. The manufacturer decided that a 7-segment display 
was not the way to go.





Gert Gremmen



On 17-4-2018 1:22, Richard Nute wrote:


… how do you test *objectively* the adequacy of a symbol like the ! in 
a triangle…


The ! is not a safeguard.  Ultimately, the safeguard is some 
prescribed behavior on the part of a person.  The manufacturer of 
equipment can only describe the desired behavior.   The behavior can 
be tested to determine its effectiveness at safeguarding a body.  
However, the manufacturer cannot enforce a behavior.  Hence, a 
behavior safeguard is not necessarily an effective safeguard as is a 
physical safeguard.


… requirement for two layers of plastic film or insulation, in case 
one layer had a pinhole…


The pinhole was a hypothesis.  We totally ignored the fact that the 
insulation system is comprised of solid-air-solid (a thin layer of air 
separated the two layers).  The voltage divides inversely according to 
the capacitance.  Most of the voltage appears across the thin layer of 
air, not the two solid insulations.  So, we built in a failure 
mechanism to thwart a hypothesis.  Fortunately, the system has 
sufficent electric strength and the transient voltages at the electric 
strength voltage are years apart and of short duration that breakdown 
during equipment lifetime is not likely.


Product safety is rife with “conventional wisdom.”

Rich

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




-

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] Medical device risk assessment - faulty chargers

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

I believe that charging a device within the MDD when connected to a 
patient is not normal use but to be classified (foreseeable) misuse.


Some remarks:

1. An apparatus that requires charging is most often meant to be used 
while not connected to the mains; why use a battery otherwise. Most 
equipment i have encountered using 25 years of product testing included 
a clear disabling mechanism while charging.


2. Often equipment that is not designed to meet the double MOPP/MOOP 
requirements (mostly for cost reasons) uses a battery to meet 
insulation/touch current requirements "the easy way". Connecting the 
device to a charger will immediately make the device unsafe.


3. I have not yet seen a medically approved USB charger, and most 
approved IT chargers do not meet the (constructional) reinforced 
insulation requirements between primary and secondary to be  used in ME 
equipment or leakage/touch  currents.


Gert Gremmen


On 14-4-2018 0:59, Leo Eisner wrote:

Nick,

This is an in process interpretation that is being currently developed 
by IEC TC62 SC 62A WG14 and was supposed to be discussed today in our 
London meeting but the submitter of the request for interpretation was 
not able to make the meeting today.  Part of the draft interpretation 
does mention there are fake chargers out there and they definitely 
will not meet Dielectric, spacings, and leakage current limits.  Also, 
they can reboot computers connected to the network, The submitter of 
the request says: "It has been noted in health care facilities 
recently that certain ME Equipment have rebooted, close down 
prematurely, changed alarm setting, change patient setting due to 
interconnection of other electrical equipment intended to be charged 
or powered.”


USB is not the wisest choice for power as you also have data issues 
potentially depending on the Medical device and it’s connection.  The 
best solution I have seen is 1) turn off or disable patient circuitry 
when connected to USB.

2) disable the software the controls the device.
3) provide additional Reinforced or Double Insulation 2 Means of 
Patient Protection (dielectric and spacings requirements)
4) Do a thorough Risk Analysis per ISO 14971:2007 (that is what IEC 
60601-1:2005 + A1:2012) or in the EU use EN 14971:2012 with the 
associated EN 60601-1, ed. 3.1


Hope this helps,
photo   Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
Phone: (503) 244-6151 
Mobile: (503) 709-8328 
Email: l...@eisnersafety.com 
Website: www.EisnerSafety.com 
 
 
 
 
 



*** Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ***
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not 
disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message 
or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in 
error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to 
the sender.


Eisner Safety Consultants do not accept liability for any errors, 
omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any 
attachments that arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

***

On Apr 11, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Mike Sherman > wrote:


There are a number of documented cases of counterfeit or knock off 
Apple USB chargers that do not pass dielectric testing; a couple have 
been suspected in shock related deaths. This is an unstated 
background to this discussion.


Mike Sherman
Graco Inc.


*From: *"Ari Honkala" >
*To: *"EMC-PSTC" >

*Sent: *Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:20:35 AM
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Medical device risk assessment - faulty chargers

My first thought: what has the origin of the charger has to do with 
it being potentially faulty? Any device may broke; that's why there 
are requirements for single fault condition.


with best regards,

Ari Honkala

-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick_willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 19:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] Medical device risk assessment - faulty chargers

Colleagues,

EN 60601-1 3rd ed. requires the manufacturer to take a risk 
assessment based approach to the safety of their electrical medical 
products.


With the increased used of universal USB power as a source for 
battery charging, it’s easy for the risk assessment to identify use 
of the

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

The LVD does NOT apply.

For elektrical safety and EMC the RED will use it's proper list of 
harmonised standards.


As says:

Art 1.4

/Radio equipment//falling within//the scope of this Directive//shall 
_*not*_ be subject//to Directive//2014/35/EU,//except as//set out in 
point (a) of Article 3(1) of this Directive. /


Art 3.1(a) says :

/the protection of health//and safety of persons//and of 
domestic//animals//and the protection//of proper//ty, 
including//the//objectives//with respect//to safety requirements//set 
out in Directive//2014/35/EU,//but with no voltage limit applying; /


One cannot legally apply a directive and say at the same time that some 
part of it is not applicable. It's the _objectives as set-out in the 
LV-directive_, that are an essential requirement to the RED, not the 
directive itself. I agree that such IS somewhat obscurantist wording.


The fact that no standards for electrical safety have been published yet 
does NOT help in good understanding the directives wording, of course.


Gert Gremmen
On 4-4-2018 17:44, John Woodgate wrote:
Yes, well, it's typical obscurantist wording. The LVD DOES apply, but 
without its low-voltage limit. That is what Article 3 1 (a) says, 
quite explicitly.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-04 16:33, Charlie Blackham wrote:


The LVD is cited, but the RED is the applicable Directive, as per 
article Art. 1.4 of the RED which states


“Radio equipment falling within the scope of this Directive shall not 
be subject to Directive 2014/35/EU (LVD), except as set out in point 
(a) of Article 3(1) of this Directive.”


In due course, all product EMF standards will be harmonised under RED

Regards

Charlie

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com* 



Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 04 April 2018 16:05
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 
13.56 MHz RFID



Yes, I cited the wrong Directive. Wrong citations are quite common, 
due to the Commission and the SMBs citing the largely meaningless 
'/nn' numbers instead of the titles of the Directives.


. The actual situation is that the Directive concerned is the Low 
Voltage Directive. The involvement of the RED is ONLY Article 3 1 
(a), which applies the LVD without its low-voltage limit. Nothing 
else of the RED is relevant.


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

On 2018-04-04 14:51, Michael Derby wrote:

John,

I think the physical agents Directive is concerned with the
workplace, not with products.

For assessment of RF Exposure risk/safety from products, the RED
is indeed the correct Directive and it would be covered in
Article 3.1a.

Thanks,

Michael.

Michael Derby

Senior Regulatory Engineer

Director

ACB Europe

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry

Web: www.acbcert.com 

e-mail: micha...@acbcert.com 

Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code)

Corporate office phone: USA:   (+1) 703 847 4700

*From:*John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
*Sent:* 04 April 2018 14:38
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED
for 13.56 MHz RFID

SECOND RESPONSE

I should have mentioned that exposure standards have nothing to
do with RED but are relevant to a different Directive:

DIRECTIVE 2013/35/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 26 June 2013
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the
exposure of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th
individual Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive
2004/40/EC


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only

J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2018-04-04 13:38, Grace Lin wrote:

Dear Members,

Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz
RFID devices?

The following four standards are listed in the latest
published list standards (March 9, 2018).  It seems there is
no one applicable to a 13.56 MHz RFID device.

EN 50360:2017 Product standard to demonstrate the compliance
of wireless communication devices, with the basic
restrictions and exposure limit values related to human
exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range
   

Re: [PSES] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

As LVD (2014/35) is not applicable for Radio devices and so RFID, this 
standard is set up to be harmonized


under the RED. Be it as an Electrical Safety Standard under the RED. 
Look at the provided link.



Gert Gremmen


On 4-4-2018 15:37, John Woodgate wrote:

SECOND RESPONSE

I should have mentioned that exposure standards have nothing to do 
with RED but are relevant to a different Directive:


DIRECTIVE 2013/35/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 26 June 2013
on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure 
of workers to the risks
arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual 
Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 
2004/40/EC

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2018-04-04 13:38, Grace Lin wrote:

Dear Members,

Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz RFID devices?

The following four standards are listed in the latest published list 
standards (March 9, 2018).  It seems there is no one applicable to a 
13.56 MHz RFID device.



EN 50360:2017 Product standard to demonstrate the compliance of 
wireless communication devices, with the basic restrictions and 
exposure limit values related to human exposure to electromagnetic 
fields in the frequency range from 300 MHz to 6 GHz: devices used 
next to the ear


EN 50385:2017 Product standard to demonstrate the compliance of base 
station equipment with radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure 
limits (110 MHz — 100 GHz), when placed on the market


EN 50401:2017 Product standard to demonstrate the compliance of base 
station equipment with radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure 
limits (110 MHz — 100 GHz), when put into service


EN 50566:2017 Product standard to demonstrate the compliance of 
wireless communication devices with the basic restrictions and 
exposure limit values related to human exposure to electromagnetic 
fields in the frequency range from 30 MHz to 6 GHz: hand-held and 
body mounted devices in close proximity to the human body



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

Best regards,
Grace Lin
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




-

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] EMC tests called up in Safety standards

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

The EMC tests as called out in 60335  are safety tests, contrary to 
those called out under the EMCD that are functional tests only. For 
Europe , one can discuss about the necessity of those tests, as the 
EMCD  requires testing in all operating modes including OFF or standby 
and  as long as one can prove that  an apparatus remains functional, it 
also could be considered safe. I have not seen many examples of a 
compliant functional apparatus that has become unsafe during an immunity 
test, but cannot exclude that this may happen either. Hence this test in 
60335, that might also come into view during the required risk analysis 
as called out in the new LVD. For Europe only, of course.


The difference between functional and safety related EMC is an evolving 
discussion, lately triggered by accidents with hybrid and autonomous 
driving cars.


Gert Gremmen


On 20-3-2018 10:27, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello experts,

I note that EN 60335-1 (household and similar appliances) specifically 
calls up EMC immunity tests in clause 19.11.4 where the controls for 
the EUT are set in the “off position” and a set of immunity tests are 
applied. For something that controls a heating element, I can see why 
this would be a concern.


A couple of questions / thoughts:

  * It sounds like this at least doubles the amount of immunity
testing required – one with the EUT “on” and one with it “off”.
Would that be how you read this?
  * Are there any other safety standards that explicitly call up EMC
tests within them like this one does? This is the first one I’ve
come across where this is the case but I’m not very familiar with
safety standards in general.

Thanks and all the best,

James

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




-

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] Field probe calibration

[Gert Gremmen; ce-test]

IMHO all probes are calibrated under far field conditions.

In general: Using probes in the proximity (< lambda) of anything 
conductive (including ground planes at 10 cm and including EUT) makes 
the measurement data useless.


As James correctly states, the construction of the probe makes this 
effect different per type of probe, be it the construction, the size of 
battery or electronics on board or the lead (fiber or copper) , as long 
a other conductors are in proximity the read out has no relation to 
calibration data anymore.


Using a probe near a ground plane, such as usual in automotive test set 
ups, indeed says not much about the test level of the EUT.



Repeating this test under far field conditions, preferable on an antenna 
calibration facility, might give you much better results. (not that you 
are allowed to generate this much of power on air ;<)


Gert Gremmen


On 4-3-2018 11:06, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hi David,

An interesting set of results! I’m going to ask some questions that 
I’m sure you’ve already considered so please bear with me being 
Captain B. Obvious.


Do your field probes use frequency correction? I’m not familiar with a 
wide range of probes but my Narda PMM field probe has an internal 
calibration table; you tell it what the field frequency you are 
applying is and it makes the appropriate correction. However, looking 
at the typical correction data from the manual (see PDF page 12 of 
this doc: 
https://www.emctest.it/public/pages/strumentazione/elenco/Narda/EP%20600/Manuali/EP600-EP601EN-90302-2.02.pdf) 
it doesn’t look like a large difference.


Is there a difference in the probe construction between the probes 
used? Some probes like the Narda one above have two antenna per axis 
whereas ones like this Amplifier Research probe - 
https://www.arworld.us/html/18200.asp?id=636 only have one antenna per 
axis. Perhaps the proximity of copper plate makes a difference.


On the subject of copper plate, what are the differences without this 
present? What are the dimensions of it and are they significant at the 
frequencies selected?


Have you acquired just spot readings or a full frequency sweep? There 
may be some patterns in the frequency sweep data that give you more of 
a clue as to what’s happening.


An interesting puzzle and I look forward to hearing about your results 
further!


All the best

James

*From:*Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
*Sent:* 04 March 2018 05:22
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Field probe calibration

I took data with 4 field probes, 3 different models. All calibrated. 
Two calibrations by the manufacturer, two by a reputable cal house.


200-1000 MHz data, 10 MHz step size, 60 V/m level. I recorded the 
forward power, and all equipment and software in the setup was the 
same, barring only the measuring field probe and associated probe 
factors. Composite values only. No 3-axis data as I don’t have 3-axis 
calibration data for all probes. Probes were 10 cm above a copper 
bench, DRG antenna 90 from the bench.


The results are not encouraging. The tables below show the results in 
watts of forward power for select frequencies.


Antenna Horizontal – values in Watts



Probe 1



Probe 2



Probe 3



Probe 4



Max-Min(Watts)

200 MHz



85.17



144.4



135.9



97.75



59.23

220 MHz



92.81



171.6



157.4



113.5



78.79

500 MHz



21.7



34.93



28.58



26.94



13.23

900 MHz



25.57



37.25



25.6



32.42



11.68

Antenna Vertical – values in Watts



Probe 1



Probe 2



Probe 3



Probe 4



Max-Min(Watts)

200 MHz



18.94



25.12



22.55



18.82



6.3

330 MHz



34.1



40.69



46.29



39.41



12.19

780 MHz



35.52



53.03



29.87



32.83



23.16

930 MHz



56.63



47.01



64.26



107.7



60.69

There are trends in the data. Probe 1 was usually the lowest. Probe 2 
was usually the highest, rarely the lowest.


If you want to talk field strength effects this will mean, depending 
on the probe, you could have an E-field 40% higher between two 
‘identical’ calibrations.  The large variance between which probe was 
highest or lowest based on freq. is troubling, as is the clear 
difference between horizontal and vertical. I took additional data 
with two probes of the same model rotated around a center axis. I 
don’t have that all compiled, but just comparing one probe against 
itself, laying on the left, right, and bottom sides, results in up 20% 
difference in required power.


I have not read IEEE 519, but plan to soon. So my question to this 
group - do you think fiel

Re: [PSES] Insulation resistance test

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

As far as I understand, this requirement was needed in the time that insulation 
materials 

might have hygroscopic properties. Insulation materials as wood were common in 
the past.

If they were not suitably treated, in humid circumstances insulation might drop 
to unacceptable levels.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing

((partially) retired in France)

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Monday 19 February 2018 10:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation resistance test

 

The flash test is necessary because there are high-voltage pulses on the 
electricity supply caused by switching operations and distant lightning. It is 
very likely that a product that fails the insulation resistance test would fail 
the high-voltage test as well.  But it is not inevitable; a 1.8 megohm 
insulation resistance passes 1.67 mA at 3 kV. 

As I said, it would be most unusual for a non-faulty modern product to show an 
insulation resistance as low as 1.8 megohms (if discharge resistors are 
disconnected).

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

On 2018-02-19 09:30, Scott Xe wrote:

John,

 

I almost forgot the Megger gear that I tried it once in the lab when I studied 
radio engineering.  Thereafter I am using battery-operated tester and now more 
and more multi-purpose testers including it into one unit.

 

The main reason why I raised this query is that the flash test gives harsher 
test on safety strength than insulation resistance test.  The debate is in 
safety standards it still requires it but a lot of young engineers consider 
waste time if flash test is included.  Why do we focus on flash test?  
Probably, it is a very old test and still remain in many safety standards.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> 
Date: Monday, 19 February 2018 at 4:22 PM
To: Scott Xe  <mailto:scott...@gmail.com> ,  
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Insulation resistance test

 

The test is very old, and pre-dates the high-voltage test by very many years. 
You mentioned 'Megger' in your other post, yes, that was how it was done. (A 
Megger (brand name) was/is a type of magneto with an ohmmeter attached. The 
stable output voltage required for the ohmmeter is achieved by a mechanical 
governor, which limits the armature speed however fast you turn the handle.) 

The test might not be totally irrelevant for modern electronic equipment, but 
the requirements in most standards are certainly in need of revision. These 
requirements are for a minimum insulation resistance of 1 or 2 megohms. A 
modern piece of electronic equipment typically has a resistance of hundreds of 
megohms (unless condensation occurs), so a measured value of  a few megohms  
shows that something is in fact seriously wrong. I have raised this point in 
TC108 before, but no-one was willing to take action. Tradition, you know. 

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

On 2018-02-19 05:45, Scott Xe wrote:

Insulation resistance test is one of most common safety tests nowadays: Flash 
test, earth continuity test, leakage current test and insulation resistance 
test.  Can someone share the history of this teat to use DC and 500 V.  The 
products are working on AC and test voltage is higher than normal operating 
voltage but much lower than the flash test.  It is a trend to skip this test on 
production line.  What are the distinct benefits for this test?

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Scott

-


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 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 
fo

Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

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

>Yes, the building ground is likely to be noisy, unless you actually connect
directly >back to its earth spike

No signal, ground or supply is noisy. It is the designer that defines a
certain conductor to be clean, and references all other voltages (probably
to be filtered)  to that potential.
Inside a screened room, there is only ONE ground (reference potential), and
that is the conductive shell around the EUT (so the chamber wall itself). 

Electrical safety inside a room must be referenced to that potential, as
well as all signals measured inside. 
All cable screens are therefore connected to the conductive wall before
leaving. It is  fully irrelevant to what you connect  the outside of the
chamber , as the skin effect effectively separates all current on the
external surface from the internal surface. For extremely low frequencies,
wall thickness may be insufficient, and wall current on the external
surface can show up on the internal surface and create potential differences
on different parts of the internal wall (and possibly fields inside). The
only remedy is increasing wall thickness , dual walls,  increase
conductivity or apply a layer of  magnetic conductive shield (ferro metal Ur
> 1) .
One should prevent LF current to flow on the outside. Still it makes no
difference to what ground point you connect the room (just do not make 2
different connections).
One last problem may be the presence of LF magnetic fields on the outside,
they may create currents op to several amps on the outside surface, leading
to the problem sketched above.  (try connecting a 50-60Hz current clamp
around the metal tubing of your central heating and be surprised: the loops
in these tubes and the mains magnetic field easily creates  a few amps of
"thougth" ground faults)  .

Electrical safety at the outside of the room is obtained by simply
connecting the wall to the building's safety conductor.  

Gert

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 19 July 2017 09:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

It's not my consensus! Yes, the building ground is likely to be noisy,
unless you actually connect directly back to its earth spike. Even then, the
wire you use is an inductor and may have noise induced in it. 

I am quite sure that BS 7671 and other Code standards do not recognize that
a screened room is outside their scopes. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)
[mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com]
Sent: 19 July 2017 07:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

Thanks all for the replies.

It seems that there is some divided opinion.

Some of the test houses I have spoken to state that they definitely ground
their chambers via ground spikes. This is to remove low frequency noise that
causes issues with the low frequency emc tests  that are required in
mil-std, def stan  and rtca/do-160.
One test house I spoke to stated that as a result of cost cutting an earth
spike was not fitted so earthing was taken to building ground, as a result
of this the test house has issues with low frequency noise.

The consensus of the forum is that a ground spike should not be required and
the building ground used should be enough.

This then probably raises the question of how good is the building ground?
Is there a requirement for this?
If there is noise on the building ground how can this be eliminated?

Regards
Andy



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

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

* Please consider the environment before printing this email.




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

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


-

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

Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

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

>I am quite sure that BS 7671 and other Code standards do not recognize that
a >screened room is outside their scopes

Of course they won't. But it is, technically.

Gert

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 19 July 2017 09:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

It's not my consensus! Yes, the building ground is likely to be noisy,
unless you actually connect directly back to its earth spike. Even then, the
wire you use is an inductor and may have noise induced in it. 

I am quite sure that BS 7671 and other Code standards do not recognize that
a screened room is outside their scopes. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)
[mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com]
Sent: 19 July 2017 07:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

Thanks all for the replies.

It seems that there is some divided opinion.

Some of the test houses I have spoken to state that they definitely ground
their chambers via ground spikes. This is to remove low frequency noise that
causes issues with the low frequency emc tests  that are required in
mil-std, def stan  and rtca/do-160.
One test house I spoke to stated that as a result of cost cutting an earth
spike was not fitted so earthing was taken to building ground, as a result
of this the test house has issues with low frequency noise.

The consensus of the forum is that a ground spike should not be required and
the building ground used should be enough.

This then probably raises the question of how good is the building ground?
Is there a requirement for this?
If there is noise on the building ground how can this be eliminated?

Regards
Andy



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

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

* Please consider the environment before printing this email.




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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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

Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

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

I agree that (national) legislation should play a role here,
but EMC chambers are NOT ordinary equipments, nor
part of a standard electrical installation.
I would not rely on electrical codes to create a safe work environment,
and have my personal opinions prevail.

We operate in a gray area, where safety is concerned.


So here good (low voltage) engineering practice suggests "permanent
connection"
and due to the specifically lethal character of the "high leakage current
device"
of the device, a second backup connection is not superfluous.

Gert


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 18 July 2017 21:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

I think the issue is far more about electrical safety than EMC. Of course
you are quite right about a Faraday cage not requiring an earth connection.
It's what happens if there is a high-current live mains to accessible metal
fault. The preferred technique depends on how such a fault is detected and
rendered harmless. National electrical codes have much to say about this,
and they don't all require the same solutions. That's why I advised the OP
to look at BS 7694, because that is what applies in Britain.


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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 18 July 2017 19:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]

It's not so much that it needs filtering at the power frequency as it is
that that much line to ground capacitance is needed to provide 100 dB of
insertion loss down to 10 kHz (which is typical for chamber power filters).

Back to the original question -

I've had 3 and 10 meter chambers in different places over the years.  The
first chamber was built before I joined the company and the engineer worked
very hard to maintain a single point ground for the chamber.  I built a 10
meter chamber for the same company a number of years later and didn't worry
about a single point ground.  Both worked fine.  A Faraday Cage, once you
are talking high enough frequencies (and 10 kHz is high enough), doesn't
care if it is ungrounded, single point grounded or multi-point grounded.
The RF currents flow close enough to the surface that the shield is good.

Now, if you have a problem with 60 Hz power causing currents to flow through
the shield material you may have a different problem.  I've never had to
care about shielding effectiveness at 60 Hz, so skin effect hasn't been an
issue for me.  YMMV.

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Chamber grounding [General Use]


"But as soon as mains filters are mounted on the wall, one has to cope with
leakage currents (blind current) as large as 6 amp or more." 
6 amps!  At 230 volts, 50 Hz, Xc is 38.8 ohms.  Total C from line to earth
is 69.2 uF!  (Presumably the filter has an equal capacitance from neutral to
earth.)  Why does a chamber need so much filtering at mains frequency?

Rich


-

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 messag

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

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

I second that  Personal experience.

Often I give the advice to get rid of all these grounds and just create one 
full continuous ground plane

including DGND AGND SGND and so on. Then customer comes back and has read 
manufacturers recommendations for a chip and ignored my advice, only to fail 
again.

I wonder how the big chip manufacturers application guides are made up. 
Certainly not with EMI in mind.

Many times the performance of the system (bits or S/N ratio) also improves afte 
creating a ground plane.

 

There is one situation however, where separate grounds come into view. (rule of 
thumb) Once the ratio of biggest voltage/current in the  design exceeds 10^5. 
This happens normally only in power systems (stepper motors / smps / frequency 
regulated motor drives) or in extreme low signal processing ( uV / nA) systems. 
Care should be taken that both grounds actually become ONE for 
out-of-functional (=EMI) frequencies.

Once the signal comes in the EMI frequency range, other ways of discrimination 
between common mode interference currents and differential mode signal currents 
are necessary. (balanced signal twisted pairs, common mode coils, 
transformers).  

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

From: Ken Wyatt [mailto:k...@emc-seminars.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 28 June 2017 22:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

 

Bill, thanks for the complement. One of my mentors, Dr. Tom Van Doren, of the 
University Missouri - Rolla, would say “the more different “ground” symbols he 
saw in a schematic, the more business he knew he would get”.

 

Ken


___

 

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any questions 
related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. I'm always happy to 
help!


Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC

56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863


Phone: (719) 310-5418


Email Me!   | Web Site 
  | Blog  

The EMC Blog (EDN)  
Subscribe to Newsletter 
 
Connect with me on LinkedIn  

 

On Jun 28, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Bill Stumpf  wrote:

 

Truly outstanding analogies Ken, Ralph & Bill.  I too cringe every time I hear 
the term "ground" bandied about in EMI circles.  It's a widely misunderstood 
term that the non-initiated envision as some sort of EMI black hole that's by 
some means able to soak up all that excess RF energy.  I'm sure we all could 
tell some stories from the lab.   

 

 

Bill

 

 

From: Ken Wyatt [mailto:k...@emc-seminars.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

 

Like they say in some movies…”follow the money”. In the case of EMC issues, 
it’s usually “follow the current”. Both differential and common mode currents 
want to return to their sources in the most expedient (low-impedance) route. If 
designers fail to define a return path, invariably, some of that RF current 
radiates. Once the noise source(s) are identified, then what’s the return path? 
There will always be a return path…just not always the one you want.

 

Cheers, Ken


___

 

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any questions 
related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. I'm always happy to 
help!


Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC

56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863


Phone: (719) 310-5418


  Email Me! |   Web 
Site |   Blog

  The EMC Blog (EDN)
  Subscribe to 
Newsletter
  Connect with me on LinkedIn

 

On Jun 28, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Ralph McDiarmid < 
 
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com> wrote:

 

Rather than 'ground', perhaps 'RF return' or 'counterpoise' might be better 
terms?

I think the thing that makes EMC mysterious is that the complete RF circuit is 
unseen and difficult to accurately define, given all the parasitic elements.  
The experience of 'inside' verses 'outside' the chassis envelope a prime 
example, something I encountered some years ago, but never fully understood.

Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric


-Original Message-
From: Bill Owsley [  
mailto:00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:33 PM
To:   EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Ancient EMC mythology, well proven to be w

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

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

Yes, as now system "system" 

 is a multi-function apparatus it should comply with all applicable
standards

It should comply to EN 55012 (not CISPR12) and EN 301-489-1 or other subpart
of this series.

Note that the 301489-1 does not support Class A devices. This is especially
troublesome for IT devices, as Class A of EN 55022 is still very popular .
As soon as a wireless BT WiFi device is added, EN 301 489-1 comes into view.
And since everything goes wireless...

 

Gert Gremmen

 

From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 28 June 2017 23:06
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

 

If I insert a radio module into a system that is compliant to the RED and to
the latest 301 489 series, do I have to re-test the whole system towards the
301 489 series? 

 

The system already complies with other regular EMC standards (CISPR 12)
without the module. 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Dieter Paasche

Senior Product Developer, Electrical

CHRISTIE

809 Wellington Street North

Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7

Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211

www.christiedigital.com  

 

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any
unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer
system and records.

 

From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

 

As far as I understand:

 

Use EMCD HS for EM aspectsart 3.1 (No NB needed)  ; that includes the
301 489 series for EMC of auxiliary equipment  (intentionally left out of
RED should never have been on the RTTE list either as it was EMC)

Use LVD HS for electrical safety also art 3.1 (No NB Needed)

Use RED HS  for radio Art 3.2 (No NB needed) (radio properties  /  spurious
emissions: those are not EMI, but strictly harmonics and mixer products)

 

This ends the confusion there always was on EMC standards and LVD standards
in the RTTE list, 

 

>From the beginning one was supposed to use 3 directives for Radio products

 

There are still missing red standards, notably those for (GPS) Receivers,
here a NB is needed, but as there is no standard

available, what will the NB have to impose ?

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

Van: Michael Derby [mailto:micha...@acbcert.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 28 juni 2017 20:04
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

 

I think they've been putting all their effort into getting the Article 3.2
standards onto the OJ as soon as they can (because those are the ones which
the manufacturer needs, to self declare without a Notified Body).

 

Most of the EN 301 489 standards are published or at least in a final draft;
so the manufacturer can use them and explain it in their risk assessment.
It may not be on the RED OJ, but that does not mandate the use of a Notified
Body.

 

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com] 
Sent: 28 June 2017 16:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

 

 

Interesting. One additional question is I don't see any of the 301 489
series. Is this going to be published in the RED harmonized standards list,
as it is strictly speaking and EMC requirement, or is this part of the
article 3.1 b requirement:" an adequate level of electromagnetic
compatibility as set out in Directive 2014/30/EU.?"

The EMC directive only lists 301 489-1 and 301 489-34. 

 

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Dieter Paasche

Senior Product Developer, Electrical

CHRISTIE

809 Wellington Street North

Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7

Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211

www.christiedigital.com  

 

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any
unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer
system and records.

 

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

 

Colleagues,

 

I just heard about a new Communication and list of Harmonised Standards
under the RED:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.180.01
.0005.01.ENG
 &toc=OJ:C:2017:180:TOC

 

--

Doug Nix

d...@mac.com

-


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


All emc-

Re: [PSES] Questions on IEC Standards Adaption

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

IEC -> EN  -> BS / NL /BE / DK / NF /  DIN / SE / EVS  etc

 

Most relevant changes are in between IEC to EN, in the form of Common / 
National Modifications

and the Annex to announce the ability to use in a respective directives. 
(CENELEC)

Then comes the local money machine of the  national standardization bodies 

to add a translated front page (and the new number) , and sometimes a local 
expert creates a fully translated version of the standard.

Normally you need not use a localised version, as it adds nothing to the 
product.

If you order a localised version often you get just the EN version (in one 
language only), a separate

front page and an adjusted bill (and the clause that in case of dispute, the EN 
version prevails… oh you did not buy that one, what a pity). Other countries my 
vary in price substantially. I think the British are the most expensive (now 
with a free, less than 2-years expiration time).

 

Not all national bodies operate that way. 

The Estonians deliver plain IEC/EN versions with a (for most of us ) cryptic 
Estonian frontpage at 25% of the UK price for example.  If you consider buying 
a product, buy the 2-user network version for a plain PDF version. Single user 
versions are a PITA for licensing rules and protection software.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Saturday 24 June 2017 16:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Questions on IEC Standards Adaption

 

In general, there are far too many detail differences to list. Some probably do 
not apply to your product, but it only needs one to apply to give you trouble. 
That is apart from larger differences, as explained below. But there are no 
all-embracing ‘general rules’ to predict what differences there are between the 
IEC and European versions of a standard

 

In Europe, CENELEC (for most electrical standards) takes the IEC standard and 
makes ‘Common Modifications’ and adds ‘Special National Differences’. It also 
‘translates’ the Normative and Informative References into references to 
European standards (where they exist). Then it adds Annexes about conformity 
with the Essential Requirements of European Directives and Regulations.

 

When approved as a European Standard (EN), all CENELEC countries are compelled 
to adopt it and publish as, for example BS EN 62368-1 and DIN EN 62368-1.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Vincent Lee [mailto:08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 24 June 2017 14:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Questions on IEC Standards Adaption

 

Hi all,

 

Good morning,


What are the differences between BS EN 62368-1:2014 and IEC 62368-1 Edition 2.0 
2014-02 ?

 

I was told that usually it is after IEC has published a standard, then other 
organisations like BSI or DIN will adapt the IEC standard as their national 
standards, e.g. BS and DIN, it is true?

 

What are some the major considerations when organisations like BSI and DIN have 
in mind when adapt the IEC standards?

 

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.

Vincent

 

Regards, Vincent

-


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] EN55032 host equipment...

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

About this clause D:

Annex D   Arrangement of EUT, local AE and associated cabling
...
Arrangements such as placing AE below the RGP or placing AE outside the
measurement area when it is normally located distant from the EUT may be
used to limit the effects of adverse AE emissions or to reduce
measurement time, as long as the arrangement can be shown not to reduce
the emissions measured from the EUT.

For this demonstration to happen one should measure EUT emissions first
without AE  may I suggest measuring EUT as a standalone device
first before 
adding a AE to mess up with the spectrum ?

Gert Gremmen

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 mei 2017 12:23
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] EN55032 host equipment...

On Mon, 8 May 2017 22:32:38 +,
  Matthew Wilson  wrote:

> In regards testing, for example's sake, a printer with a RS232 serial
port under EN55032 for EMC, where does the host 'laptop' PC to generate
the RS232 signals (most likely via a USB-RS232 adapter from the laptop's
USB port) get located in the test setup?
> 
> Inside the test chamber, where you might end up testing the
performance of the laptop?  Or outside the chamber via an 'extension
lead' through a suitable aperture in the chamber on the RS232 line (and
probably loaded with a set of ferrites to attenuate any external
signals)?
> 
> EN55032 does seem to conflict itself without a clear answer between
#3.1.5 and #6.2...
> 
> I'd rather check only the example printer device for EMC, which is the

> EUT of interest, rather than anyone else's laptop :-)

The standard permit to reduce emission from AEs by mitigation measures
in certain conditions, although it may not easy to demonstrate that the
mitigation measures will not reduce the emission from the EUT.


10 Compliance with this publication
...
If the AE is known to cause significant emissions, these emissions may
be reduced by mitigation measures, as long as these measures do not
reduce the emissions from the EUT. The preferred configuration is that
the AE is removed from the measurement area, as allowed by D.1


Annex D   Arrangement of EUT, local AE and associated cabling
...
Arrangements such as placing AE below the RGP or placing AE outside the
measurement area when it is normally located distant from the EUT may be
used to limit the effects of adverse AE emissions or to reduce
measurement time, as long as the arrangement can be shown not to reduce
the emissions measured from the EUT.


Regards,
Tom

--
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] EN55032 host equipment...

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

Matthew,

Adding a filtered SUBD-9 connector in the septum of your shielded room (or 2 
filtered connectors in series ) allows you to route RS232 cable out of the 
room, and connect it to any suitable interface. Route the EUT RS232 cable to 
the centre of your turn table and along the floor to the septum, better is 
routed through a metal tube (conduit) connected all along to the rooms wall.  
Terminate the cable with a few ferrites to trunk off the excess length. 

No need any more to search and find ($) a quiet laptop. (try to ask for one 
at the local PC store ). No need to upgrade the laptop with any new windows 
version.

I wonder how a formal test standard as 22/32 can depend on an arbitrary and 
unspecified test accessories such as a “quiet laptop”, or whatever other 
ancillary equipment in order to create formal results. 
And once you found a  "quiet laptop", you need to qualify it for all kinds of 
cable connections and screen resolutions () to ensure you are actually 
(not) getting the emissions you do not want. 

Not to mention the polluted spectrum plot with all "quiet" spuriouses that 
still get to -6dB of the limit, that can trouble your design team, and distract 
of the real problems. 

I am aware of the lack of support of CISPR 22 for the external cable setup but 
after all , no one stops you from retesting with a laptop on the table once 
your tested your peripheral as I sketched above, but do not complain if it 
fails due to some Class A harmonics of the laptops local bus that were not 
there before.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday 9 May 2017 01:24
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 host equipment...

Matthew,

The host computer goes in the chamber (or on the OATS) 10 cm away from the 
printer on the table.  The same setup used for years in CISPR 22 or EN 55022.  
Find a quiet laptop and keep using it for future tests.

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE

From: Matthew Wilson [mailto:matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN55032 host equipment...

In regards testing, for example's sake, a printer with a RS232 serial port 
under EN55032 for EMC, where does the host 'laptop' PC to generate the RS232 
signals (most likely via a USB-RS232 adapter from the laptop's USB port) get 
located in the test setup?


Inside the test chamber, where you might end up testing the performance of the 
laptop?  Or outside the chamber via an 'extension lead' through a suitable 
aperture in the chamber on the RS232 line (and probably loaded with a set of 
ferrites to attenuate any external signals)?

EN55032 does seem to conflict itself without a clear answer between #3.1.5 and 
#6.2...

I'd rather check only the example printer device for EMC, which is the EUT of 
interest, rather than anyone else's laptop :-)

Thanks for any pointers/discussion.

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics UK Ltd.
 

Matthew Wilson 
Technical Director

https://gbelectronics.uk
T: +44 (0)1903 244500
F: +44 (0)1903 700715
Ascot House // Mulberry Close // Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea // West Sussex // BN12 4QY // UK


Electronics Design // Manufacturing // Component Distribution

Want to send us a file? https://www.mailbigfile.com/gbelectronics


GB Electronics (UK) Limited is a company registered in England and Wales
Company Registration No: 06210991
VAT Registration No: GB 925 1744 25
Registered Office:
Ascot House, Mulberry Close, Woods Way
Goring by Sea, West Sussex, BN12 4QY
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If

Re: [PSES] Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test on ambulatory electrocardiographic system

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

 

You did not mention the product , but I assume that

 

IEC 60601-2-47:2012 concerns the basic safety and essential performance
of AMBULATORY ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS

 

so you probably considering such a device.

 

 

I believe that if it is required to test essential performance, and for
thorough

the specific type of equipment a patient signal is required,  a
simulator is what you need to fulfil due diligence.

Especially if the device software autonomously draws any pertinent
conclusions from the measured signals

and the signals are not for  visual monitoring only.

 

A classical cardiographic device is basically a DM oscilloscope with a
high (assisted) CM suppression:

any device that can generate a large CM  and extremely small DM voltage
simultaneously will do.

 

In no way the testing for the integrity of stored data can be the only
compliance criterion here.

 

That said and concluded: I am not fully sure what your device is up
to...

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

Van: Silvia Diaz Monnier [mailto:silvi...@inti.gob.ar] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 28 maart 2017 20:12
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: [PSES] Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test on
ambulatory electrocardiographic system

 

Hi,

 

the Radiated RF electromagnetic fields immunity test according to IEC
60601-2-47:2012, 202.6.2.3, makes an addition to IEC 60601-1-2:2007.
This addition requires to check that there is no loss of any stored
data. But collateral IEC 60601-1-2:2007, on 6.2.1.10 also requires to
verify the essential performance is not affected by noise on a waveform
in which the noise could interfere the diagnosis, treatment or
monitoring.

 

Test setup of IEC 60601-2-47 for that test do not require to simulate
the patient signal. Is that correct? 

If so, why 2-47 makes an addition instead of a replacement.

If not, why the test setup do not require to use a patient signal
simulator to check essential performance as other particular standards
IEC 60601-2-25 or IEC 60601-2-27.

 

That is, taking into account both standards, is it neccesary to check
both essential performance and the no loss of storaged data? Or only the
no loss of any stored data.

 

Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

Silvia

 

 

-


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] RED Harmonised Standards

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

I did not read it on this list yet (unless a post missed by box again), but 
last week a new version of the list of Harmonised standards has been published 
(C76 10-3-2017) for the RED (2014/53/EC) 15 pages now of our beloved 
literature

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-

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] RE_D question Marine Product

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

EN 60945 is used in many regulations for marine equipment.
Lloyds and Norske Veritas almost always use EN 60945 as a requirement.
EN 60945 has an extra low level limit for emissions
in de frequencies used for marine communications 156-164 MHz @ BW 9 KHz and 
goes up using 120 KHz to 2 GHz.
As far as I know (a bit dated and unchecked) the Marine Equipment Directive 
also refers to EN 60945.
As the (EMC) requirements are (in details) different from other common 
standards, one should definitely consider applying this standard. It's 
harmonised for the EMCD also. The standard is not only about EMC, it includes 
many other aspects such as heat, salt, vibration tests.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Sundstrom, Mike [mailto:mike.sundst...@garmin.com] 
Sent: Thursday 23 March 2017 20:50
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RE_D question Marine Product

Hello everyone,
I've been asked if EN 60945 will be required for CE marking a RE_D Marine 
product?

I don't think so, I'm looking for guidance on this one.
I'm thinking if you meet all applicable standards listed under RE_D you are 
done.
Have I missed something?

Thanks,

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

"Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish 
it.
The time will pass anyway."
Earl Nightingale




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

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

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

-

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] SD Card ESD Testing

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

I have been carrying out extensive tests on ESD discharge currents on a lot of 
different credit cards with a charged user inserting cards into a ATM type of 
card reader. Client had found problems with CC-payments in dry and/or cold 
regions.
The presence of metal coating (gold card) and or wireless electronics (so 
conductors embedded in the card)had been a major factor in transferring ESD 
discharges to the card reader (being magnetic or chip contact readers) . It is 
important to realize that a galvanic connection is not required to create a 
"discharge". The displacement of charge inside the card (where the user is 
charged during card insertion) is enough to create substantial impulses in the 
readers electronics..

For SD -cards (and other cards) similar effects can be expected.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 22 March 2017 00:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SD Card ESD Testing

The discharge will be much more energetic than a CDM event as there is MUCH 
more energy stored off the card than the card itself in this case, but passes 
through the card. The capacitance is much higher than Tom realizes below. 
Somewhere below a CDM event and an IEC event.

eration is how will the card stand up to hundreds or thousands of small, 
ubiquitous  ESD events that cannot be felt by humans but cause slow degradation 
from not only insertion but handling over several months. No one tests for that 
yet. I have designed an apparatus that does that job and it has proven very 
useful.

Doug Smith

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
--


On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 07:27:33 +0900, "T.Sato"  wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:24:23 +,
  "Grasso, Charles"  wrote:

> Aside from the obvious air discharge tests around the SD card slot 
> (with and without the SD card installed) are there any concerns regarding the 
> ESD performance of the SD card during INSERTION?

Only a guess...

SD card may be charged before insertion, and may cause discharge from those 
contacts when inserted.
This situation may slightly similar to that simulated with charged device model 
(CDM), and the discharge may be much faster than that of IEC 61000-4-2 and ISO 
10605.
However, it's capacitance is low, and I think it will not become a serious 
problem in general.

In case of Compact Flush card, I ever heard of a case where metalized label on 
the card created an unexpected path for electrostatic discharges and caused a 
problem when hold by hand and inserted to a device.

Regards,
Tom

--
Tomonori Sato
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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: 


Doug Smith
University of Oxford 

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

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

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


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


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

Should be easy to meet any limits using that technique!

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


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

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

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

Cortland Richmond

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

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

You can put 20 people in a car, but you won’t make it for far.

There are chairs for 4 (in most cars), so charge them with four people. Logic 
isn’t it ?

If a ring terminal would be made for 2 or more wires, they would allow for

two separate cable entries (and require a suitable crimping tool).

Most safety standards require both insulation and wire to be fastened to be 
acceptable

anyway, and I see no way how slippery plastic insulations van be crimped 
together.

(try crimping two wires without stripping the copper, so the crimp is only 
insulation)

Every crimp terminal seems to scream “one wire only” to you and so do the

safety standards and terminal manufacturers illustrations and specifications.

 

If one needs really more than 3-4 ring terminals on a bolt, use more bolts. 

Or use quadruple male  6.3 mm flat-stack connectors and stack them

with sufficient spacing.

https://img.conrad.de/medias/global/ce/3000_3999/3900/3930/3934/393416_BB_00_FB.EPS.jpg

 

 

Gert gremmen

 

Van: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 februari 2017 16:45
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] crimp hardware for multiple conductors?

 

I've had experience with this in a few types of products, using both with 
IEC-based standards and old school UL standards.  When dealing with various 
electric codes such as NFPA 70, there are needs that must be met and the design 
of a product must be compatible. 

 

As you have stated, there is very little mentioned in product safety standards. 
 Sometime you will see a "pull out test" or some such thing and clearance and 
creepage requirements still apply. But we seldom find requirements or guidance 
to the level of detail you are asking about.  This tends to foster some rather 
bad habits by design engineers.  For example, I had to put the kibosh on a 
"star ground" where the engineer had placed a metallic standoff in a circuit 
board and proceeded to screw down at least eight ring lugs all fanned out 
around the circle, making a perfect star burst of wires.  The whole assembly 
was unwieldy and very slippery under the fastener.  It simply would not hold to 
a simple finger torque out test.  So then the engineer attempted to put all 
eight wires in a single oversized ring lug.  Doing a wire pull out test 
resulted in one or two of the wires immediately pulling free and subsequently 
all fell out.  While it was possible to get specific crimps to pass these 
simple tests, it was not manufacturable in an ongoing basis.  

 

Our solution was to leverage IPC-WHMA-A-620A Requirements and Acceptance for 
Cable and Wire Harness Assemblies.  This is not specifically mentioned in many 
safety standards and therefore does not have a lot of force behind it, but it 
is very familiar to wire and cable houses who are in the business of making 
cable harnesses.  Also, most company reliability engineers will agree with this 
document. It has very specific inspection criteria based on the "acceptance 
class" you need.  I find Acceptance Class 2 is sufficient for most products and 
also very cost effective.  

 

For the situation you brought up, I have always required no more than one or 
two conductors in a single crimp terminal of any kind and no more than two ring 
lugs per fastener.  IPC 620 has requirements that require inspection of the 
wire strands on the far side of the wire crimp portion and for the wire 
insulation under the insulation crimp portion.  For example, IPC 620 makes 
statements like this, "When attaching multiple wires to a single terminal, each 
wire shall meet the same acceptability criteria as a single wire termination. 
When attaching single or multiple wires to a terminal the combined circular mil 
area of the wires shall comply with the circular mil area range for the 
terminal" and "If multiple wires are used insulation from all wires extend past 
the insulation crimp ...". In one place, "Two wires into a single contact ..." 
is listed as a defect, "unless the contact or connector specifications indicate 
that this is acceptable." 

 

​Hope this helps,  Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com  

http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:12 AM, John Woodgate  wrote:

It only helps to show that this is a 'grey area', suggesting that for a quiet 
life, do not use more than one wire. 

 

In practice, two solid wires are very troublesome, but two stranded wires are 
nowhere near as difficult. The more strands the better, within the capacity of 
the crimp.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

www.jmwa.demon.co.uk   J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Adam Dixon [mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:48 PM
To: John Woodgate 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] crimp hardware f

Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

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

Ted, (and all other safety friends)

IMHO older cars detoriating to the level of CO coming in, will also let the 
driving wind
leak in to an amount  that CO is not a real problem anymore. ;<))

Highest risk is where ventilation is modified to recirculating, (to prevent 
pollution coming in (!!) or to boost the airco) and a small leak -whatever the 
reason- of CO happens. 

I think we should not interfere with intentional poisoning ; candidates might 
otherwise choose much dangerous alternatives to CO (dangerous to others of 
course !).

Current common CO detectors for home use  need replacement every 7 years, so 
the risk that a detector does not detect what it is intended for is not 
imaginary.

Maybe you US citizen can get Trump to write a presidential Order to stop CO ? 
And the Europeans might create a CO-directive ?


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday 16 February 2017 21:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxide - Death Value

I see two problems with the proposed alarm system.

First, the most common reason for accidental carbon monoxide intrusion into the 
passenger compartment is poor maintenance on an older vehicle. The exhaust 
system needs to be compromised somewhere under the vehicle and there typically 
need to be holes in the floor boards letting the carbon monoxide enter. Rust is 
the most common culprit, but it can also be other types of damage. If a car has 
been allowed to deteriorate to this point, would a carbon monoxide alarm system 
still be functioning properly? The sensors would likely need regular 
maintenance or replacement. It seems possible that many of the detection 
systems would no longer be operating properly by the time a vehicle is old 
enough for the risk to have increased.

Second, the number of vehicles on the road is high enough that even a small 
number of false-positives would completely outweigh the number of real alarms. 
There are 300,000,000 vehicles in the United States. If only 0.01% experience a 
false failure, that is still 30,000 false failures. What happens if a driver is 
going down the highway when the alarm goes off? It wouldn't take many drivers 
panicking before accidental deaths due to reactions to false failures exceeded 
the number of potential lives saved from real alarms. Even if the system just 
automatically rolls down a window, some drivers may not recognize that this is 
the alarm response. They may become fixated on trying to get the window to 
close again without noticing that traffic ahead of them has stopped. 

In some locations in the United States, there is a mandatory safety inspection 
to renew your car's registration. I'm not stating one way or another whether 
this is a good option. However, these inspections do look for exhaust leaks, 
faulty brakes and other safety issues. I lived in Missouri for 20 years and I 
found the inspections to be a hassle. At the time, I saw a lot of cars on the 
road that didn't look safe to me and I thought that the inspections were 
probably ineffective. I moved to Washington 9 years ago and I quickly learned I 
was mistaken. In Washington, I am amazed by the number of cars I see on the 
road with faulty headlights, broken taillights and even no brake lights. Those 
are just the visible safety issues. I can't tell how many have faulty exhaust 
systems that leak carbon monoxide into the passenger cabin.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:07 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Carbon Monoxid

Re: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

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

It depends. If it costs money probably they will refrain or at least be 
reluctant and prefer
a warning in chinglish on page 97 note 21. 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday 2 February 2017 23:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

Yes, manufacturers would be well advised to take precautions not to kill 
potential customers. Can we rely on them to do that?

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 10:36 PM
To: 'John Woodgate' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

John, et al,  

   My point, which I believe that I made below, is that even for 
board kits which leave everything out in the open there are techniques to 
minimize the exposure problems since not all of the users are experienced or 
fully qualified to know the risks and keep themselves out of harm's way.  
   The manufacturer has the responsibility to provide a device that 
is easy to use in a 'safe' manner (the definition of which I have expanded to 
include EMC issues altho not technically safety per se).  
   It's not good enuf to hide behind 'we met all of the 
requirements' - which were mostly none.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:44 AM
To: 'Pete Perkins' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

I'm not quite sure of your point. The thread is about evaluation kits, which 
are very often just populated PC boards with I/O and power connectors. 
Everything is accessible, so if the board uses voltages that hurt (which is 
uncommon but not unknown), you don't touch. Equally, there are no fire 
enclosures.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:21 PM
To: 'John Woodgate' ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

John, et al,  

   It's nice to look for exemption loopholes but ... I would be 
careful in encouraging too much loosening based upon the skill of the users.  
   In today's environment many engineers and technicians are primarily 
software folks who are working with hardware to implement systems and these 
folks do not have the same training or appreciation of electrical hazards in 
equipment.  
   This comment applies equally to problems arising from EMC interference 
in applications; we know that there are a myriad of issues arising from the 
advent of multiple cell towers in operation.  Dropped call issues are usually 
dealt with by modifying software not repositioning antennas or other hardware 
fixes which are above the technicians pay grade.  
   I include radios generally in this comment because of the 
widespread use of digital radio equipment and the IoT explosion underway.     

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC when exempted from RED 2014/53/EU

'Being safe' wi

Re: [PSES] Do it yourself safety reports?

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

I agree with John, batteries are the most critical part. Make sure
they are properly approved, and use a fuse in their leads.

As it's an RF product, I suppose the LVD comes into play by
means of the RTTE (RED) directive.
So a full qualification is needed.
Many aspects do not apply, but the remaining
applicable chapters need evaluation.
That requires evaluation of the battery, and possibly fire and heat hazards
if the power exceeds  "limited power levels". (antenna voltage > 50 ?)
Documentation, marking  and labelling  
and a proper definition (intended use) is needed. Installation 
and safety documentation might be needed.
If the battery is chargeable and a power supply is included it needs
verification of its  documentation and needs reinforced insulation, 
both mechanically and electrically, as the secondary "live parts" are rarely 
earthed in these type
of equipment's and often must be be classified as accessible parts. 
Plastics need may not propagate fire, and should have the right V Class. 

More aspects can be applicable.

making your own test report is possible, but I doubt if it will stand up
against examination, unless you have done this before... 



Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 1 February 2017 09:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Do it yourself safety reports?

If it's battery-powered, the LVD may not apply, so in turn there is no need to 
apply 60950. But I would advise applying it as far as possible. We don't want 
more battery fires, so that is one point to look at carefully; can the battery 
be short-circuited by a fault and if so, what happens? It's certainly possible 
to do that without a test house, but of course, it has to be done carefully. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Curtis McNamara [mailto:mcnam...@umn.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Do it yourself safety reports?

A client is asking if it is practical to do their own 60950 safety reports for 
CE.
The device is battery powered, low power RF (they would have complete EMC 
testing done at a lab). 
Thanks in advance for your suggestions.
Thanks for all the great past advice!
    Curt
-

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 ru

Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

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

The general safety requirement for equipment is to be able to be `disconnected” 
; a term for having no hazardous voltage inside. 
A disconnect device is any system within reach of the user that allows to 
disconnect the apparatus form all live voltage. 
That can be double pole switch, but also a  “double pole” plug. Note the remark 
“within reach of user”; it limits the length of the mains wire to 1m50 approx. 
(though not specified in any standard).
Permanently connected equipment requires a disconnect switch (double pole) or a 
mains (wall) connection with an incorporated double pole switch in close 
proximity and suitable warnings. 

Current safety standards address this topic in a non-consistent way, which is a 
shame, as it is the first topic that comes to mind when thinking of protection 
against electric shock.


I personally think that a double pole on/off switch is much more clear, 
definite (does what is suggests)  and thus safer than a single pole.

And the French Schuko with the third (ground) plug cannot be reversed which is 
a real problem with right angled plugs, as in France sockets are placed close 
to ground.


This is clearly a topic that should   be addressed in the mandatory risk 
analysis within the low voltage directive, in addition to  blindly applying the 
standards clauses.

Gert Gremmen
Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc
 

 
g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953
 
 Before printing, think about the environment.




Van: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 28 januari 2017 18:07
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

Hello Mike,

Single-pole switches are acceptable and typical on plug connected single-phase 
equipment and sometimes on two-phase equipment. IEC 60950-1 has the somewhat 
cryptic marking “Double Pole/Neutral Fusing” as indication to service personnel 
that there may still be live voltage in the equipment even if the switch is 
off. The symbol is even more cryptic to the average person, but the warning is 
specified. The intention for plug connected equipment is that the plug serve as 
the disconnect. Service personnel are to unplug the equipment for servicing to 
remove all power. You may even have equipment that is rated 208/240 V. In 
Europe, it would be plugged into line and neutral whereas in North America, it 
would be plugged into two phases of either a split-phase 120/240 system or two 
phases of a 120/208 three-phase system. In North America, the switch would 
never remove voltage from within the equipment but would interrupt current. 
This is still generally acceptable for plug-connecte!
 d equipment.

Field-wired/permanently connected equipment would require a main disconnect 
that opens all phases. The installer should be aware of the polarity of the 
system and the installer should not reverse phase and neutral during wiring. In 
North America, this allows an equipment disconnect that opens the phases 
without opening neutral. As such, even with field-wired equipment, it is 
permissible to have neutral bypass the main disconnect.

It has been a while since I had to delve deeply into the electrical codes, so I 
may be a little off on the field-wired requirements. I encourage any of our 
esteemed contributors to correct my errors.

Best regards,
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my 
employer.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 8:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

ALL European 2-pin 6 A plugs are reversible, and 3-contact plugs used on the 
Continent are reversible (there are two kinds, one with 2 power pins and 
side-contact for earth (called 'Schuko')  and one with a third pin for earth).

The standards you cite are written so that the product is safe, whichever way 
round the plug is inserted. You do not need a double-pole switch; in fact that 
can be a disadvantage, as it brings the two power conductors close together in 
an assembly with mechanical movement. A short-circuit at some stage in the life 
of the device is not improbable. Also, the insulation can fail, usually with 
smoke and small-scale flame, accompanied by a loud noise.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:17 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Double Pole Mains Switches, Cord Connected Products

Because of the lack of polarization on many 2 pin European plugs, I have always 
recommended double pole mains switches on cord connected products for the EU 
market. However, I am not fi

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

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

I am sorry Ted, but that won't work. It overlooks the impact of harmonics
on capacitive reluctance.  I suggest applying left magnetized ferrite.
With right handed rotating harmonics, the left rotation of the magnetic flux 
will
double the amplitude and so will dissipation, and harmonic suppression.
Make sure the ferrite comes with the right frequencies pre-polarized.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday 17 January 2017 01:43
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

What you need is a device that will not only supply inverse reactive current 
for use in unilateral phase detractors, but will also be capable of 
automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Instead of power being 
generated by the relative motions of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by 
the modial interaction of magnetoreluctance and capacitive directance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, Fiat-Chrysler or the American Association of Turboencabulator 
Engineers.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Definite need for a flux capacitor or a zwitterion inductor, there. Amendment 
XVIII coming up?.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

"... as long as the arrangement can be shown not to reduce the emissions 
measured from the EUT."

Hmm, I wonder how one could do that.


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider Electric
    


-Original Message-
From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 1:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

The 4th paragraph of CISPR 32, Edition 1.0, Article D.1.1 states:

"Arrangements such as placing AE below the RGP or placing AE outside the 
measurement area when it is normally located distant from the EUT may be used 
to limit the effects of adverse AE emissions or to reduce measurement time, as 
long as the arrangement can be shown not to reduce the emissions measured from 
the EUT."

Note that this refers to AE that is normally located distant from the EUT.
AE that is normally located adjacent to the EUT should be co-located with the 
EUT.  See the 2nd paragraph of D.1.1.

I don't see a conflict between CISPR 32 and ANSI C63.4 in this area.

Ghery S. Pettit



-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

It seems that there is a potential conflict between CISPR 32 and ANSI C63.4 
with respect to AE/support equipment.  CISPR 32, as I remember, specifically 
says to minimize the emissions from the AE/support equipment while C63.4 does 
have the support equipment in the test environment.  Ghery Pettit is more 
qualified to comment, but I believe there is work going on to reconcile the two.

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
Milford, MA

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 7:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Not proffering a solution here, but the amount of tr

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

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

John,

While your libertine approach might feel attractive, it means also
that the liberated spectrum area like this (by increasing B to A) also
means the same spectrum an never be used again for new purposes in the future,
or if really needed only at greatly enhanced costs.
Propagation attenuation of radio waves is approximately inverse linear with 
distance. If you calculate the service area of a transmitter for a 10dB 
relaxation (Class B -> A)
there is approx. 9-fold less ground service available. That means that
for the same service level 10 transmitters are needed, with 10 fold increased 
risk
of interference close to the transmitter .

It is much better keeping the ether clean, after all we have only one.

Short term gains may lead to future expenses, of with a good UK proverb 
"Pennies wise, pound foolish".
Or John, you might know a better one ? (in Latin ?)
Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Saturday 14 January 2017 12:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Interesting. I think CISPR/H should be required to study the relevance of 
emission limits designed to protect broadcasting and other services that are no 
longer used, or used only to an insignificant extent.  For example, it is 
reported that Norway is to begin a phased shut-down of its FM broadcast service 
for good technical and economic reasons, and other countries are said to follow.
Military authorities are traditionally known for commandeering and holding 
spectrum that 'they might want to use one day'. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 11:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

That is certainly right. But there is another aspect that might play a role 
here.

Many fast digital bus concepts have been designed with Class A limits in mind.
That means when applying the (chip) manufacturer's reference design, the final 
product meets A limits only. Only with enhanced effort Class B limits can be 
met.
Some chip-sets do never meet Class B, as there outputs have substantial common 
mode currents in their outputs ( thinking of Ethernet here).
More and more EN standards now require Class B and also worldwide the trend is 
towards Class B. The application of ETSI standards for transmitter and/or 
receiver equipped electronics does not even allow for a Class A escape route. 
The new RED (Radio Directive) in the EU brings a whole new category under Class 
B (for example GPS equipped designs).

If you are trying to approve a HDMI product into a Class B world, there is 
almost no margin to comply, and any EUT design flaw problem will show as 
non-compliance.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager




+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to 
+ EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the r

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

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

That is certainly right. But there is another aspect that might play a role 
here.

Many fast digital bus concepts have been designed with Class A limits in mind.
That means when applying the (chip) manufacturer's reference design, the final
product meets A limits only. Only with enhanced effort Class B limits can be 
met.
Some chip-sets do never meet Class B, as there outputs have substantial common 
mode
currents in their outputs ( thinking of Ethernet here).
More and more EN standards now require Class B and also worldwide the trend is
towards Class B. The application of ETSI standards for transmitter and/or 
receiver
equipped electronics does not even allow for a Class A escape route. The new RED
(Radio Directive) in the EU brings a whole new category under Class B 
(for example GPS equipped designs).

If you are trying to approve a HDMI product into a Class B world, there is 
almost
no margin to comply, and any EUT design flaw problem will show as 
non-compliance.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Saturday 14 January 2017 11:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

I think the key words 'poorly-constructed' should be noted. Any manufacturing 
defect that creates an impedance discontinuity in the signal conductors causes 
mode conversion of the differential signal, creating a small, but significant 
common-mode signal.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Exactly :
Once the signal is unbalanced (whatever the reason) only shielding can 
attenuate the emissions.
But any unbalance is caused by the EUT at the  sending or  at the receiving 
end, not by the cable.


Gert Gremmen


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 14 januari 2017 2:17
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

I did some experiments with equipment (Blu-Ray players and TVs) that showed 
that the introduction of an off-the-shelf, poorly constructed, short, cable to 
cable adapter caused a 25 dB increase in radiated emissions at 742.5 MHz in 
1080P HDMI.  The slightest introduction of skew/imbalance on the signal 
combined with a non-ideal shield system introduces enough CM noise back onto 
the outside of the shield to cause problems.  It takes only a very percentage 
of the HDMI specified differential current drive to translate to CM to make a 
1.5 meter cable shield look like a pretty efficient antenna.

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
Milford, MA

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

" I suspect this is just equipment originated CM current, that cannot be cured 
with a better cable; but needs a better equipment CM design. (Or a bunch of 
heavy ferrites)."

I suspect that is the crux of the issue, as it is for many ports on all kinds 
of products.


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Exactly. Nowadays it's easy to filter high speed ports, and in the case of 
shielded cable 

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

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

Exactly :
Once the signal is unbalanced (whatever the reason) only shielding can 
attenuate the emissions.
But any unbalance is caused by the EUT at the  sending or  at the receiving 
end, not by the cable.


Gert Gremmen


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 14 januari 2017 2:17
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

I did some experiments with equipment (Blu-Ray players and TVs) that showed 
that the introduction of an off-the-shelf, poorly constructed, short, cable to 
cable adapter caused a 25 dB increase in radiated emissions at 742.5 MHz in 
1080P HDMI.  The slightest introduction of skew/imbalance on the signal 
combined with a non-ideal shield system introduces enough CM noise back onto 
the outside of the shield to cause problems.  It takes only a very percentage 
of the HDMI specified differential current drive to translate to CM to make a 
1.5 meter cable shield look like a pretty efficient antenna.

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
Milford, MA

-Original Message-
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 12:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

" I suspect this is just equipment originated CM current, that cannot be cured 
with a better cable; but needs a better equipment CM design. (Or a bunch of 
heavy ferrites)."

I suspect that is the crux of the issue, as it is for many ports on all kinds 
of products.


Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Solar Business
Schneider Electric




-Original Message-----
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

Exactly. Nowadays it's easy to filter high speed ports, and in the case of 
shielded cable this is even more easy.
One aspect that can be a problem is cable length. USB and HDMI are limited in 
length, and in large rooms that can be a problem, needing repeaters, that can 
form  a new problem themselves.

About the cable radiating: If the signal arrives correctly at the end in an 
approved cable, the cable is not radiating. I mean it's not the mere fact that 
data is running that make the cable radiate.  That is why these cable are 
approved and characterized. A radiating signal cable (if due to the
signal) has problems with signal transfer also, especially at this data rates. 
In the case of HDMI the external screen is not needed to protect the signal as 
the data internally is grouped and internally screened (3 or 5 groups).
I suspect this is just equipment originated CM current, that cannot be cured 
with a better cable; but needs a better equipment CM design. (Or a bunch of 
heavy ferrites).

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager




+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to
+ EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday 13 January 2017 04:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

If I am qualifying a device that connects through a cable to this TV, but not 
the TV itself, why would it physically have to be part of the set-up in the 
test chamber? Why could it not simply be support equipment in an adjacent 
chamber, providing the proper interface at the end of the cable?

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Doug Smith 
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:32:06 -0800
> To: , Ken Javor 
> 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Unless you are required to include a 4k TV or other device as part of 
> your test setup!
> 
> Doug
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:20:05 -0600, Ken Javor 
>  wrote:
> Not

Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

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

Exactly. Nowadays it's easy to filter high speed ports, and in the case of 
shielded cable this is even more easy.
One aspect that can be a problem is cable length. USB and HDMI are limited in 
length, and in large rooms that can be a problem, needing repeaters, that can 
form  a new problem themselves.

About the cable radiating: If the signal arrives correctly at the end in an 
approved cable, the cable is not radiating. I mean it's not the mere fact that 
data is running that make the cable radiate.  That is why these cable are 
approved and characterized. A radiating signal cable (if due to the signal) has 
problems with signal transfer also, especially at this data rates. In the case 
of HDMI the external screen is not needed to protect the signal as the data 
internally is grouped and internally screened (3 or 5 groups).
I suspect this is just equipment originated CM current, that cannot be cured 
with a better cable; but needs a better equipment CM design. (Or a bunch of 
heavy ferrites).

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Friday 13 January 2017 04:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?

If I am qualifying a device that connects through a cable to this TV, but not 
the TV itself, why would it physically have to be part of the set-up in the 
test chamber? Why could it not simply be support equipment in an adjacent 
chamber, providing the proper interface at the end of the cable?

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Doug Smith 
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:32:06 -0800
> To: , Ken Javor 
> 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Unless you are required to include a 4k TV or other device as part of 
> your test setup!
> 
> Doug
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:20:05 -0600, Ken Javor 
>  wrote:
> Not proffering a solution here, but the amount of traffic on this 
> topic has
>> surprised me. Back in the day when most testing was on an OATS, I 
>> would have understood the concerns expressed, but nowadays most 
>> testing is performed in a SAC simulating an OATS. With the latter it 
>> is simple to use any off-the-shelf device in an external chamber just 
>> as the appropriate load interface for the test sample, and provide 
>> filtering external to the chamber necessary to clean up any emissions 
>> that could pollute the test chamber ambient. With a shielded cable, 
>> it might be as simple as running it through a stuffing tube and 
>> grounding out the rf current running external to the shield. Or there 
>> could be a high quality shielded cable used in the test chamber, 
>> which connects to a bulkhead-mounted and grounded adapter, and 
>> external to the chamber, the noisy support equipment and any crummy cable 
>> can be used.
>> 
>> Lots of possible variations, but the point is that with a SAC, we 
>> don't have to be near as picky about the support equipment.
>> 
>> Ken Javor
>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Ralph McDiarmid 
>>> Reply-To: Ralph McDiarmid 
>>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 20:59:57 +
>>> To: 
>>> Conversation: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
>>> Subject: Re: [PSES] lowest emissions 4k TV?
 I wonder if RF current on the coax coming in to the cable box
>> then radiates
>>> from the HDMI cable? All that overhead cable strung through 
>>> residential neighborhoods must pick up a lot of RFI on its outer braid.
 Ralph McDiarmid
>>> Product Compliance
>>> Solar Business
>>> Schneider Electric
 -
>>> 
>>> 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 archive

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

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

Those interested, i cleaned up my temperature prediction spreadsheet 
and if you want to play with it, let me know.
The math is crude, it might even have small errors.

The spreadsheet is prepopulated in column E with data from an calculated RC
network with source (green area), that you can erase, or use it to play with 
base data.
The data is rounded to a settable  number of digits.
Best performance at time sampling of  tau/50 and 2 digits minimum
of resolution of the temperature ( x.xx  degrees).
At 3 digits the prediction is spectacular.

Accuracy won't impact the results. It's the resolution that counts.
With 1 digit of resolution the results are not very usable in terms
of calculation, however your experienced engineers eye may draw conclusions 
anyway.

After an arbitrary number of samples, the sheet calculates the final temperature
tau , end of test time and creates a graph.






Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Monday 9 January 2017 05:19
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

The subject itself can easily be a presentation at ISPCE.  Doug, what you and 
Gert have done should be a formal paper.  Please consider collaborating and 
making it happen.

John




From: Pete Perkins <0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 9:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule 
 
Doug,
 
   A great approach; it would make for an interesting ISPCE/PSES 
presentation and a paper.   Go for it.  
 
:>) br,  Pete
 
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
 
503/452-1201
 
p.perk...@ieee.org
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 10:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule
 
Richard,
 
I have tried a number of approaches in the past.  Given that most products are 
quite complex with regard to all the potential heat sources/sinks and 
interfaces I decided that anything along the lines of FEA is impractical.  
 
I also tried the time constants idea which is analogous to RC time constants.  
I found this works well enough if you have a good amount of history with the 
product itself.  Otherwise, due to the non-linear nature of the problem, it is 
difficult to predict end time or temperature until 3 to 4 time constants have 
already passed.
 
I tried using the slope of ΔT to estimate when the end of the test is pending.
 
The next attempt was to dig in a little following the equations V = Voe-(t/RC) 
and V = Vo[1-e-(t/RC)] where I substitute V for the the various temperatures 
(Vo = the absolute value of the temperature delta from start to end), C is 
analogous to product mass and R is the Rtheta of the product. With a little 
testing history, you can assume the composition of the product is similar for 
other products designed by the same company (copper, steel, plastics, air, 
liquids, etc), I solved for RC and then rearranged the algebra to solve for t 
which is time.  There are a couple of problems in that I am still unable to 
come up with a general purpose solution.  First this is a simultaneous solution 
of several unknowns which is not conducive to quick on the fly solutions.  This 
is especially true when you are in the early stages of a temperature run when 
things are still moving quickly.  As you know extrapolating outside an existing 
dataset is risky, especially when nonlinearities are invo!
 lved.  
 
I am now going back to basics.  Q = Cp * m * abs(T2-T1)
 
q = heat energy in Joules
m = mass of the product
Cp = specific heat of the product
T1 = The initial t

Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

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

Hi Rich,

The quotient of subsequent derivatives of equidistant samples of the 
temperature has a direct relation
to the time constant.  TC=Timestep/(1-(dtempn+1/dtempn))
Numerically this is easy to calculate in a spreadsheet
Once the time constant is known it is easy to find the temperature value of the 
63.2% of the final temperature.

samples:

time1  - Temp1
time2  - Temp2  (Temp2-Temp1) - - 
time3  - Temp3  (Temp3-Temp2) - - dtemp2/dtemp1
time4  - Temp4  (Temp4-Temp3) - - dtemp3/dtemp2

The quotients in the last column are constant for a true inverse exponential
temperature rise curve (same as a RC circuit). 

Of course , only for simple constant power heating curves that are truly 
exponential.
The third column will quickly show if the curve is exponential or not , if the 
quotients are not all the same,
something more complex is happening.

I hope this is a clear explanation


Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc
 

 
g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953
 
 Before printing, think about the environment.


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 7 januari 2017 20:51
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

> We have to consider that the temperatures sought are not of 
> metrological value, but to to establish a safe/non-safe result.

Yes!

> The mathematical limit of an exponential rise is easy to estimate, 
> once a few timed samples are available,

I haven't been able to come up with an equation, even though I have tried and 
sought help from folks who are more knowledgeable than me in the field of 
thermodynamics.  Please tell us your methodology.

Best wishes for the New Year!
Rich

-

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] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

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

We have to consider that the temperatures sought are not of metrological value, 
but to 
to establish a safe/non-safe result. This means that the whole time constant 
discussion is relevant
only when the final expected temperature is close to the standards limit value.
The mathematical limit of an exponential rise is easy to estimate, once a few 
timed samples are available,
and if that value is far enough above or below the limit, a conclusion is easy 
to draw.

For cyclic heating  equipment, a similar approach is not difficult.

If the cycle is unknown , there is no other option than to wait infinitely.

Unfortunately, any cyclic information is unknown if the test engineer is not 
involved with the
operating principle of the EUT, so if following a black box testing approach, 
the 
measurement will never get to completion !  ;<)

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Saturday 7 January 2017 00:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

Standards can't necessarily cover every possibility. For cyclical effects, I 
would say that conditions are stable if two successive temperature maxima are 
equal (within a reasonable tolerance). This doesn't necessarily work if more 
than one cycle frequency is involved, in which case you have to look for the 
repetition of the whole sequence, which might take a long time. 

For example, a 10 minute cycle and a 12 minute cycle give a sequence that 
repeats every 60 minutes. 

If you are lucky.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule

Thanks!

I'll take a look.  I generally log with LabView or direct into an Excel 
spreadsheet, maybe I can get an Excel VB Script to post expected times.  

One of the concerns I am dealing with now is how to determine stability when 
there are cyclical operations going on.  I am using the prescribed stability 
criteria and using this on the minima/maxima of the temperature variations as 
it moves up and down.  Funny, as I sit starting at thermal data moving in this 
way, I think of it "porpoise-ing" up and down.

All the best,  Doug

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Brian O'Connell  
wrote:
Rough pseudo code for my transformer algorithm for logging and monitoring 
temperatures for normal operating conditions:

time constant = (material ksp * mass) / (24*60)
sample interval = time constant / (mass * material kx)
breakpoint flags = false

if sample interval < min interval
   sample interval = min interval

interrupts:
   temperatures to circular buffer
   log samples and windowed averages to network storage

loop:
   for each channel
      verify exponential and set breakpoint flag for each channel
      update thermal lag time
      adjust sample interval if time constant > thermal lag/2
   find least dT/dt channel
   find largest thermal lag time per ambient time per matching indices of 
windowed means
   if all breakpoint flags
      indicate done

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermal equilibrium - 10% rule
John,

I agree with the common sense approach and use it frequently.  It's always 
interesting to me how I can look at a screen plot of 60 thermocouples and in a 
second or two decide, "yes this is stable".  I can even estimate how much time 
it will take to become stable as a test nears the end (usual

Re: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

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

Hi Douglas,

Each of the Basic Standards from the series EN 61000-4-x ( esp -3,-4,-5, and 
-6) have
their own list of test levels recommended to the committees writing the product 
standard.
In general they are 1,2,3 and X.
Your product standard should not have referred to the test level number but to 
the actual level instead as this obliges customers to buy Basic  standards 
(which are not for product approvals) and costs them more.
Tell us the test phenomenon (RI,EFT,SURGE or other) and I can help you find the 
appropriate level.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 21 December 2016 13:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EM Severity Levels

Fellow listers,

I recently ran into the following text in an EN standard:

“...unit should be tolerable for EMC severity level 3…”

I am trying to track down which IEC standard in the IEC 61000 series defines 
EMC severity levels. If you know which standard this is please let me know.

To all who celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas! If you celebrate in other ways 
at this time of year, may the joys of the season be yours!

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com
(519) 729-5704


-

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 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor

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

In the close field area E-field/H-field varies with 1/(r^2) OR 1/(^3) depending 
on the source
and nature of it. In addition at close distances similar fields may have an 
opposite
vector polarity (close to EUT) and may partially cancel each other. 
In general it is not a good idea measuring close field components to draw 
conclusions
on radiated emission components at greater distances, as these components do 
not 
actually radiate.
That is why you won’t find any conversion factors for frequencies below 30 MHz,
at distances shorter than the close-far field transition zone. (lambda/2pi)

Of course measurements in this area make sense about the EMI-level  at the 
measurement point,
and that is why some standards make measurements in the close field at a 
predefined distance.
Changing that distance will make measurements incomparable.


 
Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 6 December 2016 00:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor

Dear Members,

What is the appropriate distance conversion factor per EN 302 195, 9 kHz - 30 
MHz?  The limits were specified at 10m.  Test data was too low to be detected 
at 10m and 3m.  1m distance was used to collect some data.

EN 300 330 provides a chart for the distance conversion factors between 3m and 
10m.  It seems there is no such information in EN 302 195.

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

Best regards,
Grace Lin
-

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

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

-

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] dimension of the stud for PE

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

What I did:

Bought the largest toroidal transformer available (2200 VA), and
used  copper tube (water pipe) or lightning conductors   to create 
one or 2 windings as a temporary
 secondary.  This gives you several volts at 400-500 A  (AC!) before
the primary gets overloaded.

Switch the primary with a solid state relay with ample capacity
 (as ring cores may/will have excessive inrush current), and
appropriate fuse. Use a 9V battery, a resistor and a momentary switch
to feed the SSR.



Feed it with an adjustable power transformer if you want 
to regulate the secundary current.
Most of us do own such a device in the voltage DIP immunity setup,
mine has 4000VA output and can be digitally controlled.
(or use the amplifier of a  Harmonics / Flicker set-up)


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking according to EC-directives:
  - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2014/30/EC
- Electrical Safety 2014/35/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC

Web:    www.cetest.nl  (English) www.ce-test.nl (Dutch) www.cetest.fr (under 
construction)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday 2 December 2016 00:43
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dimension of the stud for PE

I too can vouch for doing the Bonding test to a few hundred amps using a 
Sorensen DC supply (and calibrated V and I meters and stopwatch...)

-Ken

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
I've done this test at several hundred amps before (not to 60950-1, but 
similar). I used an old Sorensen DC power supply (low voltage, high current), 
with external calibrated measurement for both current and voltage drop. Care 
must also be taken in connecting the power supply to the EUT to make sure it is 
low resistance.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:52 PM, John Woodgate  wrote:
Reminds me of an amusing argument between a student and a 5 V 1000 A MG set, 
observed from a safe distance.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 7:11 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dimension of the stud for PE
 
The test of 2.6.3.4 does get interesting for high current equipment. I have 
personally run this test only on equipment rated up to 50 A. Even then, it 
required applying a 100 A test current for 4 minutes. For the 130 A rated 
product, you would have a test current of 260 A applied for 8 minutes. 
 
It may not be easy to find a ground bond tester capable of supplying this 
current. I did my testing at 100 A using a transformer salvaged from a large 
scrap uninterruptible power supply. It allowed me to step down a 15 A, 120 V 
circuit to provide the necessary current at a voltage below the 12 V limit. 
With this transformer, only a calibrated volt-meter and current-meter were 
required. 
 
One significant issue with this test setup is that additional care must be 
taken to ensure operator safety. Purchased equipment often has sensors to 
detect a faulty connection or other error that triggers the equipment to shut 
off power quickly. You likely won’t have this in equipment you build yourself 
for such testing. Proper PPE and safety precautions should be used when using 
any high-power equipment, but it may be necessary to talk with your facility 
safety staff as home-built equipment doesn’t come with a user manual telling 
you what is required for safety.
 
The lower voltage used should provide some safety benefit. However, a loose 
connection that comes in contact with an earth-grounded circuit may result in 
significant arcing. Even low voltages should be treated with respect when you 
have high current available. 
 
Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation
 
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.
 
From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:04 AM
To

Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

This phrase is a typical addition one finds in standards often
as the result of a compromise, where a generic test requirement
has been reduced to a subset.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ari Honkala [mailto:ari.honk...@sesko.fi] 
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 14:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Hi,
the wording in CISPR 11 Clause 6.2.1.1 means that the limits for the LV d.c. 
power port apply only for the DC-side of GCPCs in PV installation, nothing 
else. Repetition later in Tables is not necessary.

Therefore, when CISPR 11 is given as a reference to be applied for emissions, 
d.c. port test applies only when the product in question is a GCPC in PV 
installation.

For the use of the Delta-network with another kind of d.c. power port, a 
product standard needs to refer to CISPR 16-1-2:2014 Clause 4.7 for the AMN.

I hope this clarifies the issue,
with best regards,
Ari Honkala

From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: maanantai 28. marraskuuta 2016 14:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Hi all,

There's also another question that I would like to clarify. There is a 
statement in CISPR 11 (2016) - quoted text below:

"6.2.1 Limits for conducted disturbances
6.2.1.1 General
..
The limits for the LV d.c. power port specified hereafter apply only to grid 
connected power convertors (GCPCs) intended for assembly into photovoltaic 
power generating systems."

So, it seems that this dc-power CE with 150 Ω  Delta-network would not apply to 
medical devices (60601-1-2) and lab equipment (61326-1) unless they are dc-fed 
through a photovoltaic power generating system?

Anyway, I still find the CISPR11 (2016) a bit ambiguous, since this 
"photovoltaic-only" requirement is not repeated or confirmed later on in "Table 
3 – Limits for conducted disturbances of class A group 1 equipment measured on 
a test site (d.c. power port)", except for > 20kVA equipment.
Also, the definition of d.c. power port in sec.3.7:
"port used to connect to a low voltage d.c. power generating system or energy 
storage, or to another source/load
Note 1 to entry: Such a system may be for example a photovoltaic or a fuel cell 
power generating system, or also a battery." doesn't fully clarify. 

So now the question is: is the statement in sec.6.2.1.1 quoted above enough to 
exclude anything not powered through photovoltaic power generatic system from 
the dc-power conducted emissions with 150 Ω Delta-networks? 

Thanks to all who provide feedback!
Paolo

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:32 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
 wrote:
EN 61326-1:2013 makes a date reference to CISPR11:2009+A12010 in its Annex ZA
as well as in article 2.
Par 7.2 also refers to CISPR11:2009 .
The limit references for Class A and B do not refer to a dated CISPR11

While I am convinced this is the kind of carefulness that is common in standards
published by IEC and CENELEC, the normative consequences are that the latest
versions apply.

So yes, since the publication date of  June, 26th 2016 this new
version :

Allows for FAR room measurements
Prescribes limits for DC in/output ports and defines the delta LISN type to be 
used:

"For   measurements   at   LV   d.c.   power   ports   of   power   electronic  
 equipment,   a   modern
implementation  of  the  150 Ω  Delta-network  specified  in  CISPR 16-1-2  has 
 been  made available"

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic eq

Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

That may be true, but using a dated reference AND a non-dated reference in one 
article of 6 lines
(assuming one person actually writing/approving this article) is -at least- say 
"surprising".

And I assume that for the basic issues of "writing standards" CENELEC
has a final redaction quality process, checking for standards basics.

Although I must admit that I see no trace of any ISO or other quality
system on their site, where laboratories are supposed to comply 
with ISO 17025
 


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 12:37
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

I don't think it's careless, it's a case of the rules being complicated and not 
stressed enough by committee officers. I have a constant battle in some 
committees to convince people they should at least refer to Directives Part 2 
and preferably to the Guide to iecstd.dot as well. Some do, most don't. The 
CENELEC rules are not quite the same and are fairly inaccessible if you are not 
given the magic URL that leads to them.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:57 AM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

When the this distinction between dated AND undated references is so clearly 
made (as in EN 61326-1:2013) this SHOULD mean that  once an undated reference 
is found, it should definitely be read as undated.

If  a standard is to be applied in full, that means it should also include the 
presumed errors until a correction is published.
I agree with you (John), that probably the intention of the committee was to 
give dated references only, and that section ZA and 2 are explicitly meant to 
define this (sec 2 created by IEC, ZA created by CENELEC) .  
The standards text (apart from ZA) should then refrain from dated references at 
all or use some kind of index number to annex ZA when a standard is referred.

And it's a shame that CENELEC (as the latest responsible in the chain) is so 
careless in their published texts.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete th

Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

When the this distinction between dated AND undated references is so clearly 
made (as in EN 61326-1:2013)
this SHOULD mean that  once an undated reference is found, it should definitely 
be read as undated.

If  a standard is to be applied in full, that means it should also include the 
presumed errors until a correction is published.
I agree with you (John), that probably the intention of the committee was to 
give dated references only,
and that section ZA and 2 are explicitly meant to define this (sec 2 created by 
IEC, ZA created by CENELEC) .  
The standards text (apart from ZA) should then refrain from dated references at 
all or use some kind of index number to annex ZA when a standard is referred.

And it's a shame that CENELEC (as the latest responsible in the chain) is so 
careless in their published texts.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 11:45
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Yes, there is an issue even with the latest Directives Part 2. It isn't clear 
whether a reference can be dated in some places in the text and dated in 
others.  In my opinion, if it's dated in Clause 2 Normative references it is 
dated throughout the document. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

EN 61326-1:2013 makes a date reference to CISPR11:2009+A12010 in its Annex ZA 
as well as in article 2.
Par 7.2 also refers to CISPR11:2009 .
The limit references for Class A and B do not refer to a dated CISPR11

While I am convinced this is the kind of carefulness that is common in 
standards published by IEC and CENELEC, the normative consequences are that the 
latest versions apply.

So yes, since the publication date of  June, 26th 2016 this new version :

Allows for FAR room measurements
Prescribes limits for DC in/output ports and defines the delta LISN type to be 
used:

"For   measurements   at   LV   d.c.   power   ports   of   power   electronic  
 equipment,   a   modern   
implementation  of  the  150 Ω  Delta-network  specified  in  CISPR 16-1-2  has 
 been  made available"

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have rece

Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

I need to add to that, that referring to limits in a harmonised standard by 
referencing a (yet)
unharmonised standard is against all principles of the system.

The standard EN 61326-1:2013 annex ZA is very clear about it:

"The following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in 
this document and are
indispensable for its application. For dated references, only the edition cited 
applies. For undated
references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any 
amendments) applies.
NOTE When an international publication has been modified by common 
modifications, indicated by (mod), the relevant EN/HD
applies."

The latter phrase suggests that EN 55011:2016 is used instead of CISPR 11:2015 
for which a DOP of 17-02-2017
is given as its status clearly references CISPR11:2015(mod)

This may give you a few months


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 11:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

EN 61326-1:2013 makes a date reference to CISPR11:2009+A12010 in its Annex ZA 
as well as in article 2.
Par 7.2 also refers to CISPR11:2009 .
The limit references for Class A and B do not refer to a dated CISPR11

While I am convinced this is the kind of carefulness that is common in 
standards published by IEC and CENELEC, the normative consequences are that the 
latest versions apply.

So yes, since the publication date of  June, 26th 2016 this new version :

Allows for FAR room measurements
Prescribes limits for DC in/output ports and defines the delta LISN type to be 
used:

"For   measurements   at   LV   d.c.   power   ports   of   power   electronic  
 equipment,   a   modern   
implementation  of  the  150 Ω  Delta-network  specified  in  CISPR 16-1-2  has 
 been  made available"

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 10:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Hi all,

the new 2016 edition of CISPR11 requires DC power ports conducted emissions to 
be done with a "150 Ohm CISPR Delta-network (DC-AN) – see CISPR11 ed.6.1 (2016) 
sec. 6.2.1.3, 7.3.2.3 and Annex I) instead of a "standard" 50uH/50ohm V-LISN, 
used for AC-power conducted emissions and also for

Re: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

EN 61326-1:2013 makes a date reference to CISPR11:2009+A12010 in its Annex ZA
as well as in article 2.
Par 7.2 also refers to CISPR11:2009 .
The limit references for Class A and B do not refer to a dated CISPR11

While I am convinced this is the kind of carefulness that is common in standards
published by IEC and CENELEC, the normative consequences are that the latest
versions apply.

So yes, since the publication date of  June, 26th 2016 this new
version :

Allows for FAR room measurements
Prescribes limits for DC in/output ports and defines the delta LISN type to be 
used:

"For   measurements   at   LV   d.c.   power   ports   of   power   electronic  
 equipment,   a   modern   
implementation  of  the  150 Ω  Delta-network  specified  in  CISPR 16-1-2  has 
 been  made available"

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 10:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Hi all,

the new 2016 edition of CISPR11 requires DC power ports conducted emissions to 
be done with a "150 Ohm CISPR Delta-network (DC-AN) – see CISPR11 ed.6.1 (2016) 
sec. 6.2.1.3, 7.3.2.3 and Annex I) instead of a "standard" 50uH/50ohm V-LISN, 
used for AC-power conducted emissions and also for AC&DC power conducted 
emissions according to IEC/EN 61000-6-3, CISPR22 and other standards.

That means - to my understandiing - that DC-powered Laboratory equipment 
(tested per IEC/EN 61326-1, sec. 7.2) and Medical devices (tested according to 
IEC 60601-1-2 (sec.7.1.1) must be tested with the Delta-LISN for DC-power 
conducted emissions.

Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Paolo 
-

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] Public view of this email server?

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

+1

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Tuesday 22 November 2016 10:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Public view of this email server?

This does come as a surprise to me. I had thought that the email archive was 
searchable by being stored on the IEEE host, but I did not realize that anyone, 
anywhere in the World, could observe the conversations with a Google search 
external to the IEEE. I don’t think this is what we intended to do when this 
forum was set up as a private membership reflector email system.

I would think that many compliance professionals, knowing that their 
affiliations and comments could be publicly observed, would be cowed into 
participating at only the most superficial level of technical and legal 
content. I generally believe in a free flow of information, but knowing that 
your every word can be monitored and used for whatever purpose by anyone 
capable of a keyword search simply has to have a chilling effect on candor 
within the regulatory compliance community. Or from a different perspective, 
what value does such openness return to our members and the regulatory 
compliance community?

Since our forum still displays a notable lack of spam, I assume that membership 
in our forum (required for posting) is still personally controlled by our 
admins (and a word of thanks to them for their service). 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: Dan Roman [mailto:danp...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 5:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Public view of this email server?

See the footer attached to every message:

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



--
Dan Roman
dan.ro...@ieee.org




 Original message 
From: "Kortas, Jamison"  
Date: 11/21/16 1:43 PM (GMT-06:00) 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] Public view of this email server? 
Hi All,
 
Maybe I am the only one who didn’t know this, but I found a thread in which I 
had I participated in a Google search. I did not know these emails were public 
in some way, at least enough to be found and indexed by Google.
 
Just an FYI.
 
The thread I found: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/msg72464.html
 
-Jamison
-

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

Re: [PSES] EU EMC Harmonized Standards (2014/30/EU) for Audio Power Amplifiers

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

For professional equipment
EN 55103-1 and -2 apply  !

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday 11 November 2016 22:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU EMC Harmonized Standards (2014/30/EU) for Audio Power 
Amplifiers

EN 55032 applies, and EN 61000-3-2. Audio amplifiers are in EN 61000-3-2 Class 
A. For immunity, EN 55020 still, until EN 55035 is finalized.


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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU EMC Harmonized Standards (2014/30/EU) for Audio Power 
Amplifiers

Dear Members,

Could you please advise the appropriate EU EMC harmonized standards for audio 
power amplifiers?

For radiated and AC mains disturbances,  I think EN 55032 fits.  Please let me 
know if it is not.

For immunity tests,  the title of EN 55024 seems not fit very well.  Though 
CISPR 35 was published, OJ has not published it (EN 55035?).  Should a generic 
standard (EN 61000-6-1 or EN 61000-6-2) be used?

Thank you very much!

Best regards,
Grace Lin
 
-

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

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

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 

F

Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

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

I have no definite answer either but a few suggestions….

*   To prevent RF current to flow away (re-radiate) from the test setup 
though the capacitance between cable and clamp. Necessary of the generator is 
"remote".
*   The opposite: get rid of common mode voltages on the generator 
(=amplifier) output that might couple in on the cable under test

There is probably not a real reason, but the decision was  part of was thought 
to be good craftsmanship.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Friday 11 November 2016 04:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

Does anyone on this forum know why the current injection clamp must be 
grounded? I can’t think of a reason for that.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Kunde, Brian" 
Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:22:39 +
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection
Subject: Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

Three things to keep in mind with the 61000-4-6 Conducted Immunity test when 
using clamps;
 
1.  There two types of clamps; The Current Clamp which must be grounded via 
the BNC connector and a short strap to the Reference Ground Plane, and The EM 
clamp which most commercially available models have grounding pads on the 
bottom which touches the Reference ground plane; so with these the ground strap 
is not needed. 


2.  The entire Test Setup must not be directly grounded to Earth or the 
Ground Reference Plane. The entire EUT is slightly floating off of ground 
through the impedance created by the CDNs and placed on 10cm platforms above 
the GRP.


3.  There must always be at least TWO coupling devices in the test setup 
(see reason below).  You must provide a loop or return path for the energy you 
are injecting.

If you are testing an EUT with no I/O and only one port with a CDN attached, 
then you must add a second CDN (CDN-M1) to the chassis ground of the EUT to the 
Ground Plane. If the EUT has a dedicated ground earth terminal, you can connect 
a CDN-M1 from it to the Ground Plane. 

If the EUT does not have a ground (Class 2 device or all plastic chassis) then 
you can wrap the EUT in aluminum foil and connect it to the ground plane via a 
CDN-M1. 

The only setup picture in the standard that really shows this configuration in 
Figure F.2. Note without the CDN-M1 the EUT would only have one CDN attached. 
Like I said before; you must have at least two CDN devices in the test setup. 



It would be most difficult to do in an In-Situ setup for the 4-6 test. If you 
cannot keep the EUT from shorting directly to ground, either directly or 
through one of the EUTs, then you cannot do the test. The Standard does not 
give a test setup for in-situ testing. 


See section 7.7 when using a clamp where you cannot met the common mode 
impedance requirements:
 
“When using clamp injection, and the common mode impedance requirements cannot 
be met
at the AE side, it is necessary that the common mode impedance of the AE be 
less than or
equal to the common mode impedance of the EUT port being tested. If not, 
measures shall be
taken (e.g. by using a CDN-M1 or 150 􀀺 resistor from the AE to ground) at the 
AE port to
satisfy this condition and to prevent resonances”
 
I hope this was helpful.
The Other Brian
 
 
 
 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 10:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Bulk Current Injection

Are you using the 2013 edition of IEC 61000-4-6?  It's certainly a bit 
confusing. Figure 5 shows the strap without any qualification about its use, 
bu

Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

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

In IOT land the rock will warn the cars before it falls…..  ;<)

 

Gert

 

 

Van: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: maandag 7 november 2016 20:39
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

 

 

On November 7, 2016 9:03:11 AM PST, Ted Eckert 
<07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

With a little imagination, I can come up with many scenarios that appear 
“no-win”. Imagine you are driving down a mountain road with a rock face on one 
side and a long drop off a cliff on the other. Vehicle to vehicle 
communications allow your self-driving vehicle to stay close to the car in 
front of you. It is a straight road and high speeds are allowed. Now imaging a 
rock slide starts dropping a large boulder onto the roadway. The vehicle in 
front of yours may hit the rocks, but it remains intact enough to protect its 
occupants. Your vehicle can either hit the vehicle in front of you potentially 
injuring its passengers or take evasive action risking your health. What does 
the vehicle do?

 

I live in the state of Washington where rock slides are common. 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides 

 

http://komonews.com/news/local/rock-slide-closes-highway-2-in-central-wash 
 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9957369/ns/us_news-life/t/rock-slide-closes-major-highway-washington/#.WCCyMIWcGeE
 

 

 

Maybe vehicles will need to be programmed to have a much greater following 
distance in areas where there is a rock slide risk. However, there are many 
places where a tree can fall on the road, large animals can jump out or a child 
could run out into the road unexpectedly. 

 

These aren’t situations that are new with self-driving cars. They just create a 
new issue of liability. 

 

Ted Eckert

Microsoft Corporation

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

 

From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

 

Obviously I can't think of all possibilities, but it seems to me that these 
sort of situations must be corner cases. After all I have never found myself in 
a situation where my only options are to hit a person or go down a 300 m cliff 
at 100 km/h. Further more, I won't be driving at 100 km/h when there is a cliff 
where I can go down!It's called defensive driving. I am sure defensive driving 
is programmed into all self driving cars so they are much less likely to be in 
this sort of situation. The only exceptions that I can imagine are deliberate 
acts on the part of the person.

On November 7, 2016 5:06:36 AM PST, Jim Hulbert  wrote:

So a Mercedes automated vehicle would make the decision of who lives 
and who dies. That’s incredible.

 

Jim Hulbert

 

From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 6:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

 

This article in The Guardian is related to your first point regarding 
human drivers “gaming” driverless cars to gain an advantage

 


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/30/volvo-self-driving-car-autonomous

 

“The first self-driving cars to be operated by ordinary British drivers 
will be left deliberately unmarked so that other drivers will not be tempted to 
“take them on”, a senior car industry executive has revealed.”

 

Also

 

“Meanwhile, Mercedes has made it clear that if a situation arises where 
a car has to choose between saving the lives of its occupants or those of 
bystanders, it will save the occupants. ‘If you know you can save at least one 
person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car,’ Christoph von Hugo, 
manager of driver assistance systems and active safety at Mercedes, told the 
Paris Motor Show recently.”

 

Bruce Schneier writes a lot on security issues and regularly covers IoT 
and occasionally driverless vehicles. His blog makes for interesting reading - 
https://www.schneier.com/  I’m sure it will end up being the usual round of 
addition of features, poor programming/testing (due to budget constraints), 
vulnerabilities, exploiting, patching, public outcry, legistlation, etc.

 

All the more reason to buy a bicycle.

 

James

 

 

 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 06 November 2016 02:17
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 

[PSES] Where have the leak proof batteries gone ?

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

Slightly  off-topic may be but.

Since a number of years, professional (penlite and other size) batteries
used in test en measurement equipment in my office
(notably those of Duracell (Procell)) seem not
to be leak proof anymore.

In my younger years  (and that is not that long ago) batteries
where sold as leak-proof, an important sales argument.

Is this something of the old days, or is it not
opportune anymore to build quality penlites?

I have recently been cleaning for thousands of euro's
of equipment that after an extended period of no-use
(say 1-2 years) had there battery equipment full of
liquid and white powder.

A spare 9V (new) battery of the forenamed brand 
(laying around in my service suitcase) literally exploded
in side.

My Fluke portable power analyser had to be  thoroughly cleaned
after its batteries gave up.
The problem seems worst for batteries that do not
actually get used, but empty over time.

Any recommendations for a reliable brand available
world wide ?


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager




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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.



-

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] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & electrical appliances

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

In general 10-40 degrees Celcius is sufficient for indoor use.
Most batteries keep enough energy to get the product started/operating,
but I personally have experienced Iphones that crash when taking pictures 
outdoors in winter.
( below say 5 degrees Celcius)
Same for (some) canon cameras (probably others too) operating from ordinary 
rechargeable penlites. 

It did not prevent most manufacturers to just specify 10-40 degrees,
and since consumers never read this stuff (do consumers ever read ? If they did
so we would not call them consumers !) it obviously does not stop them
from consuming when it's cold anyway. 

When integrating products into larger systems I use this range for
non-specified products. It means that the inside temperature of these
systems should not exceed 40 degrees, and this is very confronting
to some manufacturers, used to integrate OEM stuff inside. 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday 5 November 2016 17:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & 
electrical appliances

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your views/comments!

In summary, most of suppliers produce uniform products for all countries 
including very cold weather ones.  If the products are used indoors, the 
ambient temperature would not go to low temperature extreme.  Thus general 
consumers including those lived in very cold areas do not need special design 
of products.

If the product is transported from outdoors to customer house, a once-off 
warm-up time could be tolerated by most of consumers.

For products used in tough environment, special design is required and cost is 
higher for small group of users only. 

Regards,

Scott


From: Adam Dixon 
Date: Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 7:21 PM
To: Scott Xe 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & 
electrical appliances

Hi, Scott,

 
Apple informs its customers about temperature extremes and battery/device 
performance in an easy-to-find article titled "Keeping iPhone, iPad, and iPod 
touch within acceptable operating temperatures."  Apple users in Norway should 
have the same hardware as those in the US, so should be no unique thermal 
design for Norway. 
All consumer electronics manufacturers should have 
transportation/storage/operating temperature ranges, though it is difficult 
sometimes to locate the numbers in their documentation.  I designed with LCD 
panels for several years and there are similar design challenges with liquid 
crystal temperature behavior at high/low temperature extremes.  There was one 
panel design for worldwide use.  Only when the panel was being designed into a 
product for outdoor use (ex:  digital signage), were additional heating/cooling 
hardware added to ensure the panel itself stayed within the required liquid 
crystal temperature range. 

In the case of EU consumer electronics, the TV's listed on Tesco's site look 
quite similar to those on WalMart's and both have travelled from factories in 
Asia, so the temperature ranges are likely identical or very similar (though 
difficult to locate!).  I expect your concern is more for portable electronics 
like cell phones and tablets?  

For larger appliances like the refrigerator and washer that you mention, there 
typically would be a temperature transition time associated with the delivery 
and installation which would likely satisfy the operating range (i.e. warm up 
to within operating range before being powered on for the first time).  While 
not related to the EU consumer electronics market, there are some easy to find 
articles on NEBS compliance that describe the transition temperature 
times/rates to whi

Re: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

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

>Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
>Directive 2014/53/EU

This phrase can mean only one thing: meant to be used as a Harmonized standard 
in the sense of the directive as OJ publication.

ETSI should have written : "Intended to be harmonized….", as it is not the 
standard that
could claim the harmonization property, but the  OJ publication only.

The discussion if a standard is harmonized in any other way is not relevant. 
Standards are by definition
a harmonisation (in the generic sense)  instrument.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Grace Lin [mailto:graceli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 2 November 2016 15:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1

Dear Members,

The title on the cover page of the ETSI EN 302 195 V2.1.1 states:

"
Short Range Devices (SRD);
Ultra Low Power Active Medical Implants (ULP-AMI) and accessories (ULP-AMI-P) 
operating in the frequency range 9 kHz to 315 kHz
Harmonised Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of the 
Directive 2014/53/EU
"

This standard has not been published on OJ (as October 14, 2016).  Can a 
Declaration of Conformity list this standard to demonstrate compliance with the 
essential requirements?

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

Best regards,
Grace Lin

-

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

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

-

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] FW: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

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

We are all used to that odor, we work with standards right ?
They are "expired" before first print.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Thursday 20 October 2016 14:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

John, et al,

    Just remember that this is a dynamic document and any 
circulated version will, like fish left lying around, age rather quickly and 
leave an unpleasant odor behind.  

    The up-to-date version remains within the TC 108 pile of 
records.  

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

p.perk...@ieee.org

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 12:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

It's only 16 kB, so it's not size that is the problem. The copy-and paste 
version came through to me. This may help:

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.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Lovell, Paul [mailto:paul.lov...@ul.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 6:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

Hi All,

I spoke to the Secretary of IEC TC 108 and he is happy to share the current 
state of affairs. However, it's in the form of an Excel spreadsheet which 
exceeds the maximum size permitted by this message board [I know, I tried to 
copy-and-paste it - the message bounced back].

If anyone can let me know how, I will send it on.

Best regards,

Paul


Paul Lovell
Senior Project Engineer
Health Sciences Regulatory Group
-
UL International (UK) Ltd.
Wonersh House, The Guildway, Old Portsmouth Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1LR, United Kingdom.
T: +44.1483.402006
T: +44.746.908.2581
F: +44.1483.302.230
W: ul.com

-

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

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 li

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

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

>The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices to the 
>user – a 'shot in foot' result.

Article 18.2 2014/30/EC requires such a warning on the EUT itself if meant for 
Industrial

The EU is rather undecided -as John says- on what is "Industrial", or is it 
"Heavy Industrial"
and the generic standard for "heavy Industrial" refers to " Industrial" 
environment only, and even worse refers to the definition in CISPR11 for 
Industrial, a standard it is supposed to *guide* , instead to refer to.
But of course EN 61000-6-2 is written by Cenelec , not by the European 
Commission. A smart way of circular reasoning.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 19 October 2016 09:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

I'm not unsure. Class A is for heavy industry, powered from MV or higher, with 
no broadcast receivers likely within 30 m.

The real difference between Europe and the Americas is that in Europe, there is 
a vain attempt to prohibit the use of Class A devices out of industrial areas, 
whereas in the Americas it is recognized that this can (fairly rarely) occur 
and requires the *user* to be warned accordingly.

The attempt to prohibit is vain because the *user* is not addressed by the 
legislation, and unless actual interference occurs, the transgression passes 
unnoticed. The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices 
to the user – a 'shot in foot' result.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

Thanks all – at least I am not the only one unsure. 

I am trying to establish a set of criteria that I can ask our engineers and 
marketers that will determine the classification. A decision tree, if you will. 
 This arose from a device that met the less stringent criteria, but not the 
more stringent and then what to do. To prevent the need to debate this topic 
over and over, I was hoping to establish a go forward approach.  Ideally, that 
approach would be “design for both industrial AND non-industrial and be done 
with it.” However, other factors are at play than just my druthers.

-Jamison

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

For Europe, the sources are the Generic standards, which are substantially 
consistent with CISPR 11.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):

5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.

Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

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

There is an on-going (silent) conflict between the European commission and a
number of  cenelec and cispr committees, notably those responsible
for EN 55032 and EN 55011.
While the EC has expressed their opinion in the generic standards,
and expressed their desire that all product committees comply with
the definitions and limit therein, the market (standard committees) does not 
comply to that,
and the EC lacks power (or will) to change that.
Therefore the discrepancy between definitions.

Note that it’s a rather complex matter as the standards are born as Worldwide 
standards (CISPR) and are “common modified” to EN versions.
So CISPR11 (world wide) becomes EN 55011 (Europe harmonised)  without
changing the “Industrial” definition. 


Regards,

Ing.  Gert Gremmen, BSc
 

 
g.grem...@cetest.nl
www.cetest.nl

Kiotoweg 363
3047 BG Rotterdam
T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953
 
 Before printing, think about the environment.



Van: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 oktober 2016 18:25
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
for EMC testing purposes

My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):

5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.

Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. In 
the
documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention to 
the fact that
there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
in other
environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and 
in
establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
supplies
buildings used for domestic purposes.
Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.

The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If the 
equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic establishments, 
then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.

If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the power 
supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then Class A 
performance is acceptable.

The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments. 
If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and therefore Class 
A.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison  wrote:

Good Morning,
 
What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which a 
device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.
 
It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
products in the immediate vicinity (a mechanical room in a grocery store = 
industrial due to the equipment in its immediate environment).
 
I am familiar with some of the definitions in places, but am not so sure that 
those are what are typically followed in practice.
 
I appreciate any thoughts. 
 
Thank you.
 
 
-


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

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

-

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.htm

Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

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

May i try another coding ?

While testing<>end
call (nobeer)
call collegues(headache&sweat&cursing)
call nopromotion(this year)
end while
If testresult= pass then 
call pub(beer)
else
fired(now)
end if


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 5 October 2016 15:05
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

I'd like to write this using the puzzling math symbols 'inverted A' and 
'reversed E', but it's too much of a hassle, so you have to imagine them:

For all [EMC/EMP tests], there exists [ending]. There exists [ending] = 
[happy]. IFFI [ending] = [happy], then there exists [beer]. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Thanks Ed,

In spite of -not much to be learned- , I do appreciate sharing.
May I conclude that many EMC/EMP tests have a happy end... and beer ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday 5 October 2016 13:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Gert:

I really don’t have all that much experience with EMP testing; in the past 12 
years, I have put three systems through HIRF & EMP using the USN facilities at 
Patuxent River, MD.

• System 1 was an airborne instrumentation pod that had a secure data link back 
to ground assets. We were lucky that the entire airborne portion of the system 
was contained in a streamline pod, so except for the intentional signal ports 
and the aircraft power interface, the pod provided complete metallic SE. We 
concentrated on bandwidth limiting the ports, filtering and limiting the power 
interface, and on mechanical build of the pod skin. We passed without incident, 
so it could be argued that we also didn’t learn anything.
• System 2 was the ground segment of an unmanned airborne vehicle secure data 
link. This was essentially a pedestal mounted parabolic tracking antenna with 
some signal processing boxes. During RS103, we found unexpected fa

Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

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

Thanks Ed,

In spite of -not much to be learned- , I do appreciate sharing.
May I conclude that many EMC/EMP tests have a happy end... and beer ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Wednesday 5 October 2016 13:34
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Gert:

I really don’t have all that much experience with EMP testing; in the past 12 
years, I have put three systems through HIRF & EMP using the USN facilities at 
Patuxent River, MD.

• System 1 was an airborne instrumentation pod that had a secure data link back 
to ground assets. We were lucky that the entire airborne portion of the system 
was contained in a streamline pod, so except for the intentional signal ports 
and the aircraft power interface, the pod provided complete metallic SE. We 
concentrated on bandwidth limiting the ports, filtering and limiting the power 
interface, and on mechanical build of the pod skin. We passed without incident, 
so it could be argued that we also didn’t learn anything.
• System 2 was the ground segment of an unmanned airborne vehicle secure data 
link. This was essentially a pedestal mounted parabolic tracking antenna with 
some signal processing boxes. During RS103, we found unexpected failures, 
tracing them to a rotary slip-ring joint on the azimuth axis of the pedestal. 
The cause was found to be the improper specification of a commercial slip-ring 
joint instead of the military version (which was carefully shielded).  If this 
hadn’t been caught in RS103, I’m sure this would have failed EMP. When a 
proper, much more expensive (☺) joint was installed, RS103 was easily passed 
and so was EMP.  But again, no specific EMP test lessons either.
• System 3 was a secure data link that I won’t describe. Despite what we 
thought was careful design, this system had RE102 & RS103 issues. We had to use 
several different modular power supplies, change the layout of an RF deck, 
double-shield two cables and use about 20 EESeal connector filters on internal 
cables. Finally (after a lot of schedule slippage), it went through RE102 & 
RS103 just fine, but failed one of the HIRF tests. We didn’t have a clue, but 
in talking over the experience, someone said that lots of systems had been 
failing that one test recently. Hmmm, my suspicious nature came out. After 
talking in excruciating detail with the test lab personnel, we get them to run 
some tests with our system partially and then fully shut off, and miraculously, 
their lab monitor equipment reports another failure. The lab guys worked all 
night on the equipment test stand, their cabling and the shielded monitor hut, 
and with no further explanation, we passed the next day. !
 (And that was the very last environmental qualification test to be finished, 
so many unhappy people began breathing again.) Lesson learned was “oh thank 
goodness, it wasn’t my junk after all; beer for everyone.”

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

-Original Message-----
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 9:50 PM
To: Ed Price; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Hi Ed,

Can you share with us some typical EMP caused defects, and their cause/fix  ? 
Most of us do not share your experience in this

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
    - Electro Magnetic Compatibi

Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

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

Hi Ed,

Can you share with us some typical EMP caused defects, and their
cause/fix  ? Most of us do not share your experience in this

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Wednesday 5 October 2016 00:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Ken:

Mostly, it was the fear that the system would fail EMP. We had no way of 
getting an exposure test any closer than 0.5% of the required level, so the 
risk of failure during the actual test was difficult to quantify, and this 
really frightens the program people. I would cajole best practices as strongly 
as I could, try to over-engineer what I could get away with, and closely look 
at cable routings and build quality, but I still was never sure what my odds 
were. A secondary reason was that scheduling an EMP test date was often longer 
than the rest of the environmental test program; the last couple of times, I 
had the hardware sitting around for over a month until the EMP testing was due. 
(And fortunately, both passed on the first try!)

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 2:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Ed,

Was EMP last because it might break things, or because the EMP people wanted to 
see how the equipment fared after an accelerated life regime?

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: Ed Price 
Reply-To: Ed Price 
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 12:13:31 -0700
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

In a military or space vehicle market, it was common for several systems to be 
moving in parallel through the environmental qualification test program. One 
system would often see rugged physical testing, where failures could be very 
serious setbacks (salt fog immersion, blowing rain, sand & dust, helium leak 
testing, solar exposure, transportation shock, drop testing, explosive shock 
exposure), while another system would be going through temperature cycling, 
vibration, and other more benign tests. This latter system would usually end up 
with me doing the acoustic noise and electrical tests (frequency & voltage 
extremes, power efficiency, start-up transients, and applicable powerline/EMC 
suite).
I don't know how the reliability engineers factored in how one test affected 
another, but I do know that, although the sequence of tests before my lab 
wasn't always in the same order, the power & EMC tests were usually the last of 
the environmental suite. Further, if it was applicable, the NEMP exposure was 
the very last test.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 7:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?
 
Have any of you ever seen EMI qualification intentionally scheduled at the end 
of environmental qualification for the purpose of assessing EMI performance 
after the suite of environmental tests has taken its toll?
 
Thank you,
 
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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html  
 
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 

Re: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

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

There is no like button on this platform but otherwise .

Nice background info 

 

Gert Gremmen

 

Van: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Verzonden: zondag 2 oktober 2016 7:40
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

 

The below suggestion is backed up by the original problems these early
(pre MIL-STD-461) standards and specifications were addressing.
Emission and susceptibility limits originated to control rfi - radio
frequency interference - meaning actual radios were the victims
protected by both emission and susceptibility limits.  As far as that
goes, the emission limits have the same rationale as for CISPR and FCC,
but the susceptibility limits addressed the fact that in particular the
radios had little or no filtering and were very susceptible to rfi
conducted onto their power inputs.  There was no immunity to speak of,
but there was plenty of susceptibility. 

The earliest conducted susceptibility requirement of which I am aware
required a radio to be immune to a level of 1 mV of rf on its 28 Vdc
power input lead, even when tuned to the test frequency. Nowadays, we
allow that much in emissions, and the immunity requirement, away from
the tuned frequency, is orders of magnitude higher.

For radiated, one need look no further than the 41" rod antenna.  In
these early specs/standards, the rod antenna was placed 12" from the
test sample, both for emissions and susceptibility measurements.

The requirement was based on radios at the time being connected to
antennas by a transmission line that was a single unshielded wire
working against platform structure as a return. With a radio receiver,
that wire feeding an electron tube input was looking into a perfect and
very small capacitance and was susceptible to capacitive coupling. Since
these radios were as sensitive as those in use today, it didn't take
much to couple a few microvolts in and cause rfi.  Wire separation was
used as a partial preventative controlling capacitive coupling.
Inspection of wire routing in such platforms reveals they would separate
the bare wires used for transmit and receive from other wires by around
one foot whenever possible.  The rod antenna, connected ot an EMI
receiver, was looking for levels that would approximate the coupling to
one of these single wire transmission lines.

The susceptibility requirement used the same 41" rod (passively tuned)
driven from a 50 ohm signal generator.  The highest level was 100,000 uV
applied to the base of the rod.  The actual radio transmitter that was
the cause of narrowband interference was a 100 watt transmitter capable
of outputting 5000 V at hf into a high impedance capacitive load.
Clearly the interference test didn't model the transmitter fundamental,
but rather its harmonics. There is no way that two radios would be
operating at the same frequency, but they wanted the victim radio to be
able to operate at other frequencies.

So full circle, the earliest specifications/standards were reactions to
susceptibilities and their purpose was to control that susceptibility,
both by controlling emissions and susceptibility to achieve the goal of
EMC when a suite of radios was installed on a platform.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Ken Javor 
Reply-To: Ken Javor 
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:35:48 -0500
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility
Subject: Re: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

Suggest that the origin of "susceptibility" can be found in the title
and/or philosophy of military EMI standards, which is to control EMI
characteristics. Susceptibility is something which must be controlled.
Immunity is the desired state; it need not be controlled.

Going back in time from the present say to 1950

MIL-STD-461F/G Requirements for the Control of EMI Characteristics of
Subsystems and Equipment
MIL-STD-461D/E Requirements for the Control of EMI Emissions and
Susceptibility
MIL-STD-461B/C EM Emissions and Susceptibility Requirements for the
Control of EMI 
MIL-STD-461 basic and /A EMI Characteristics, Requirements for Equipment

MIL-I-6181C/D, Interference Control Requirements
MIL-I-6181B, Interference Limits, Tests and Design Requirements
MIL-I-6181, Interference Limits and Tests

Many unlisted older specifications also refer to "interference limits"
in the title. Again, we don't limit immunity.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Ed Price 
Reply-To: Ed Price 
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:07:13 -0700
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

Having dabbled in both the military and commercial markets of EMC, I had
always heard the military define susceptibility and commercial define
immunity. I assumed that the difference was solely in the eye of the
beholder, either a pessimist or an optimist. Nobody wants to be
susceptible while everyone wants to be immune.
Is th

Re: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

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

Are you suggesting now that the military are pessimists ?
That gives a whole new look on the US international military policy :,)

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday 1 October 2016 08:07
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Susceptible Immunity / Immune Susceptibility

Having dabbled in both the military and commercial markets of EMC, I had always 
heard the military define susceptibility and commercial define immunity. I 
assumed that the difference was solely in the eye of the beholder, either a 
pessimist or an optimist. Nobody wants to be susceptible while everyone wants 
to be immune.
Is there an issue of difference between the two terms, that they may have some 
intrinsic bias toward, or from, a point of view?

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

IEC/CISPR classes all of those as immunity.

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


-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Do not confuse susceptibility of interference with immunity such as ESD, Fast 
Transient, etc.   The susceptibility spoken of is that of Spectrum Protection, 
and the protection of licensed users, not ESD, RF immunity, etc.
Again, this is not immunity in the sense of radiated immunity, ESD, Fast 
Transient etc., but susceptibility only in regards to protection of the 
spectrum. 

Dennis Ward
-

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] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

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

John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned 
>in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in the major 
>World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and yet can be 
>sold in the US.

I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness that 
product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in the US. ?? 
 




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Dieter

Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no clear 
requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests, limits, 
pass/fail conditions etc.) or the actual need to do verification, then 
many/most suppliers appear to me to ignore those words! I think the same was 
true in Europe during the period after the original EMC Directive (76/889/EEC) 
was published but before the CE marking requirement version (89/336/EC) came 
out and required "proof" of compliance in the form of test reports, tech files 
and the CE marking - after that, things gradually began to change! 

The big problem in 1989, and for some years after, was the almost total lack of 
standards against which to do the tests and assessments on non-military 
products. However, some 25+ years later, the same cannot be said as there are 
many international, and even US trade-body, standards which could almost 
immediately be used as the basis for realistic sets of requirements to be 
formulated.

Many multi-national and US companies already do that as normal development 
practice, but in the current US legislative environment they can then "cost 
cut" for the US market by either not doing that testing on US-market specific 
products, or "cost reducing" their internationally-sold products for sale in 
that market. That's probably why the products from some major multinationals 
(as mentioned in the previously linked website) could not be sold elsewhere in 
the major World markets without suitable compliance and verification, and yet 
can be sold in the US. 

John E Allen
W. London, UK

From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com] 
Sent: 30 September 2016 13:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it is a 
legal  (political) document and would need congress approval for changes. 
Different that than in the EU where you have directives and harmonized 
standards somehow separately. 

 
Also the US is part of international committees and heavily participates on 
emissions and immunity standards. However implementation and enforcing is 
always difficult.
 
And finally, isn't FCC indirectly stating that immunity has to be met as well?  
FCC Part 15.5 (b)
§15.5   General conditions of operation.
 (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be 
deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given 
frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, 
for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use 
pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter.
 (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is 
subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that 
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an 
authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by 
industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidenta

Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

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

Well  John,

The problem is not that immunity regulations are not reasonable (in the US),
its mere the simple fact that they are regulations that  creates such a heavy 
opposition.
Even under EMC colleagues / members on this list. 

The opinion in the US is that bad products will weed themselves out by 
competition, and that
 in the end only immune ovens survive. And everybody is happy, without 
regulations !

But for those early buyers of an oven, of course that actually do some  kind of 
immunity testing
for the ovens manufacturer on their own cost.




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 10:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Cortland

Morning

I have just read some of stories on the apartmenttherapy website you gave the 
link to - and the poor customers who had EMI-related problems have my sincere 
sympathy.

What seems clear to me (and presumably to most people viewing the current 
thread here!) is that relatively simple immunity fixes in the design and 
manufacture  of the products would have prevented most of these problems ever 
occurring - but that even some the most "reputable" manufacturers were cost 
cutting to the bone to avoid doing that for the US market.

However, where I disagree that about the warranty route being the one to go for 
because it put the onus of proof heavily on the poor customers, who will 
generally have no idea whatsoever what the problems with the products are. Most 
of us have had our own problems with products "under warranty" where it has 
been difficult or impossible to get the supplier to acknowledge that the 
product is at fault in some way when we know that it definitely is - and so why 
rely on a type of measure that often does not work and/or is easily deflected 
by the supplier (and especially by the local distributors and sales outlets, 
who generally know even less than the manufacturers about the EMC performance 
of the products that they sell!).

And, as one story clearly showed, manufacturers can and will deny  
responsibility when the warranty runs out - and if the source of a problem 
takes a lot of time to track down and the warranty has then expired, then the 
customer may well have no recourse other than to buy some sort of replacement, 
often at considerable cost.

These types of EMI problems can only get worse as more and more electronic 
devices are introduced and thus more EMI pollution occurs - and the ONLY people 
who can fix it are the manufacturers, not the poor and generally clueless 
customers, and so they should be made to do that before more, and potentially 
disasterous and life-threatening, incidents occur. 

Who can do that in the US: either the Federal Government or, in the current 
situation it appears, the individual States, and you might say that the problem 
is thus insoluable because of "differences" of opinion/attitude between the 
Federal and State bodies? 

However people in the US seem to forget that that is EXACTLY the situation we 
had in Europe in the late-middle of the 20th Century - every country had its 
own EMC legislation and that varied from very strictly enforced in Germany to 
quite lax, or at least "light-touch", as we had (and still do have!) in the UK 
and elsewhere. Nevertheless the emerging EMC problem was recognized by the 
national legislatures by the late 70's/early 80's and the EMC Directive (and 
later the R&TTE & RED) was born, and that is why we now have a reasonably 
effective and consistent legal and technical framework for EMC - both emissions 
AND immunity/susceptibility - control across the whole of the Conti

Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

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

Hi  Ghery,

You need to get your numbers right Those tree entities outnumber your "real 
world" by 7.
Economically by a factor 2...
 


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 00:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Immunity testing is required in the EU, South Korea and China.  Nowhere else in 
the world is it required for commercial products.  I’d say that the US is in 
the “real world”.

Ghery S. Pettit

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Without getting into the specifics of this particular argument, the idea that 
the “rest of the world” has dome something doesn’t necessarily imply that North 
America is “behind.”  In the same sense that if a train has derailed and the 
locomotive is headed over a cliff, we don’t say the caboose is behind and needs 
to catch up.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: john Allen 
Reply-To: john Allen 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:44:48 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Dennis
 
I really  do wonder what World you live in – but then, TBH, based on your 
previous comments of a similar nature, I did not expect anything else!
 
OK, Government “interference” is unwelcome in many cases but Brian O’Connell’s 
post is a  poignant “real world”  comment on what suppliers are facing, and 
what the Government should face up to and address – for the greater good of 
everyone in YOUR country.
 
Without getting trying to “personal”,  “get real”! - a lot of the rest of the 
“real world” has already adopted appropriate requirements to try to prevent 
undue interference problems and so N. America is behind on this issue.
 
John E Allen.
W. London, UK
 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: 29 September 2016 22:28
To: 'john Allen'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

The federal government already interferes with US citizens far too much as it 
is – we do not need, nor do most of us want more federal intrusion.  The feds 
are there to keep the wolves at bay and keep out of our lives.  Besides, the 
open market in the US seems to take care of itself in the interference area.  
Does not take long for the consumer to know what is trash and what works.
The only regulations dealing with the spectrum that is needed is the regulation 
to help stop interference to licensed services. That was the intent of the FCC 
to start and there is no reason to change it.
 
 

​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.
 

From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..
 
Dennis
 
And why not – seriously?
 
As was said many years ago – and often repeated! - “what’s right for the goose 
is right for the gander”.
 
In t

Re: [PSES] IEEE PSES email distribution

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

This happens all the time..
I find myself often reading under the pagefold to
find out what the original question was.

This very mail is an example, unless it was intended to  ;<)

As Jim wrote
> The best and fastest responses will be on this email list 

The responses arrive even before the question


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday 29 September 2016 04:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEEE PSES email distribution

Hi Dave,
Not sure why that is happening. Quite possibly your ISP is blocking them 
somehow?  I checked your list subscription and find no problems there. Your 
subscription is set Regular (meaning full emails sent individually), And you 
are set to receive a copy of your own postings. And there are no restrictions.
I am going to change you from getting copy of your own postings to getting a 
short message confirming receipt. If you send to the list and you receive this 
acknowledgment, then I will change you back to receiving a copy of your 
postings. Maybe that might jog Listserv's memory and start sending the as it 
should do. Let me know when yo get the notification from Listserv. Then try a 
test post to the list and see if you get the ACK.
Let me know how it goes.
Scott
On 9/28/2016 7:32 AM, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:
Scott,  it used to be I would receive a copy of any email I sent to the forum 
address (EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) but that stopped several months ago..  I 
receive posts from others but never a copy of a post I send to the group (and 
of course nothing in SPAM or JUNK) since it stopped.  Is something broken for 
me or was there a change made to not send copies of email to the originator?
 
Thanks
-Dave
 
David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE
Product Development Manager
Bell and Howell
3791 South Alston Avenue
Durham, NC 27713
Phone: 919.767.6419
Web: www.bellhowell.net
 

-

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] Counterfeit tracking

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

Well there is LinkedIn , this group has some
representation there.

IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society (PSES)
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/75652
But it's not covering these discussions  (of course).

For those of use interested in an EMC LinkedIn group...
EMC Experts
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/1784463

I happen to be the owner, so this is a flagrant pub
But this group is virtually spam / promotion free.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 28 September 2016 15:21
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

On an unrelated note - is there another way to interact with this community 
other than through emails? Is there a board, or something somewhere? 

Thanks,

Jamison

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:30 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

There have been some consistency problems with this service, probably from 
usage of direct CSS url links and/or my stupid brute-force script, so my 
simple-minded approach is to have my crawler run the login(which has changed 
several times), then resolve the href-tagged links, then go from there to each 
notification page. Could be done manually, but all hail the power of 
beautifulsoup.

Have not used for very long time, but so far does seem to be a decent source of 
global regulatory information.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Counterfeit tracking

Hopefully - I am doing this right - this is my first post.

I recently found Notify U.S. 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tsapps.nist.gov_notifyus_data_home_home.cfm&d=DQIDaQ&c=clRTYxLjfWTYQkksq4Trqw&r=SuXR4v_cWDGps50Ob7OgG3eGvjdtolb5h84QBM8NxmY&m=IReRG-UxkmrJ8pyfltBE4hphRlWOTXCfdP53vklA2x4&s=urX8Yhg2scOT-Og6yRG5v1sZ5EbS7Klt5JP3l2bKbBU&e=
   which is run by the NIST in the Dept. Of Commerce and it notifies me of 
anything published by the WTO an others. You can filter it by field of interest 
and country. It is quite informative and free.

Here are the "fields of interest":

65  Agriculture
 49  Aircraft and Space Vehicle Engineering
 71  Chemical Technology
 93  Civil Engineering
 61  Clothing Industry
 CA  Conformity Assessment Procedures
 91  Construction Materials and Building
 97  Domestic and Commercial Equipment. Entertainment. Sports
 29  Electrical Engineering
 31  Electronics
 27  Energy and Heat Transfer Engineering
 13  Environment. Health Protection. Safety
 23  Fluid Systems and Components for General Use Measurement of fluid flow, 
see 17.120
 67  Food Technology
 01  Generalities. Terminology. Standardization. Documentation
 81  Glass and Ceramics Industries
 11  Health Care Technology
 37  Image Technology
 35  Information Technology. Office Machines
 25  Manufacturing Engineering
This field includes standards for general use
 53  Materials Handling Equipment
 07  Mathematics. Natural Sciences
 21  Mechanical Systems and Components for General Use
 77  Metallurgy
 95  Military Engineering
 73  Mining and Minerals
 55  Packaging and Distribution of Goods
 87  Paint and Colour Industries
 85  Paper Technology
 75  Petroleum and Related Technologies
 17  Physical Metrology and Measurement. Physical Phenomena
 39  Precision Mechanics. Jewellery
 45  Railway Engineering
 43  Road Vehicle Engineering
 83  Rubber and Plastics Industries
 47  Shipbuilding and Marine Structures
 03  Sociology. Services. Company Organization and Management. Admin

Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

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

 I think that VFD ensure that the magnetic forces in the motor remain the same.
Magnetic forces are 1:1 related to motor current.
This way a substantial amount of torque remains available at each frequency
The key is simply keeping the drive voltage linearly related to the frequency,
so as the motor current remains at its rated value 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.


-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 27 September 2016 14:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

I will raise another question to stir the pot and solicit comments from the 
motor experts.  We use AC motors driven from VFDs which by definition vary the 
frequency to the motors.  There are many different ways an application may run. 
 It may use the VFD simply to provide some control of motor 
acceleration/deceleration/braking.  It may use the VFD to run the motor a 
various continuous speeds or varying speeds during operation.  The VFD could be 
used to insure the rated input frequency is applied to the motor under 
continuous operation independent of the input power frequency.
How do we get from a motor with a fixed frequency rating on its nameplate to 
proper operation with a VFD in the various applications it could be operated 
in?  There are recommendations to use VFD rated motors but from what I have 
seen they are still rated at fixed frequency.

-Dave


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

Thanks to all for the good advice. It was more helpful than you can imagine.

The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

How components are used cannot be controlled by manufacturer, so your due 
diligence is to ship each unit with conditions of acceptability and 
install/operate instructions that are scoped per the standards that would apply 
to the component and to the end-use equipment. Carefully control what is on 
your website and what your sales peoples say to customer.

If a buyer or designer asks you about a use not within the nameplate ratings or 
instructions, the legally correct response is the unit has been assessed for 
use at the following operating conditions... blah.

There are other things that can be said or done, but your risk increases. Do 
not offer 'probably will' advice unless you have empirical test data supporting 
those operating conditions; and never admit that you have test data for 
operations outside of the unit's ratings.

Brian


-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

Dear experts,

Can AC brushless motors (in this case 230V~ 3-phase 3hp motors) that are rated 
"60HZ" be used in products going to countries that have 50HZ power?  I believe 
the motors will run a little slower which will not affect the function of the 
product, but is there a safety issue with this?  The motors are thermally, 
overload, and short circuit protected.  They are "intermittent use" and not 
likely to overheat.

As a rule, we only market and sell such products to countries with 60hz power. 
However, a North America company might purchase one and ship it to one of their 
international locations with 50hz power without our knowledge. Do we need to be 
concerned about this?

Of course,

Re: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

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

By applying a 60 Hz motor to 50 Hz you (your customer) violates one of the 
principles of building machines. The principle is that safe machines are built 
using safe components. The latter cannot be guaranteed anymore, so the machine 
is unsafe. Full stop. This is the agency way of safety thinking.

Let me try a slightly  non-conventional approach to product safety:

An electric motor (in terms of risk) is nothing else but a long copper wire and 
some iron, that in some mysterious way converts electrical hazards into 
mechanical hazards and thermal hazards. The mechanical hazards seem to reduce 
(slower speed), so I see no principal problem here. The electrical hazards are 
not principally different at 50 Hz .  What remains is a thermal hazard. 
Inductances in 60 Hz motors are lower than 50 Hz motors, so currents rise 
(120%), and so thermal copper dissipation. At 50 Hz eddy current related losses 
are lower, but the increased magnetisation might compensate for that.
In  the end, risks seem only thermal related. Adding a supplemental non 
auto-resetting temperature protection may provide the (additional safety 
protection layer) thermal safety your customers need. 

Although not really hazard related, you should also consider the increased 
start-up current.

Any 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Monday 26 September 2016 16:39
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Using 60hz motors in 50hz countries

Dear experts,

Can AC brushless motors (in this case 230V~ 3-phase 3hp motors) that are rated 
"60HZ" be used in products going to countries that have 50HZ power?  I believe 
the motors will run a little slower which will not affect the function of the 
product, but is there a safety issue with this?  The motors are thermally, 
overload, and short circuit protected.  They are "intermittent use" and not 
likely to overheat.

As a rule, we only market and sell such products to countries with 60hz power. 
However, a North America company might purchase one and ship it to one of their 
international locations with 50hz power without our knowledge. Do we need to be 
concerned about this?

Of course, this fact has our sales force wondering if it is OK to market and 
sell 60hz motor driven products in countries with 50hz.  I really don't know. I 
cannot see a safety issue but one can say that the motor would be used in a way 
it is not intended to be used resulting in a higher risk if something did 
happening.

Any opinions on this?

Thanks,
The Other Brian




LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

This message is from t

Re: [PSES] standard for power suply for server room.

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

If this is for European approval, one may simply use EN 60950 and make up a 
Technical construction
file listing the essential differences. A decent (now mandatory anyway) risk 
analysis would cover these differences, showing up as in individual risks. You 
may then choose to extrapolate 6950 values, or seek another standard covering 
high voltage aspects to cover for these risks. 
I think that this would be acceptable to any international body, as long as the 
risks remain well covered.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Boštjan Glavič [mailto:bostjan.gla...@siq.si] 
Sent: Wednesday 21 September 2016 06:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] standard for power suply for server room.

Dear experts I again need your opinion on below issue.

Customer was asked for development of power supply which will be used to supply 
a  server in data centre. Input to power supply is defined as 750VDC. 
Unfortunately no information is available how this DC supply voltage is 
generated and reference to PE. Most probably it will be floating.

Now the problem, what standard to use for such product?

- Standard IEC 60950-1 which is most often used is limited to 600V rated 
voltage. Does it mean 600VRMS? Is it then allowed to approve also products with 
600xsqrt(2)=848VDC  rated voltage according IEC 60950-1 or limit is also set to 
600VDC? Where this limit actually comes from? If you check requirements for 
clearance and creepage distance they go quite higher than 600V.
- Standard IEC 62477-1 could be appropriate standard however problem is that 
this standard is not worldwide harmonised and therefore no national 
certificates (US/CAN, China) are possible based on report according to this 
standard
- What other standard would be OK for US/CAN?

I appreciate your feedback.

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] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

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

pf

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Sunday 18 September 2016 22:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

As I said, nodded through. This 'efficient use' provision is carte blanche for 
suppression of anything the government doesn't like. 

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 9:04 PM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

John

Receiver Sensitivity is an Article 3.2 RF Spectrum matter and not an EMC matter.

Article 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive requires:
radio equipment shall be so constructed that it effectively uses the spectrum 
allocated to terrestrial/ space radio communication and orbital resources so as 
to avoid harmful interference.

Article 3.2 of the Radio Equipment Directive has an additional requirement in 
that it requires:
Radio equipment shall be so constructed that it both effectively uses and 
supports the efficient use of radio spectrum in order to avoid harmful 
interference.

Article 3.2 Harmonised Standards  are effective mandatory as any manufacturer 
not wishing to apply them in full must obtain a Notified Body opinion and the 
Notified Body should really consider Harmonised Standards where they have been 
published.

Regards
Charlie

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 September 2016 20:45
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

The draft specifies receiver sensitivity, which is surely not an EMC matter and 
severely restricts manufacturers' freedom of design and offering of a range of 
products at different prices. It could even be challenged as a restraint of 
trade. But I expect it will be nodded through.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

David

The other thing to add is that this is within scope of the Radio Equipment 
Directive, which must be applied from 13th June 2017, so you may wish to look 
at the receiver performance requirements in Draft ETSI EN 303 345 V1.1.1

Regards
Charlie

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 September 2016 08:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

EN 55032 is the successor of EN 55013, but 55013 is still valid at present, so 
you could use either, But if the product will continue in production for a year 
or two at least, it would be sensible to apply 55032, and EN 55035 rather than 
EN 55020 for immunity.

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 8:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: Testing to EN 55013 or EN 55032

Hi
Would an FM receiver used in a motorcycle helmet be subject to testing under EN 
55013 or EN 55032?
Thanks in advance for any opinions.

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. LOD 7120101 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail : dav...@itlglobal.org/dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web www.itl.co.il

Fi

Re: [PSES] 10G base-T ethernet EMC test setup question

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

Hi Tesla.

It's the test setup that determines the required cable length.
Normally it is the length to the edge of the table + 80 cm down to the
floor
of the test room + an arbitrary length until the trunk connector.
(Assume EUT out of the room)
Do the test with 0 and with 2-5 ferrites at the end of the cable, and
shiver seeing the results.
That is the CISPR16 approach.

Then we have EN 55024 (and soon 55035), that give no clue at all,
but for a generic link to CISPR16 and AnnexC (LAN networks)
that allows you to use 10 cm between 2 EUT on the table 
 I suggest you do the test with 10 cm if you want to :

1. pass the test an get rid of you customers.
2. fail the test because EUT2  is of bad quality

Gert Gremmen



-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Tesla [mailto:emc...@126.com] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 9 september 2016 10:54
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: [PSES] 10G base-T ethernet EMC test setup question

Hi, EMC experts

We are doing 10G base-T ethernet reference design for the test chip. My
first task is to do radiated emission test. 
I have two very basic questions for the setup:
1 How long CAT-6 ether net cable should be attached to the DUT when
doing emission test? in the actual application, any length cable can be
installed in the our ethernet device
2 What is the upper frequency of the radiated emission test? the on
board clock is 156MHz, The upper frequency should be 2000MHz?

Thanks and Regards.

Tesla

-

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] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

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

Since a number of years between tests I "rinse" coaxial cables with clean 
filtered DC current  between tests to get rid of interference signals left over 
from previous (failing) EUT.
Make sure that the dirty left-over current resulting from this action is not 
contaminating your lab...
 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 24 August 2016 01:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fuses can affect performance other than safety!

I love this stuff.

Back when Monster Cable was making their claims, I realized that these people 
are actually very smart, they have found a way to make a direct connection 
between your emotions and your wallet.  At that time I conceived the idea of a 
company called Kabel Doktor.  The premise was, 

"All cables deteriorate over time, it is an unavoidable fact of life.  Annually 
you need to send your cables to the Kabel Doktor for proper cleaning and full 
spectral degaussing at the sub-atomic level so as to eliminate any surface 
charge carriers that may have built up as a result of cable skin effect.  These 
stray carriers result in constricting audio energy flowing down the length of 
your cables by effectively reducing the cross-sectional conduction area.  As 
part of our degaussing process, we provide charted analysis of the before & 
after spectral transfer characteristics of your cable, so you can now have the 
confidence you need for a full audio listening experience.  Our basic service 
will test your cables from DC to 300 kHz, for an extra fee our top specialists, 
using high-end spectrum analyzers, will use our proprietary process to test on 
the other side of the DC frequency barrier.  This will ensure that your 
negative curvature imaginary frequencies are also!
  part of your listening experience. Never be embarrassed again when you have 
friends over and want to play your latest full spectrum symphonic audio 
selections."

Only, I just couldn't bring myself to do it.  

Doug





On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
There are some folks on the internet who are taking up the charge against this 
sort of thing. Fuses addressed in 5.9:

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/myths.html

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Ken Javor  wrote:
This is an interesting thread but not from a technical vantage point.  It is 
interesting in how over time PT Barnum’s observation about a “sucker being born 
every minute,” has evolved.  The original meaning was about fleecing rube 
customers of a little spare cash, and when said customers were fleeced, moving 
on to the next venue, much like locusts, but not nearly as destructive, because 
the locals were not being left destitute. But the point is, it was a mass 
market being accessed one venue at a time, sweeping across the country.

In the market described in this thread, the pool of suckers is vastly reduced, 
because it is now suckers with very large amounts of discretionary income, who 
are suckers because they don’t understand what they are buying. In fact it is a 
reasonably accurate generalization to say that people who understand enough 
about the subject matter to not buy into the marketing also wouldn’t have the 
money to buy into it, if they were so inclined.  Because it is a rarefied group 
of suckers, they must be accessed universally in a very low-cost manner.  So 
instead of putting these products in retail shelves across the nation, I’m 
guessing that the major thrust of the marketing is totally via the internet, 
and that while a few high-end stores in a few very large cities may carry 
samples, most folks are going to be buying these products direct from the

Re: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by ....SOFTWARE

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

There are a few methods to use software as a safety system, making it
approach the safety of hardware:

 

* Use redundancy (2 processors - 2 different pieces of software
and have the two processes

communicate on their status (hardware line with function  safe/unsafe)

AND or  OR the results in hardware to create a desired  potential
hazardous signal (fe. CHARGE)

* Use assembly code if possible

* Use proven hardware  (Z80 8080?) ; a method used in space
vehicles

* Separate safety related code from operational code in design.

* Use software analysis tools to find flaws in code, unusual
constructs, lack in comment, uninitialized variables and reduce
complexity in general.

* Use the KISS method (Keep IT Simple and Stupid) , one
monitored function per software unity only

* Disable all unused hardware in the processor

* Fill all unused program  memory with defined code

* Making a reliable watchdog function is  a challenge on its
own.

* Use a checksum method over the software code before allowing a
critical function (CHARGE!)

* Initialize all internal RAM, and check if something odd
happens at each start-up

* Checksum RAM values before shutdown, and verify on start-up

* Pull up (or down)  all uP outputs, so as a fail in software
output initializations (I assume all uP outputs are initially input
only) will not create a hazardous situation.

* Do not allow for external code (internet picks, even simple
routines)

* Test, test and test again.

* Test again by someone else

* Lastly: Fix the release of compiler assembler and linker the
code was written and compiled with,

and do not allow any modification to the system the software is created
on  (switch off Windows updates, preferably disconnect from the
internet)

 

That said, the quality of the software product is inverse with its
complexity, it's easy to create a software system that cannot be
analysed for 

 

Regarding single fault analysis, I think the firmware and associated
hardware should be considered

as one component.

 

Create a technical software construction file on how you did it.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager

From: Bolintineanu, Constantin [mailto:cbolintine...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 3 August 2016 16:33
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

I would like to kindly ask those who have an extensive experience
regarding the above subject, to share their opinion about the following
aspect:

 

Having a circuit which is charging a battery, and having it controlled
and protected  by SOFTWARE ONLY from the point of view of CHARGING ,
DISCHARGING, OVERCHARGING,

 

1. How do you think that SINGLE FAULT CONDITIONS shall be applied?
(without SOFTWARE working at all? Or by providing a fault on the
component where the SOFTWARE is stored? OR BOTH

2. Which conditions do you think that shall be imposed to the software
and/or to the memory in which it is stored?

 

Any other suggestions/observations/comments are more than welcome.

 

Sincerely,

 

Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng.

 

 




This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in respect of any information
contained in it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail and immediately destroy this
e-mail and its 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/

Re: [PSES] Brexit and the European Compliance Complex

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

If the UK actually decides to start article 50 (so withdraw from the EU,
the landscape will not change dramatically technically, but definitely the 
administrative
side will change. Joining the EEA (of EFTA) would include accepting the 
requirement for free trade of labour
and that has been one of the main reasons (at least in the streets) for Brexit 
votes, so that will probably not happen.
So the British position will most likely be like other independent states in 
the rest of the world with
a comparative level of industry and development such Japan, Malaysia, China, 
Australia...

But that said... rumours are all over about the UK not actually being able to 
withdraw, or wanting to withdraw (as Cameron did not apply for article 50, 
leaving the poison for it's successor)

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday 26 June 2016 14:26
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Brexit and the European Compliance Complex

Ed

I seriously doubt that our technical regulatory requirements (at least in the 
compliance area in question) will change that much as they have always been 
prepared and applied with a “soft touch” approach.

We trade with both Europe and the RoW, and the technical standards of most 
countries (except notably for those which have followed traditional US/Canadian 
requirements and standards) are mostly IEC-based and so it would make no sense 
for the UK to do anything else. Anyway, we will hopefully join the EEA and 
those countries have to apply the same overall requirements and standards as 
the EU. For example, as John Woodgate said in another thread, about the EMCD, 
it would make no sense for the UK to loosen its EMC requirements – especially 
in today’s World where poor EMC control is a threat to many areas of commerce, 
industry and the domestic environment. 

The military-side standards are nowadays heavily driven by the need to buy 
equipment from whichever  countries and suppliers can provide it – and a single 
platform may incorporate items from multiple suppliers. 

There have been, and are, ongoing efforts to “harmonise” MIL-STD-461 and DEF 
STAN 59-411 (and the parallel standards of a number of other European 
countries) – do a search on the “Allied Environmental Conditions And Test 
Publications” (AECTP) and you will find a number of NATO standards which could 
be relevant, notably AECTP 500 “Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Test and 
Verification” (January 2011)

I expect that to continue – but there are likely to be continuing differences 
in specific areas as no two defence organisations have exactly the same 
technical requirements and expectations as their fields of ops may differ 
(think of the differences between the requirements naval carrier ops for 
top-side and below-decks equipment, or between airforce aerial platforms and 
land-based equipment).

As for the overall “burden” of regulations, I think that the tech regs 
requirements are not really the problem area – it’s more those 
business-operations and finance (etc) regs where the burden is most keenly 
felt, especially, it is said, by SMEs. Other areas which cause particular 
concerns to some regions of the UK are those related to the environment and 
energy, off-shore fishing quotas, and especially immigration & border controls 
– where the UK (or what is eventually left of it if, e.g. Scotland decides to 
hold another independence referendum and then leaves) is at odds with many 
other EU Member States and the Brussels central governing organisation on what 
it is allowed to do, or not.

John E Allen
W.London, UK

PS: I voted to Remain – but let’s not get into another of those discussions are 
they are in

Re: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU

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

I suppose that after the recent developments on "The Island"
 it won't be brought into UK law anymore

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] 
Sent: Friday 17 June 2016 12:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] New EMC Directive 2014/30/EU

Hi

The old EMC Directive 2002/108/EC was brought into UK law by the Statutory 
Instruments (SI) 2006 No. 3418. As of the 16 April the New EMC Directive 
2014/30/EU replaced 2002/108/EC. However, I can find no reference for a new SI 
bringing in the new directive. 

Will a new SI be enacted? If so when?

Regards

Andy


Andy McCallum
BEng (Hons), MIET, CEng
 
Senior EMC Engineer
   

-

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 Supply Safety approval

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

I think the answer to your question is the difference in product standards
between your product and the power supply. 
A example: the 60950 power supply does not necessarily meet
insulation requirements (among other requirements) of the 60065.
The 60950 compatible PSU normally relies on Basic Insulation and Protective 
Earthing of the secondary voltage, where your product may have a different 
configuration.
CB documentation does not often list the insulation properties 
Basic/Double/Reinforced. This may have been a reason for further investigation.

If all this information seems available, ask them for the exact reason of 
investigation, if other than boosting turnover.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 15 June 2016 13:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Power Supply Safety approval

Dear colleagues.

I have submitted a product for CB certification to IEC/EN/UL 60065.
The product is powered from a 12V dc wall wart purchased from an external 
supplier. The power supply is fully CB approved to IEC/EN/UL 60950 and operated 
well within its ratings.
I submitted the CB documentation for the power supply along with the product to 
the safety testing agency.
I am surprised that the testing agency decided to dismantle the power supply 
and thoroughly evaluate it even though it is already pre-approved.
Is this usual and if so why bother with a pre-approved power supply if you are 
going to be paying for it to be tested along with your product?

Your knowledge and experience would be appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

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


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] Screened room mains filter

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

I agree with both Ken and John, the external ground wire should never pass 
thorugh the wall, and should be connected to
the outside of the wall. Same for internal ground. From the point of ground 
integrity and single fault protection
a single protruding bolt well bonded (welded or soldered in my rooms copper 
septum)  to the rooms wall is best.

The skin effect will effectively separate all internal and external RF 
currents, as John says,  even if connected to the same bold, I  trust theory 
for that.

I believe it is the only reliable way to preserve the safety of personnel. 
Especially in a R&D experimental environment
as a test room, where prototypes may/will exhibit weird faults.

Gert


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 14 juni 2016 15:52
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

Agree with all of Gert's message except the one that contradicts mine: the 
internal green wire connection should not be the same as the external, and the 
external connection should not penetrate the chamber wall.  Either of these 
practices will degrade chamber shielding effectiveness, and neither is either 
necessary or desirable.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> 
> Reply-To: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
> 
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:34:29 +0200
> To: 
> Conversation: Screened room mains filter
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> Indeed a 2-phase is enough. Ground goes directly to the chambers 
> ground-bolt, close to the filter. I recommend installing an extra 
> (redundant) separate 4mm2 or larger solid ground bonding connector to 
> your buildings main ground, as the leakage current for official 
> room-filters may easily exceed 1 A (> 1000 mA), and the infamous 
> "single fault" won't be lethal then.
> 
> 
> Same goes for the internal (in the screened room) ground, it's best 
> connected to same bolt as the outside ground.
> 
> Most filter have internal discharge resistors, but it cannot be said 
> enough verify that the internal capacitors are discharged before 
> servicing, or mount your own discharge resistor in the circuit.
> 
> 
> I suppose this is well known on this list but:
> Note that any grounding  is irrelevant  for the screening properties.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ing. Gert Gremmen
> Approvals manager
> --
> 
> --
> 
> 
> + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent 
> + Consultancy Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
>  according to EC-directives:
>     - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
>     - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
>     - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
>     - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education
> 
> Web:    www.cetest.nl (English)
> Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
> ---
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that 
> is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and 
> are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
> Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
> limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
> distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
> please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete 
> the material from any computer.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
> 
> From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
> Sent: Monday 13 June 2016 15:00
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Screened room mains filter
> 
> Dear colleagues
> 
> I am looking into purchasing a single phase 50/60Hz ac mains input 
> filter for a screened room.
> However; I am not sure whether to purchase a 2 line multistage filter 
> or a 3 line.
> I'm assuming the filtering is only required on the live and neutral 
> lines as the earth should be bonded to the screened room.
> 
> Your advice will be appreciated.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, 
> Company
> number: 4163451. Any views expre

Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

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

Hi Ian,

Indeed a 2-phase is enough. Ground goes directly to the
chambers ground-bolt, close to the filter. I recommend installing
an extra (redundant) separate 4mm2 or larger solid ground bonding
connector to your buildings main ground, as the leakage current for official 
room-filters may easily exceed 1 A (> 1000 mA), and the infamous "single fault" 
won't be lethal then.


Same goes for the internal (in the screened room) ground, it's best connected 
to same bolt
as the outside ground.

Most filter have internal discharge resistors, but it cannot be said enough
verify that the internal capacitors are discharged before servicing, or
mount your own discharge resistor in the circuit.


I suppose this is well known on this list but:
Note that any grounding  is irrelevant  for the screening properties.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday 13 June 2016 15:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

Dear colleagues

I am looking into purchasing a single phase 50/60Hz ac mains input filter for a 
screened room.
However; I am not sure whether to purchase a 2 line multistage filter or a 3 
line.
I'm assuming the filtering is only required on the live and neutral lines as 
the earth should be bonded to the screened room.

Your advice will be appreciated.

Many thanks in advance.

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


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] IEC60950-1 - wiring terminals

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

As long as the wires are positively retained by a second mechanical device,
and the connection is not based on soldering only: yes.

Note that it may be more complex to pass on PE to a metal enclosure or other
accessible part, without violating the contact metal-only pressure clause.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Friday 3 June 2016 09:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC60950-1 - wiring terminals

If you have a non-detachable power supply cord (1-phase plus PE), is it allowed 
to connect the wires directly by soldering to the internal pcb, or is a 
terminal block or similar necessary for connection?

Regards
Amund

-

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and adjustable limit function with audible alarm

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

My old LeCroy Scope Beeps -stores-prints) if a defined envelope is exceeded.
It includes a dedicated pass/fail mode.

Old versions like the 9450 9450A 9314 LT224 and many models at the time
are rather cheap on ebay. You want those with a signal processing pack.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday 31 May 2016 17:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm

Unless that scope beeps at me, it doesn’t help. The whole point is to be able 
to devote my attention as test conductor to operating the susceptibility test 
equipment and not have to be visually monitoring the EUT simultaneously.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Grasso, Charles" 
Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" 
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:51:26 +
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm

Hi Ken – How about a DC probe clamp (like the PSU guys use) and a scope? You 
could set a limit line and 
max hold…?? Not as high tech as James” solution. ☺


Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042...@vtext.com
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com
 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 7:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm

Functionally, that is the solution at which I have arrived.  A comparator whose 
output will drive a Sonalert.  I still can’t believe with a microprocessor in 
every handheld DVM and min/max and relative functions and continuity beepers as 
well, that one cannot find a meter where the meter will beep when a preset 
limit is exceeded.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

From: "Pawson, James" 
Reply-To: "Pawson, James" 
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 08:08:30 +
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm
Subject: Re: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm

Hi Ken,
 
I built a device to do this for monitoring audio outputs from our products when 
performing immunity tests for the EN55020 Broadcast Receiver Immunity standard, 
measuring 1kHz breakthrough. 6 input channels with a 1kHz active bandpass 
filter on each, output rectified and fed into a comparator, reference level set 
appropriately (half the peak audio level IIRC). Output of comparator into a 
series of LEDs and diode OR’d into a very loud buzzer. All wrapped up in a die 
cast aluminium enclosure with very robust knobs to make it proof against 
regular lab use.
 
It was most amusing listening to our technician performing the test; the sound 
of the buzzer shortly followed by an even louder annoyed huff as he got up from 
his chair to go and see what the problem was :)
 
James
 
 
 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: 30 May 2016 16:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Handheld or portable voltmeter/ammeter with built-in and 
adjustable limit function with audible alarm

For an EMI test, I need to monitor direct current and set a limit above which I 
get an audible alarm.  I don’t want to constantly have to watch an 
ammeter/voltmeter while also op

Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards

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

I was wondering if these type of fire propagation tests are still of any 
relevance.

Nowadays most electronic designs have been built with compliant (be it UL or 
VDE or any other reputable test house)
and wiring is HAR or better. Enclosures are most standard -off-the-shelf- types 
with a decent flammability marking.
Isolating material is purchased for the purpose and decently marked. 

I must add that my experience is mostly in professional (low power <1500 VA)  
equipment (60950 / 61010), so I may be biased, but
in 20 years of testing I still have to find an example where a fire could be 
started in a "fire enclosure" (or outside)
using a single fault simulation, or a situation where a fire could propagate. 
Any overheated component/wiring/pcb  produced (toxic?)   smell/smoke
only.  I had some exploding capacitors, and semiconductors (DIL packages), and 
that was it.

I'd like to hear any decent argument or example  (yes!) on when a fire test had 
(recently) shown to be necessary ( had a fail result)
where this was not expected based on the applied components ratings.  I do not 
think that many wood enclosures are used,
and paper has long been ruled out in electronics. 

Is this flammability issue (at least the equipment test) not something slowly 
becoming obsolete ?

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Saturday 21 May 2016 19:16
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] fire safety test methods for different country standards



Hi Scott:


“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL 
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.  
Should we use it to object their normal practice.  How often is it successful?”

Testing in place is a once-per-product-model (and board design) test.  Passing 
the test will depend on how much copper clads the epoxy versus exposed epoxy.  
Only boards with lots of copper are likely to pass.  So, it is an “iffy” test 
and the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty.  

As a general rule, use a board with ratings prescribed by the standard.  Where 
you must use a rating not prescribed by the standard, or you are using a 
non-rated board, and if the board design uses lots of copper, then testing the 
completed board in its end-product orientation may pass the flammability test.


Rich 


-

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:/

Re: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

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

I think that before the practical limits come into play, financial
limits will stop the designed chamber from further growing.. ;<))

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday 29 April 2016 19:42
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

In the words of an old colleague, “chambers and race cars are alike in that 
there is no substitute for cubic inches.”

That said, absorber material works best when the angle of incidence is a close 
to straight in as possible.  Thus, for a given separation distance between 
transmit and receive antennas (or source/EUT and receive antenna) the wider and 
taller the chamber, the better (within practical limits, of course).  

Other answers are noted below in red.

Best of luck.  Have fun!

Ghery S. Pettit
Pettit EMC Consulting
gh...@pettitemcconsulting.com
(360) 790 9672


From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

Hello all,
 
I have some questions about anechoic chambers that I need some help with and 
I’m sure there is some expertise in this group that can help.
 
1. My understanding is that an anechoic chamber is meant to simulate a 
reflection-less, free space environment. Therefore if you move a source towards 
/ away from the antenna, the signal level should follow the inverse square law 
– correct?  That is the theory, anyway.  ☺
 
2. When comparing absorber types (hybrid + ferrite tile vs. foam absorber) the 
return loss characteristic gives the amount of absorption at a particular 
frequency – correct?  Correct
 
3. If I wanted to compare effectiveness of foam absorber with hybrid + tile 
absorber is it just a case of adding the return loss of the hybrid to the 
return loss of the tile to achieve a final figure? My understanding is that the 
hybrid helps match the wave impedance from free space to that of the tile. Is 
the return loss of hybrid + tiles _together_ greater than the individual return 
losses of the separate components? Manufacturers that I’ve looked at list the 
data separately.  The only number that really matters is the performance of the 
combination.  I’m not sure that you can simply add them.
 
4. I have been told that the distance between absorber and a reflective metal 
backing is important for ensuring that the returning wave is in anti-phase (or 
at least as much as possible) with the incoming signal. However information on 
acceptable limits for this distance seems sporadic or in rarefied scientific 
papers behind paywalls. Does anyone have any info or experience on this point?  
While this might be true, keep in mind that the required distance would be a 
function of frequency.  So, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over this question.
 
Many thanks for your time, I’m trying to get a handle on our chamber’s 
performance and any answers will help.
 
Regards,
James
 
 
-

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

Re: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

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

>“if you move a source towards / away from the antenna, the signal level should 
>follow the inverse square law – correct?”
>At most frequencies, the wavelength is long compared to the dimensions of the 
>shielded enclosure, so moving relative to the source is not done in a 
>far-field >condition and thus far-field relations don’t hold up.


IMHO, at most frequencies the wavelength is SMALL compared to the room, but at 
CRITICAL frequencies (<100 MHz) I agree with you Ed.
The boundary between close and far field is ( if I may refer to Henry Ott' 
works) around Lambda/2pi , so even with a  2-fold margin
the close-field/far-field boundary is extremely  small compared to the room 
(even if 3 of 5 meter).

>the distance between absorber and a reflective metal backing is important for 
>ensuring that the returning wave is in anti-phase”

It is recommended by several tile (ferrite) manufacturers to add a certain 
dielectric distance
between wall and ferrite tile, to shift the "resonance" frequency (the freq 
where incident and reflected wave "cancel")
down to a (desired) lower frequency at the cost of a slightly higher reflection 
coefficient.  Additional effect is a 
wider dampening bandwidth of the tile-wall combination . 
The optimum dielectric spacing is said to be tile thickness dependent.
Our FAR was built to this principle, and although I cannot compare (never build 
it without spacing)
it functions satisfactorily.  


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Friday 29 April 2016 11:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

Jim:

“if you move a source towards / away from the antenna, the signal level should 
follow the inverse square law – correct?”
At most frequencies, the wavelength is long compared to the dimensions of the 
shielded enclosure, so moving relative to the source is not done in a far-field 
condition and thus far-field relations don’t hold up.

“the return loss characteristic gives the amount of absorption”
Yes, sort of. You may get some reflection from the front surface of the 
absorber. That’s a result of the absorber, but not exactly an absorption 
effect. The signal that does go through the absorber material then has to 
reflect off the shielded enclosure wall and then travel back through the 
absorber. So, the return signal has actually experienced two passes through the 
absorber and likely some scattering at the reflection. Still, it all adds up to 
a return loss. ☺

“with hybrid + tile absorber is it just a case of adding the return loss of the 
hybrid to the return loss of the tile”
Just moved past my level of experience, but I would expect that to not be true. 
I think you will see reflections due to mismatch at the absorber/tile 
interface, and this will affect the overall return loss. We need an expert to 
say how much.

“
The reflected signal will be shifted 180° by the massive impedance 
discontinuity (the metal wall), and I never heard of spacing the absorber off 
the reflective surface for any advantage. There will be some small phase 
shifting in propagation through the absorber, as the velocity of propagation 
will be different from air. I have heard of critical thickness and internal 
spacings for absorbers intended for stealth aircraft, but these are very 
frequency selective.

Paywalls are more like absorbers than reflectors, right?

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Anechoic Chamber Questions

Hello all,
 
I have some questions about anechoic chambers that I need some help with and 
I’m sure there is some expertise in th

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

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

> No you are not responsible..

IF the product is marked accordingly on its typeplate.  See 2004/108/EU.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com] 
Sent: Friday 22 April 2016 14:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

Remember first are foremost. If a product is marketed and primarily intended 
for consumer / residential use it SHALL be class B. Having said this if you 
have a product which is not intended to be used in the class b environment and 
it happens to make it's way there . No you are not responsible..

Rodney Davis



From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment 
 
If a manufacturer label the product as «Class A», they do not have any 
responsibility if the end user is using it in an residential environment with 
its potential risk for making disturbance?
 
Mvh Amund  
 
 
Fra: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sendt: 8. desember 2015 18:55
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
1.
Independent of the standards, the EMC directive requires marking on typeplate 
and/or documentation if an equipment is non-residential.
 
2.
Unwilling standards committees have been "reluctant" in including  the 
definitions in written in their standards. 
CISPR I has been notorious in these for years, by not even defining Class A for 
immunity (CISPR 24).
There are ample standards and EC documents giving an appropriate definitions, 
in general something
like:
 
If it is predominantly used for households or is connected to a residentially 
used power newtwork
the equipment will be residential or often said "Class B". 
If connected to a private power network then it should be Industrial or "Class 
A".
 
One standard that comes to mind that gives a good description including 
examples is EN 61326-1:2013.
An EC document TC210/Sec0515/INF from 2007 addresses the topic in full and 
includes the recommendation to
include a common definition in all harmonized standards.
 
Gert Gremmen
 
Van: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 december 2015 14:38
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Ian,
 
There is no definition of "residential" environment in the standard or the EMC 
Guide.  For reference, the FCC classifies products into consumer (Class B) and 
non-consumer (Class A) categories.  In Europe the manufacturer has a similar 
responsibility to make a product that meets the EMC requirements appropriate 
for the intended use of the product. For some products it is more or less up to 
the end user to determine if a Class A or Class B compliant product is 
appropriate. 
 
You will find the Class A warning statement in the EN 55032 standard, Clause 7.
 
Class A equipment shall have the following warning in the instructions for use, 
to inform the
user of the risk of operating this equipment in a residential environment:
 
W arning: This equipment is compliant with Class A of CISPR 32. In a residential
environment this equipment may cause radio interference.
 
 
Bill Stumpf - Lab / Technical Manager
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
166 South Carter Street
Genoa City WI 53128
Ph: 262-279-0210
 
 
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment
 
Dear colleag

Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1, Table 2N - creepage

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

Creepage is only defined for the surface between INSULATOR and AIR. (and
the insulator having and insulation function of course; so on the
surface be limited by conductors)

The shortest path over the defined surface from conductor1 to conductor2
is called creepage.

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test, qualified testing bv

 

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: maandag 18 april 2016 15:42
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC60950-1, Table 2N - creepage

 

Two columns in Table 2N are covering . Those distances,
they are only for inside the PCB layers, right?

Regards

Amund

 

 

-


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

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <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 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] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

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

In the medical RA where I got a bit of experience a third factor is used
to classify the avoidability of risk.
Avoidability of the risk.

So the risk number is  severity times likelihood times avoidability (why
doesn't MS Word like this word ?)

- To use the comet example, it cannot be avoided, so risk number 5.
- A chain saw approaches rather quick, but can be avoided if vigilant,
so number 4.
- The user gets  tired , so stop using the chain saw, can be number 2
- Avoid getting pinched by the elevator door is easy so number 1

The exact numbers  makes no difference, as long as the scale is the same
for all your projects.
RA is not to make a difference between, just to prioritize risks.
if too much risk end up with the same number, just extend the scale 1-10
or 1-100 if you need to.

Once you see the list of risks ordered, it is more easy to say:
"Below a risk number of 20 I feel safe, and above we will (try to) fix
them"

The RA process is thus an iterative process, governed by the risk
management process.

The RA process might be need repetition for different users, such as

operators
service agents
domestic animal (yes! LVD)
third age and disabled people 
children



Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager




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

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Thursday 14 April 2016 12:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

A scale of 1 to 5 has been considered too coarse, but again 'where to
stop?' 1 to 1000 gives, perhaps, a better impression of the RA of a
comet strike to non-technical managers and politicians, but in these
days of big numbers, there is a case for 1 to 1 million. 

From: McCallum, Andy [mailto:andy.mccal...@mottmac.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Rich

If you have not done a risk assessment previously it can be daunting -
where do you draw the line with "what if".
In the UK rail industry an example could be "What happens if the train
is hit by a comet". Answer everyone dies. So what mitigation can you do
- run trains in tunnels deep in rock so the train is protected. That's
not practical so the ALARP principal is introduced (As low as reasonably
practical). Also risk is about the likelihood of an event - so a comet
strike chances of happening are so low that it can be ignored.
Your RA could be enormous if  you tried to include every risk that was
possible (rumour is someone did consider a comet strike but I have not
seen it!).
So product knowledge and common sense need to be applied. Consider the
risks for your product assign them a risk rating ( say 1 - 5 where 1 is
no risk and 5 is risk of death) and then assign a likelihood (1 is
incredibly unlikely and 5 is a daily occurrence). Multiply 1 by the
other and you have a risk score somewhere between 1 and 25. So a comet
strike is likely to a consequence of death (score 5) but is incredibly
unlikely (Score 1) total risk score 5. Any reasonable mitigation? No
that's the best you will get move on the next risk.

Hope that helps

Andy





From: Gary Swale [mailto:gary.sw...@ditchwitch.com] 
Sent: 14 April 2016 00:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

>>I don't have experience in RA, so I guess I can't do it.<<

No, not experience in RA, experience and knowledge about the product.
The RA is all about presenting "what if" scenarios to product experts
and the experts then work to lower the risk through design, safeguards,
and information.

From: Richard Nute [ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6:19 PM
To: Gary Swal

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

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

There is a hierarchical problem with that Section 17.
The LV directive requires a RA and as a conclusion to that RA the standard may 
be used to solve/address the issues
from the RA. It cannot be so that a Harmonised  standard overrules the 
LV-directive, however sense that makes from a technical point of view.

The RA is needed, whether it will be concise because all risk are covered by 
the standard is another story.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday 12 April 2016 10:36
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Good morning

Whilst I also mentioned the IEC/EN61010-1:2010 Risk Assessment provisions in an 
earlier post, I think it must be borne in mind that they are there primarily 
for the reason stated in the first part of Section 17 of the standard, i.e. : 
"If examination of the equipment shows that HAZARDS not fully addressed in 
Clauses 6 to 16 (see 1.2.1) might arise, then RISK assessment is required. It 
shall be carried out and documented to achieve at least a TOLERABLE RISK by an 
iterative process covering the following.

a)  RISK analysis

RISK analysis is the process to identify HAZARDS and to estimate the RISKS 
based on the use of available information.

b)  RISK evaluation

Each RISK analysis requires a plan to evaluate the estimated severity and 
likelihood of a RISK, and to judge the acceptability of the resulting RISK 
level.

c)  RISK reduction

If the initial RISK level is not acceptable, steps shall be taken to reduce the 
RISK. The process of RISK analysis and RISK evaluation shall then be repeated, 
including checking that no new RISKS have been introduced."

Thus the Risk Assessment process in 61010-1 is, IMHO, intended to cater for 
"HAZARDS which are not fully addressed" by the various parts of the standard, 
as opposed to being there as a general RA process. 

Nevertheless, as Amund says, the given Annex J process is based on the 
ISO/Guide approach, although para 1 of Annex J also states "Other  RISK 
assessment procedures are contained in ISO 14971, SEMI S10, IEC 61508, ISO 
14121-1, and ANSI TR3. Other established procedures which implement similar 
steps can also be used." - thus a wide range of other RA approaches could be 
used.

Thus, before you start applying an RA process, you will need to understand 
something of the whole concept in the context of the intended use of "your" 
product and of the people who will be installing/ using/ "misusing" &/or 
maintaining it. In fact, the initial, and most critical, stages of RA are 
mainly about that, and involve quite a lot brainstorming and lateral thinking 
by a wide range of personnel (and hopefully involving some who have had "field" 
experience of similar products and the HAZARDS that they have faced). The 
guidelines for "Safety Cases" in both the military and civilian sectors really 
emphasise that basic requirement.

BTW: w.r.t. the RA processes and "pre-built" checklists in some specific 
Machinery Standards, I have issues with those if taken "on face value" because 
they can tend to lull the compliance teams into assuming that the 
HAZARDS/precautions listed are the only ones to apply, whereas they are really 
just highlighted lists of those considered "most likely" to apply!

Therefore don't just pluck out an RA process "out of the air" and try to apply 
it immediately as it appears to be written, but first try to become 
familiar/"comfortable" with what it is trying to achieve and how it is 
prompting/helping YOU to do it.

John Allen
W. London, UK


-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: 12 April 2016 06:27
To

Re: [PSES] Latest OJEU

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

These have not been published yet, but it is to be expected
that the same lists will apply, though probably an updated
list will be published under 2014/30/EC.
Same for LVD.
Same for RED.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Monday 11 April 2016 11:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Latest OJEU

Dear colleagues

With the implementation of the new EMC & LVD directives this month, does anyone 
know where I can access the latest OJEU to check which standards are listed as 
acceptable for declaring conformity with the new directives.

Many thanks in advance.

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


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] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

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

I needed to add to my previous contribution to that the  parameter that 
controls this is called TCL value.
(John et all: = Transferse Conversion Loss ;<)) . The EMC world has been using 
LISNS
for decades now that simulate a LCL  (Longitudinal Conversion Loss) value of 
the connected mains cable of -6 dB.
(for a cable LCL and TCL are normally the same)
Something to think about...

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Richard Marshall [mailto:richard.marshal...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday 1 April 2016 11:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Ken says
   "I seem to recall Michel Mardiguian writing that the relaxed dm could 
transform into cm causing big problems.  That seems counter-intuitive at best."


Think about it this way.  DM is being transmitted along a wire PAIR 
that we must view as an rf transmission line, which is balanced UNTIL it meets 
some discontinuity.

( What discontinuity? 
- A branch cable with a single-pole switch that is open, leaving a branch wire 
hanging on the other pole.
- A device with a single class X capacitor from neutral to ground.
- A solid ground connection to the neutral wire.
- A wide separation between Line and Neutral conductor (Think 2-way light 
switching)
- - etc )

At a discontinuity that is unbalanced relative to ground (as all the above 
are), there is conversion of DM power into CM because unequal amounts of the 
balanced power in each wire are diverted to ground. 
The maths. are complicated because of the various and different values of 
Characteristic impedance Zo between wires and from each wire to ground, but the 
mechanism for power transfer is clear.

There have been studies of this in the last 10/15 years suggesting that typical 
power transfer coupling from DM to CM in a real mains power network at 230 
volts ( I do not know of any at 115 volts, perhaps others do...) involves only 
about 10dB power loss at some frequencies where the wiring is resonant.

So whilst there may be a case for allowing a bit more DM than CM, there can be 
no technical case for allowing 20dB or more of excess DM.  Not on ordinary 
power distribution circuits.


Richard

Richard Marshall Laboratories,
30 Ox Lane, Harpenden, Herts.,    AL5 4HE, UK 
+44 (0)1582 460815 www.design-emc.co.uk
Member of the EMC Industry Association

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: 30 March 2016 21:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

With the dm limit 20 dB relaxed, the dm filter design would be simplified.  As 
I said, an industry study said it would save $35 million a year for the power 
supply industry. I'm not sure if it was Art Wall as much as the old guard who 
were involved in the original work not liking a fresh look at it.

I seem to recall Michel Mardiguian writing that the relaxed dm could transform 
into cm causing big problems.  That seems counter-intuitive at best. The 
opposite is way more likely. So my takeaway was that they didn't want to 
consider a change to how they had set thing up.

Ken Javor
Ph. (256) 650-5261 


From: "Grasso, Charles" 
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:01:00 +
To: Ken Javor , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 

Conversation: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN
Subject: RE: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Hello Ken - I remember the setup and demo to Art Wall of the FCC during the 
1999 EMC Symposium here in Denver.
In spite of your best efforts it was clear that Art was not "persuaded" !!
 
The impact on the industry (as I recall) would be muc

Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

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

Of course all DM current will (in a wire pair) transfer into CM, once the line 
is long enough.
And a wire pair is never fully balanced ...only twisted pairs of the best 
quality approach full balancing.

This topic has been subject of all kind of studies of doubtful quality where 
the result was
that the short wave band could be used for transferring internet signal (PLC) 
without creating
interference. The result was that there is a standard now that allows almost 0 
dBm of RF
voltage in DM on the mains wire , by redefining the mains port into a 
telecommunication port.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Richard Marshall [mailto:richard.marshal...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday 1 April 2016 11:48
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Ken says
   "I seem to recall Michel Mardiguian writing that the relaxed dm could 
transform into cm causing big problems.  That seems counter-intuitive at best."


Think about it this way.  DM is being transmitted along a wire PAIR 
that we must view as an rf transmission line, which is balanced UNTIL it meets 
some discontinuity.

( What discontinuity? 
- A branch cable with a single-pole switch that is open, leaving a branch wire 
hanging on the other pole.
- A device with a single class X capacitor from neutral to ground.
- A solid ground connection to the neutral wire.
- A wide separation between Line and Neutral conductor (Think 2-way light 
switching)
- - etc )

At a discontinuity that is unbalanced relative to ground (as all the above 
are), there is conversion of DM power into CM because unequal amounts of the 
balanced power in each wire are diverted to ground. 
The maths. are complicated because of the various and different values of 
Characteristic impedance Zo between wires and from each wire to ground, but the 
mechanism for power transfer is clear.

There have been studies of this in the last 10/15 years suggesting that typical 
power transfer coupling from DM to CM in a real mains power network at 230 
volts ( I do not know of any at 115 volts, perhaps others do...) involves only 
about 10dB power loss at some frequencies where the wiring is resonant.

So whilst there may be a case for allowing a bit more DM than CM, there can be 
no technical case for allowing 20dB or more of excess DM.  Not on ordinary 
power distribution circuits.


Richard

Richard Marshall Laboratories,
30 Ox Lane, Harpenden, Herts.,    AL5 4HE, UK 
+44 (0)1582 460815 www.design-emc.co.uk
Member of the EMC Industry Association

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: 30 March 2016 21:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

With the dm limit 20 dB relaxed, the dm filter design would be simplified.  As 
I said, an industry study said it would save $35 million a year for the power 
supply industry. I'm not sure if it was Art Wall as much as the old guard who 
were involved in the original work not liking a fresh look at it.

I seem to recall Michel Mardiguian writing that the relaxed dm could transform 
into cm causing big problems.  That seems counter-intuitive at best. The 
opposite is way more likely. So my takeaway was that they didn't want to 
consider a change to how they had set thing up.

Ken Javor
Ph. (256) 650-5261 


From: "Grasso, Charles" 
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:01:00 +
To: Ken Javor , "EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" 

Conversation: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN
Subject: RE: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Hello Ken - I remember the setup and demo to A

Re: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

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

FMEA:  Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
And Google is your friend thousands of examples and graphs available.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Friday 1 April 2016 09:30
To: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Subject: RE: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

A good explanation, but people not experts in the field want to know what 
'FMEA' is, please.

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


> -Original Message-
> From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
> [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 7:00 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions
> 
> A "risk management process" describes how a company management 
> addresses risks with their products.
> It describes responsibilities and functions and the process of risks, 
> hazards and incidents.
> The "risk assessment" describes the process of determining risk of a device.
> Techniques for risk assessment are Top-down and bottom-up analysis and FMEA .
> 
> Some facts I learned:
> 
> 1. No risk assessment process will tell you what risks are acceptable or not.
> 2. The risk assessment will document all risks/aspects you have 
> considered, and if carried out probably allows you to conclude that 
> you did not overlook something: the most important conclusion.
> 3. Techniques as FMEA allow you to rank risks in order of relevance, 
> so as to cope with highest risks first.
> 3b. The order is created by multiplying chance , severity and 
> detectability into a arbitrary risk value.
> 3c. There are not much conventions in valuing those 3 factors and 
> applying numeric values to them. Each analysis is engineer specific.
> Only the ranking is an objective result.
> 4. This ranking allows the risk management engineer to define a 
> arbitrary risk threshold value above what any risk needs to be fixed.
> 5. The result of the full process is a "remaining risks list" that can 
> be addressed in educating your customers. (don't dry the cat in the 
> microwave)
> 
> If you take a machine directive standard such as the 60204 you can 
> clearly see how risk enabled standards interact with the risk management 
> process.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ing. Gert Gremmen
> Approvals manager
> --
> --
> 
> 
> + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent 
> + Consultancy Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
>  according to EC-directives:
> - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
> - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education
> 
> Web:www.cetest.nl (English)
> Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
> ---
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that 
> is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and 
> are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
> Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
> limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
> distribution in any form) by persons other than

Re: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

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

A "risk management process" describes how a company management addresses risks 
with their products.
It describes responsibilities and functions and the process of risks, hazards 
and incidents.
The "risk assessment" describes the process of determining risk of a device.
Techniques for risk assessment are Top-down and bottom-up analysis and FMEA . 

Some facts I learned:

1. No risk assessment process will tell you what risks are acceptable or not.
2. The risk assessment will document all risks/aspects you have considered, and 
if carried out
probably allows you to conclude that you did not overlook something: the most 
important conclusion.
3. Techniques as FMEA allow you to rank risks in order of relevance, so as to 
cope with highest risks first.
3b. The order is created by multiplying chance , severity and detectability 
into a arbitrary risk value.
3c. There are not much conventions in valuing those 3 factors and applying 
numeric values to them. Each analysis is engineer specific.
Only the ranking is an objective result. 
4. This ranking allows the risk management engineer to define a arbitrary risk 
threshold value above what any risk needs to be fixed.
5. The result of the full process is a "remaining risks list" that can be 
addressed in educating your customers. (don't dry the cat in the microwave)

If you take a machine directive standard such as the 60204 you can clearly see 
how risk enabled standards interact with the risk management process.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday 1 April 2016 00:03
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

David,

The risk assessment you refer to below is not same as the risk assessment 
referred to in the new LVD (and some other NLF directives). The risk assessment 
below is specifically aimed at determining whether or not the product presents 
a risk which is sufficient to warrant post market action, and in particular 
whether or not a product recall is necessary. This is obviously related to the 
product design risk assessment which is required before placing the product on 
the market, but it is not the same thing.

Nick. 




On 31 Mar 2016, at 22:09, David K Bell  wrote:

Scott,
With regard to the risk assessment requirement in the Directives revised under 
the New Legislative Framework (NLF):
This excerpt is from a discussion of the proposed EU Consumer Product Safety 
Regulation (CPSR):
 
The European Commission will undertake a risk analysis of the product to 
determine whether the product is likely to pose a 'serious' risk. The default 
risk analysis methodology to be used is the already established EU Risk 
Assessment Methodology (Decision 2010/15/EU), by which products can be assessed 
and classified as posing a 'Low', 'Medium', 'High' or 'Serious' risk. If this 
risk assessment methodology is not appropriate for the particular product, the 
Commission must give a detailed description of the methodology used in its 
place. 
 
Appendix 5 of Decision 2010/15/EU on pages 33—64 covers Risk Assessment.  This 
is the methodology that a EU enforcement body would use to determine if a 
product poses a serious risk and should therefore be withdrawn from the market 
and notified to other EU member states via the EU RAPEX rapid alert system.  
Any risk analysis that we do to satisfy the requirements of the new LV  and EMC 
Directives should be no less rigorous.

Best regards,

David K. Bell
Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Milestone AV Technologies 
david.b...@milestone.com
+1.952.225.6782


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Scott Xe  wrote:
There are two major changes in new LVD.  One is the risk assessm

Re: [PSES] Electrostatic charge Buildup during ESD Testing

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

During testing you are supposed to discharge EUT after each discharge
using a ground wire, with an ionisation device

or with a permanent  2 x 470 K  connection, dependent on the type of EUT
and or test set up.

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test

 

From: Li Di [mailto:li...@conorthtech.com] 
Sent: vrijdag 19 februari 2016 16:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Electrostatic charge Buildup during ESD Testing

 

Hi Sir,

 

I have a question for ESD Testing. For some reason, the electrostatic
charges shall build up on the EUT during the testing. The Buildup shall
affect the performance of EUT or the testing itsself. How to evaluate
the effectiveness of this Buildup of electrostatic charge? Is there
someone studing this phenomena? Thank you very much.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 



Li Di

Conorth Technologies Co., Ltd.

-

Address: Room 212, Building C, No.15 Baiziwan Road, Chaoyang
District, Beijing

Tel (Fax): 0086-10-60530811 (Office)

Mobile: 0086-13701332910

Email: li...@conorthtech.com

Website: www.conorthtech.com <http://www.conorthtech.com/> 

--

-


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

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 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] SV: Ferrite bead vs. resistor

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

In general, if the application can support serial resistance,

a resistor will give you better –reproducible- results.  The inductive part

of a ferrite bead may give resonances, and resistors  are available in much 
wider

ranges. Resistors especially SMD, have good RF properties if used on the proper 
PCB footprint.

Values in general between 22 and 100 ohm.

 

This is my experience with fast Ethernet and TTL level serial connections.

 

I can imagine that laser trimmed resistors have worse characteristics, but

as far as I understand the trimming process that is just in terms of increased 
inductivity

a property that creates less of a problem for this application.

 

The bead’s properties are not always specified completely, most are limited

to a graph of (real and/or imaginary) impedance versus frequency.

 

 

In some cases the inductive impedance is simply to high ( >500) to reduce 
emissions.

 

The source impedance of CM currents is not that of a simple voltage or current 
source,

but a unknown mixture of the 2, and blocking one CM current on one cable will 
increase others.

 

The interference current are principally caused by charging and discharging 
(clock) of semiconductor

internal and external capacitances (0-3 or 0-5V), and each charge discharge 
cycle releases

an amount of energy (0.5 CV2 ) that HAS to be dissipated locally in real 
impedances. Too inductive

beads will not dissipate , and simply reflect the energy. Blocking the currents 
(beads) will rise the

voltage opening other ways out, shorting the voltage (caps) will rise the 
current flowing,

both creating more emissions.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen



 

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Friday 5 February 2016 10:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: Ferrite bead vs. resistor

 

A resistor will cause a voltage drop, and that could make problems for the 
functionality. Ferrite bead will not make a DC voltage drop.

For higher frequencies (above 100MHz) the bead is more precise described (Z, X 
and R), while the impedance of a resistor is maybe not defined.

 

#Amund 

 

 

Fra: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sendt: 5. februar 2016 09:38
Til: 'EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG' 
Emne: Ferrite bead vs. resistor

 

Had some EMI issues, caused by a LVDS line.

By inserting CM chokes, the radiation seemed to lower significant.

Inserting resistors as well (aprox 22 ohm) made it even better. I can’t check 
the eye curve, but 22ohm makes no problem with the EUT operation.

 

 

But, should the series resistor be replaced by ferrite beads instead? Will it 
make any really differences?

The LVDS clock is approx 40MHz and data rate 160Mbps.

 

#Amund

 

 

-


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


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

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a rule of thumb the transfer impedance (Zt) is the load impedance of your SA 
( = 50 Ohm) multiplied
by the square of the applied windings on your probes  core. You should load the 
probe with
a low impedance (attenuation) network (1 Ohm ->50 Ohm) to reduce Zt and limit 
the number of windings.
The latter gives you better control on frequency response, while more windings 
give more
output signal and extends the lowest usable frequency . So it's a trade off
between sensitivity, and frequency response.

It's not so different from classical signal transformer analysis, you should be 
familiar with.

A Zt of less than 10 Ohm will give good accuracy for common CM currents.
If you try to shield your home-made probe, make sure the shield is 
discontinuous with low capacitance, otherwise
it will short the magnetic field in the core.

As usual with rule of thumbs, this is not an exhaustive analysis of Zt, but 
very usable in terms of
learning what's going on.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Monday 1 February 2016 03:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Doug's point is well taken. If you know the probe's transfer impedance, and you 
know it works properly (is well-shielded) then instead of just "getting a 
number" and trying to lower it you can work against a computed current limit 
that radiates at or below the RE limit which is the actual goal.

BTW, SAE ARP 6236 shows how you can measure your probe's transfer impedance.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Doug Smith 
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:21:19 -0800
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM 
> currents
> 
> That is why it is very difficult to make current probes well shielded 
> enough and certainly with a flat transfer impedance that covers a few 
> decades of frequency. The cost of a good current probe, for instance 
> an
> F-33-1 or F-61 is less than what it has already cost your company in 
> time lost.
> 
> Doug
> 
> Douglas C. Smith
> University of Oxford Course Tutor
> D C Smith Consultants
> PO Box 60941
> Boulder City, NV 89006
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Web: http://www.dsmith.org
> Web: http://emcesd.com
> Tel: 702-570-6108
> Mobile: 408-858-4528
> 
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:49:08 -0600, Ken Javor 
>  wrote:
> You needed a metal shield to prevent capacitive coupling.
>> 
>> Ken Javor
>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Amund Westin 
>>> Reply-To: Amund Westin 
>>> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:21:48 +0100
>>> To: 
>>> Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
 A clamp-on ferrite with a few turns of wire and connected to a 
 spectrum
>>> analyzer, worked out to be a good tool for measuring CM currents on 
>>> single cables. It gave me some measured numbers [dBuV], and then I 
>>> worked
>> on trying
>>> to get the numbers down :)
 But when I placed the home-made probe on wires / cables inside a
>> noisy rack,
>>> problems started. The probe picked up almost all kinds of 
>>> frequencies, even when no cables or wires where going through the probe 
>>> (ferrite).
>> This lesson told me that a simple home-made current probe
>> works good on a
>>> stand-alone cable, but it does not work that good then measurements 
>>> are carried out closed to other noisy sources. Then you might need a 
>>> more professional current clamp.
>> #Amund
 Fra: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>>> Sendt: 15. januar 2016 17:53
>>> Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> Emne: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>> I think it is important to no

Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

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

 

The GPSD applies (1) to consumer goods only and IMHO (2) does not apply
when the LVD applies in its exempt state.

In general the GPSD is for those products that there is no other
legislation regarding safety or certain risks not covered by
legislation.

For a camera, there is : the LVD but it declares itself exempt, if the
exempted products would not be inherently safe, why exempt?

So in my view the GPSD is not applicable for all hazards covered by the
LVD. (there may be other hazards, not covered by the LVD)

 

>From the GPSD guide:

"If specific Community legislation sets out safety requirements covering
only certain risks or 

categories of risks, with regard to the products concerned the
obligations of economic operators in

respect of these risks are those determined by the provisions of the
specific legislation, while the general safe

ty requirement of this Directive should apply to the other risks." 

 

and

4.2.1 The general safety obligation in GPSD articles 2 (b) and(c),3 and
4 does not apply to LVD, because the scope 

of the Directive covers all types of risks and/or categories of risk. 

 

 

In my view there is no absence for electrical safety. Just that the
applicable legislation (the  LVD) itself declares all products falling
in its scope below 72V dc to be safe for the aspects it covers.

 

We can discuss why an electrical parameter (Vac/Vdc) decides about
mechanical -, heat- fire - , acoustic- and radiation hazards, thus if
this

72 V limit is a reasonable exemption criterion, but the case is like
that for the moment.

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: woensdag 20 januari 2016 20:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

 

Ron

 

The Product Liability Directive applies regardless of whichever other
Directives do/do not apply (except those relating to foods and
agricultural products IIRC)!

(similar in the States I think, although the timescales and penalties
are substantially different)


John Allen

W.London, UK

 

-Original Message-
From: Ronald Pickard [mailto:ronald.pick...@compoundphotonics.com] 
Sent: 20 January 2016 14:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

..

 

And, there's also the EU Product Liability directive that might be
considered if no safety directive would apply.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron

 

-Original Message-

From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com
 ]

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 6:52 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  

Subject: Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

 

The answer would be either LVD or GPS Directives as being
applicable..Safety and EMC is what I would expect in a quote.

 

Rodney Davis

Regulatory Compliance Engineering

Phone: DID 613-691-3468

350 Legget Drive Kanata, On,K2K 2W7, Canada

 



From: Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> >

Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 8:28 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  

Subject: Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

 

Where does the 12V/48V originate from - AC mains supply or a co-located
isolated battery?

Also, what is the power consumption of the camera?

Charlie

 

-Original Message-

From: Aleksei Musin [mailto:amu...@inbox.ru  ]

Sent: 20 January 2016 12:40

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  

Subject: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

 

Hi Everyone,

 

We have requested several labs and got different scopes of work.

 

It is not clear what regulations we have to keep in mind.

 

Some of those labs have provided quotes with EMC only, others have done
with EMC+Safety.

 

Our camera is powered from 12VDC or 48VDC (PoE), and intended for
outdoor use.

 

Thank you.

Aleksei.

 

-



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

 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
 

 

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

 

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/  

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

 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas mailto:sdo

Re: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

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

For only the camera only, legally you only have to deal with the EMCD.

As the supply voltage is below 72 volt DC the LVD is exempt.

Unless  -as Ronald  pointed out-, it’s a wireless device. The RTTE directive 
(Soon RED directive) includes
safety and EMC as well as radio (=efficient use of the spectrum). (ETSI 
standards for WiFi probably)
If the applied module is RTTE approved as a standalone module, testing may be 
simplified.
Verify for full compliance to the appropriate standards , not a vague 
description as "tested to", or "designed for" or "designed to comply with"
You need a full compliance , signed and dated, preferably a 20 page+ test 
report with it.


Another catch is if you sell the device including a mains adapter, even if that 
has
a ce mark on itself. As the apparatus-combination you sell is connected to the 
mains 230Vac,
the LVD applies. You may consider selling the adapter as a separate apparatus, 
but your customers
won't be happy. (paragraph added for completeness only, I know you camera uses 
POE)

Additionally you may consider IP testing (Ingress of water and dust). IP54 is 
about the minimum
you may require for proper operation outdoor, but IP66 is more common.
Look at standard EN 60529.

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-Original Message-
From: Aleksei Musin [mailto:amu...@inbox.ru] 
Sent: Wednesday 20 January 2016 13:40
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IP camera for outdoor use in Europe

Hi Everyone,

We have requested several labs and got different scopes of work.

It is not clear what regulations we have to keep in mind.

Some of those labs have provided quotes with EMC only, others have done with 
EMC+Safety.

Our camera is powered from 12VDC or 48VDC (PoE), and intended for outdoor use.

Thank you.
Aleksei.

-

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] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

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

Hi Doug et al,

If I understand well, the ferrite creates a virtual end of cable for EUT2, 
allowing the cable to resonate ??

Interesting case, but not completely fair, as  there a 2 EUT that in this 
situation would require ferrite at both end of the cable.
I have not seen this effect yet on a single EUT with cabling in 20 year of 
testing.
I have seen  reductions too small to justify the ferrites use, and I have seen
spurious frequencies go up , in the case of multiple cable situations.
And yea, it is possible that 2 compliant EUT connected together can exceed 
limits, even without adding ferrites.

Theoretically EUT should be tested with lambda/2 length of cabling for each 
frequency  peak -as a worst case-, instead we have chosen
to test EUT using a single length of cable , accepting the risk of a null 
effect for certain frequencies and resonance
for others. In addition the termination impedance of the cables is undefined, 
ranging from open for not connected cables to
shorts for other. CISPR 22 makes an effort to stabilize the mains cabling by 
using AMN for each. Unfortunately most AMN do not have a defined CM/DM 
impedance above 30 MHz, their upper design frequency.

Measuring CM current using the current clamp is the best way to avoid these 
effects, if the cables common mode
termination impedance is frequency independent and around a typical value of 
150 Ohms. This effectively
suppresses any resonances and nulls. Unfortunately (again) this is extremely 
difficult to realize this at frequencies
above 150 -200 MHz. 
This idea was the basis for the propositions a few years ago to terminate all 
cables in a radiated test setup with ferrite clamps
at their ends. The idea is that the input CM impedance of a set of ferrites is 
around 150 ohms, and in any case better
as open or short.
 I have been experimenting with this and in several cases using a ferrite clamp
at the end of cabling seems to "stabilize the spectrum", increasing low peaks 
and reducing high peaks.
Not enough cases to draw final conclusions, however.

Would love to hear any other experiences from members on this list.

Gert Gremmen

-Original Message-
From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] 
Sent: zaterdag 16 januari 2016 1:52
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents

Hi Everone,

Here is an interesting case where a ferrite core can actually perform an 
impedance matching function and increase emissions on a cable:

http://emcesd.com/tt120199.htm

Doug

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:40:22 -0800, Ed Price  wrote:
I would add a caution to Ken's comment about common mode cable currents
> creating RE. Yes, the CM currents certainly do create RE, but you need 
> to probe the cables at several intervals to understand those current 
> paths. It is not immediately obvious that all CM current flowing on a 
> cable at one end of a cable does not necessarily flow at the other end of 
> that cable.
> Especially where cables are bundled, or where they pass closely along 
> a chassis or structural member, there are possibilities for that 
> current to couple off of the cable. The current flow will follow the 
> impedances, both at the ends and at other fortuitous nodes. This is 
> one of the reasons that a ferrite absorber might work much better at 
> one position along a cable than at another position and also why RE 
> might be dependent on something as obscure as cable bundle tightness.
>
> Ed Price
> WB6WSN
> Chula Vista, CA USA
>
>
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, 
> January 15, 2016 8:53 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
>
>
> I think it is important to not lose sight of the original query that 
> started this thread. The query was about whether placing a current 
> probe around a cable perturbed the current to be measured. There is no 
> doubt that radiated emissions can originate within an equipment 
> enclosure separately from driving common mode currents on a cable, but 
> that wasn't the query. In fact, the poster was probing cables within a 
> large rack
> (enclosure) looking for a source within an enclosure. 
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> _ From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
> Reply-To: Bill Owsley 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:26:08 +
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Current probe for CM currents
>
> If you can measure common mode noise on a cable, you have a problem 
> from the port !!
> Note the world famous Ott's math on this effect in his 1st edition. 
> Might be in his 2nd too.
>
> I have used both e-field and h-field (current clamp) at the same time. 
> We are engineers so figure out how I did that!
> And since some of the work is below 30 MHz, I have also added a loop 
> antenna for a 3rd measurement.
> My approach is if I find any emission, locally, near field, bench 
> stuff, that varies by position over the area

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

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

 

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

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

ie before the Ethernet chips)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager







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

+ Education

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

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

 

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

 

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

Possible actions:

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

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

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

 

Regards

Amund

 

 

-


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


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

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

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

John

 

I second you completely.

Medical example just to illustrate that it easy to believe that you did
your

EMC assessment right if you have the wrong advisor.

 

Gert

 

Van: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Verzonden: woensdag 9 december 2015 20:42
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

Gert 

 

>From my perspective, most of what you say below supports the position
that only equipment specifically intended for "totally heavy industrial
machinery/installations" should be Class A - and "everything else"
should be Class B.

 

Just a great pity that most of the regulators (across the World?) don't
seem agree with, or even understand, that approach, and thus get swayed
by the industry interest groups that you allude to below L.

 

"Industry" will often do the very least that it can get away with in
order to market their products, and that's why - in reality - Brian
Kunde's comments about many companies doing more than is required is
only - at best - partially true as a large proportion of them just plain
don't.

 

I suspect that some are large organisations, even though most are
probably SMEs which simply don't have the financial leeway to do more
than is legally necessary (even if they would want to) in order to
compete with the large ones - therefore it must be up to the regulators
to tighten the regulations appropriately.

 

BTW, as for the medical installation to which you refer below, if that
is in the EU (which I assume that it is) then 2004/108/EC, and
thereafter, require installation owners to do appropriate EMC
assessments, or to get appropriate EMC "experts" to do those assessments
if they themselves don't have the relevant expertise - and the
forthcoming presence of Class A ITE in a "sensitive" installation should
then have rang "alarm bells" even before it was operated. Therefore the
hospital management failed to meet their legal EMCD requirements, as
well as a failure of a general duty-of-care to their patients!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

 

 

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: 09 December 2015 18:50
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition of residential environment

 

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

 

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

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

and several of my close EMC friends have been participating.

 

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

 

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

as described. The infamous Class A statement in CISPR22 actually
encourages manufacturers to test and mark their products to industrial
test levels and market them in residential environments. That actually
is a regulatory aspect IMHO, as it overrules the requirements from the
EC and the mandates given to CENELEC in creating harmonized standards. 

 

This unlevel playing field  creates a tremendous amount of extra work
for manufacturers that integrate ITE OEM product in for example  (most)
medical equipment, or radio equipment or laboratory equipment, that do
not allow or for any Class A emissions.

Just Integrate a touchscreen in a lab equipment and you will see what I
mean. Many industrial sectors this way pay for the profits of the
IT-industry that successfully "lobbied" their way into the IT standard.
(not that lobby is illegal of course, it's just a way of defending ones
industry sector)

 

So this is how it happens that I (it actually happened) encounter 30
inch EN 55022 Class A LCD monitor in a local university hospital
surgeons room that was intentionally shielded to allow  sensitive
correlation type of  ECG equipment to function correctly. Well , it did
interfere. (I also found a 100 mW Wi-Fi transceiver on the ceiling, but
the frequency of that carrier is simply too high to interfere with the
ECG stuff) . It makes very clear how unaware even (medical electronics)
professionals  are when it comes to the risks of EMC.

This is why we have the EMCD, why we have CISPR and EMC standards, to
recognise that EMC is not like dust, one cannot see when it's dirty.

 

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test, qualified testing bv

 

 

Van: Ghery S.