Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

My understanding is Scientific Wild Ass Guess


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Patrick 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 6:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Silly WildAss Guess.
A precursor to a hypothesis.  Plus easier to say and spell.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 6:15 AM Ken Javor 
mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>> wrote:
Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.

--

Ken Javor
Ph: (256) 650-5261


From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

Could someone define the acronym SWAG in this context please?

Something With Air Gap?

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

Office hours:
Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.
For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.




From: Adam Dixon mailto:lanterna.viri...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

SWAG #2:  non-uniformities in materials + multiple breakdown mechanisms make it 
difficult to model.  Mica shows up in 1940's vintage literature.  Here are some 
interesting papers that I perused after Rich posed the question:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9079498
Space change behavior in cross-linked polymers

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app.49379
Touches on different breakdown mechanisms (see Figure 3; also the Figure 2 
reference may be worthwhile but I haven't tried accessing it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7764431/
electron injection and avalanche breakdown process

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1=pdf=65f577afe99e3253e7e3f38054ce9ea49b16a636
Electromechanical breakdown mechanism but also states "The exact cause for the 
observed behavior remains to be investigated"

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA635433.pdf
Paschen Curve anomalies (for consideration of gas dielectrics)

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1656858
Describes influence of polymer chain ends (Figure 1 is a good illustration)


Cheers,
Adam in Atlanta
adam.di...@ieee.org

On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 11:00 PM Patrick 
mailto:conwa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

just a SWAG...  perhaps dielectric strength is dependent on volume, and the 
increased 'thickness' is assumed to be thickness-for-a-constant-surface-area.  
If that's the case then an increasing thickness is also an increased volume 
which also increases available charge carriers, reducing breakdown voltage.

A test of my SWAG would be to incrementally increase dielectric thickness and 
determine if breakdown voltage eventually finds a minimum and then begins to 
increase with thickness.

interesting question.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 13:32 Richard Nute 
mailto:ri...@ieee.org>> wrote:


Why does air (or any insulating material) have decreasing dielectric strength, 
kV/mm, with increasing distance through the dielectric substance?  Assume 
homogenous field.  (I have assumed the dielectric strength was constant for the 
material.)   In other words, what is the physical basis for the non-constant 
dielectric strength clearance tables in various safety standards?  (I have yet 
to find the answer from the web.)  How can I predict the dielectric constant 
for a given distance through air (or any insulation)?

Charles J. Fraser, in Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Twelfth 
Edition),
 1994:

If the potential difference across opposite faces of a dielectric material is 
increased above a particular value, the material breaks down. The failure of 
the material takes the form of a small puncture, which renders the material 
useless as an insulator. The potential 
gradient 
necessary to cause break down is normally expressed in kilovolts/millimetre and 
is termed the ‘dielectric strength’. The dielectric strength of a given 
material decreases with increases in the thickness. Table 

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi Doug,

Consider using a voltage probe instead of a LISN.


Best Regards,
Mike

From: doug emcesd.com 
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 8:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

There is a device between us and the electrical system that does the power 
cycling. We have no control over that device, part of the vehicle.

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

From: Ken Javor 
mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:55:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

The purpose of a LISN when testing for vehicular use is to simulate the common 
impedance between battery and fuse block.

There should be no power cycling "behind" the LISN, because in the vehicle 
there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition 
switch itself.

Therefore the power cycling device goes between the LISN output and the 
switched load.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Douglas Smith 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__doug-40emcesd.com%26d%3DDwMFAw%26c%3DeuGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM%26r%3Dc9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww%26m%3DkavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A%26s%3DOVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc%26e%3D=04%7C01%7CMichael.Heckrotte%40ul.com%7C5f29f8ee022b49784e3d08d9bb91dbde%7C701159540ccd45f087bd03b2a3587569%7C0%7C1%7C637747057402236273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=Ea4uM5EdyfZpe6hQgjdbg6wDj9g6Cz0YdqkTgcjSW30%3D=0>>
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__doug-40emcesd.com%26d%3DDwMFAw%26c%3DeuGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM%26r%3Dc9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww%26m%3DkavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A%26s%3DOVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc%26e%3D=04%7C01%7CMichael.Heckrotte%40ul.com%7C5f29f8ee022b49784e3d08d9bb91dbde%7C701159540ccd45f087bd03b2a3587569%7C0%7C1%7C637747057402236273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=Ea4uM5EdyfZpe6hQgjdbg6wDj9g6Cz0YdqkTgcjSW30%3D=0>>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG%26d%3DDwMFAw%26c%3DeuGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM%26r%3Dc9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww%26m%3DkavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A%26s%3DRMadKU3rlYA8dxMrL249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo%26e%3D=04%7C01%7CMichael.Heckrotte%40ul.com%7C5f29f8ee022b49784e3d08d9bb91dbde%7C701159540ccd45f087bd03b2a3587569%7C0%7C1%7C637747057402236273%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000=B6mjKSrFJIJihhN4upF%2FDJxeeguxe8J7E4qbjo2wwpE%3D=0>>
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,

I have come across an unusual conducted emissions issue with a device where the 
impedance stabilization network for automotive testing itself causes a problem 
that will not let a class of equipment ever pass because of the network not the 
equipment itself.

In this case,  the power is cycled every second and the device that does that 
is behind the network as that is not being tested. The interrupted power goes 
through the network (12 Volts) and to the EUT. We got to the point where we 
replace the EUT with a DC load, 10 Ohm resistor in parallel with a 10 uF cap, 
to simulate the inrush current. That combination fails at the low end of the 
frequency spectrum a lot because the network, just a collection of L, C, and R 
is ringing at each power transition.

Any thoughts? Seems like an artifact of the standard. The device cycling power 
is a lab circuit and not part of the test and so should be behind the network.

Doug
[cid:image001.jpg@01D7ED39.E71F5CB0]

-


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 

Re: [PSES] GTEM cell used for RE measurement

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi Ken,

TX and RX equations are reciprocal. The measurements themselves are referenced 
to different locations, however we can address this. While the conversion 
between antenna gain and antenna factor does involve wavelength this will also 
be consistent between TX and RX after taking distance into account. Free-space 
path loss also involves wavelength, and is also reciprocal.

Free-space theory, different distance references can be resolved using simple 
equations assuming far-field path loss conditions:

  *   For emissions we measure the field strength at [received by] the antenna
  *   For immunity we want to know the field strength at some distance D from 
the antenna

OATS theory:

  *   Add in the ground plane and associated coupling

GTEM theory:

  *   Associated coupling is different than OATS
  *   The measurement distance is not 3/10/etc. meters so need to develop the 
equivalent of Friis equation for free-space path loss

Finally, in practice we don't take the same coupling factors into account when 
performing these two measurements:

  *   For immunity we measure the field strength using a (small) somewhat-ideal 
battery-powered isotropic probe with a fiber optic interface thus there are no 
conducting cables. Next we put a (larger) product in place of the probe and the 
coupling is different due to device size, cables, etc. Then we claim that the 
product "sees" the previously measured field strength but we don't actually 
make a new field strength measurement with the product and associated coupling 
mechanisms in place. Hence, we artificially simplify immunity, though this 
isn't necessarily bad - just as our simulated test field will change due to 
device coupling, an actual field in the real-world environment will also 
change, just not by the same amount.
  *   For emissions the measurement is made with all the various device 
coupling mechanisms in place.

Admittedly this doesn't solve your task at hand, but perhaps it can shed some 
light on where you might make some simplifying assumptions.

Best Regards,
Mike

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GTEM cell used for RE measurement

I understand how the GTEM cell works for immunity. That is quite simple, as you 
say. It's not as simple for emissions. I think an analogy is the equation for 
transmitting from an antenna is not reciprocal with receiving. One is simply a 
function of gain, the other involves frequency/wavelength. I too worked with 
GTEM cells in the past and understood better, and I too did a search and found 
the very complex formulae (!) but now I need to be able to get from a field 
intensity limit to the coupled potential at the cell coax connector, and I'm 
not finding that, nor a way to get there.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 07:47:56 +0100
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] GTEM cell used for RE measurement

Hello Ken,

Thinking aloud here: would such a factor exist as a generic formula? If I think 
about this the other way round, putting 1V of RF into the coax connector will 
generate 1V between the septum and ground (or between the septums? septii? in 
the case of a differential GTEM like a Laplacell).

This 1V will be spread over the distance between septum and ground, dictating 
the overall field strength. This means cells with different dimensions will 
have different factors. This is leaving aside the frequency response / VSWR of 
the cell.

I do recall seeing some formulae for correlation between GTEM and OATS/SAC but 
that was a while ago. A quick google on the subject shows a few papers with 
lots of big equations.

I no longer have my old copy of EN 61000-4-20 but there might be some 
interesting reference material in there. This standard also notes that many of 
its provisions only apply to "small EUTs" which is anything below a certain 
size in relation to the GTEM volume or anything with cables attached (which are 
"under consideration")


More practically, you could generate your own factors using an RF generator and 
an isotropic field probe and using reciprocity to flip this around to get a 
Volts out - field inside factor.


Additional: There's also this NPL / York EMC guide on "The Use of GTEM Cells 
for EMC Measurements" which has some interesting info in. Its been a long while 
since I've read it in any depth though. 
https://www.npl.co.uk/special-pages/guides/gpg65_gtem


Hope some of this is useful.
All the best
James



James Pawson
EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance
Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing / Consultancy / 
Environmental & Vibration
www.unit3compliance.co.uk 

Re: [PSES] NFC (near field communication): FCC Approach?

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Digital devices that have a power consumption not exceeding 6 nW are exempt 
from specific technical standards per FCC Rules 15.103(f).

There are no such exemptions for intentional radiators. See FCC Rules 15.225 
for radiated emission limits applicable to radio devices operating on 13.56 MHz.


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 5:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] NFC (near field communication): FCC Approach?

I don't know what the FCC rules are on something like this - others on this 
forum are much better informed on that topic - but if the ERP is 0 dBm (1 mW), 
then at three meters away the field intensity would be 58 mV/m, or 95 dBuV/m.  
Now this is at 13.56 MHz, where there is no FCC RE limit. But the FCC Class B 
three meter limit at 30 MHz is something like 40 dBuV/m (someone jump in if I 
got this wrong) so that means the third harmonic must be 55 dB down from the 
fundamental.  That is certainly doable, but I wouldn't take it for granted 
without some sort of verification.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:22:50 -0500
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: [PSES] NFC (near field communication): FCC Approach?

Esteemed fellow listers --



I'm looking at a very low power, intermittent NFC card reader/writer. Alkaline 
battery operated device. NFC is only energized for 10 seconds at a time on 
demand, and range to read/write is less than 1 cm from the surface of the 
device.



I'm not an EE, but my simplified thought process is: "I can barely get this to 
couple magnetically with a card sitting on its surface. How could I possibly 
interfere with broadcast services or other equipment?"



So, oh wise ones, from your experience what actions with respect to FCC are 
reasonable to do? For example, radiated emissions testing seems to me like a 
total waste of time and money.



More technical details: maximum input power to the NFC chip is 17 mW. Chip is 
coupled to a flat 30mm x 40mm "NFC Ferrite Antenna (13.56 MHz)" that my EE 
describes as "zero gain." We're rating RF output as 0 mW (i.e., rounding off, 
it's a lot closer to 0 mW than to 1 mW).



Looking forward once again to interesting wisdom from this group.



Mike Sherman

Graco Inc.
 -


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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product 

Re: [PSES] Loop antenna theory

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Also...be careful of the feed cable orientation. The loop impedance doesn’t 
match the coax impedance so reflections will be considerable, along with 
currents on the outside of the cable shield and their resulting magnetic field. 
Ferrite beads can help.

Best Regards,
Mike

On Oct 12, 2018, at 5:14 PM, Ken Javor 
mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>> wrote:

Based on Ed’s post, I maybe should have qualified my response by saying it is 
applicable only when the loop is electrically short, meaning its circumference 
is short wrt a wavelength. At 100 MHz, that means the circumference is less 
than 30 cm, or one foot.  Based on the OP loop description, I pictured 
something may be an inch or two in diameter, which meets the criteria, but if 
it is much bigger than that, it is not a quasi-static source.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Edward Price mailto:e...@jwjelp.com>>
Reply-To: Edward Price mailto:e...@jwjelp.com>>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:00:27 +
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Conversation: [PSES] Loop antenna theory
Subject: Re: [PSES] Loop antenna theory

We have always thought that a single-turn, small loop antenna was one of those 
“pure and simple” models that you could always count on, like Ohm’s Law in a DC 
circuit. And then along comes some recent research, published in QEX in the 
last couple of months by Kai Siwiak(?), which talks about vertical plane loops 
actually having non-linear current distribution around the loop! (He gets very 
math intensive, too many nested integrals for me to follow, and he references 
some IEEE Antenna Transactions articles.) It’s a small factor, but still it’s a 
real thing. I don’t recall if it also affected horizontal plane loops, so maybe 
it is the result of interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field or maybe the 
Earth acting as a counterpoise.


Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 8:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Loop antenna theory

There is a simple equation for the axial field at the center of the loop as a 
function of distance from the loop, the loop radius, and of course, current.  
Current will depend on the impedance, and that in turn depends on loop 
inductance, which will depend on radius.  The radius isn’t listed below, but 
you could use the MIL-STD-461 CS114, RTCA/DO-160 section 20 or automotive BCI 
spec (can’t recall the number now) fixture to hold a current probe that 
measures the current induced in the fixture when driven by a 50 ohm source.

Then you would have all the info necessary to calculate the axial field at a 
distance the loop center.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>
Reply-To: Amund Westin 
mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:15:01 +0200
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Subject: [PSES] Loop antenna theory

I’m looking for some good and practical loop antenna theory.

Have a RF signal of +40dBm @ 100MHz and a self-made 1 turn semi-rigid coax loop 
with inner lead soldered to the shield. Theory (or rule of thumb) about the 
generated fields from such antenna are welcome.
Will use this loop antenna under RF immunity troubleshooting.

Thanks.

BR
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 
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/

Re: [PSES] IEEE Elections and Constitution

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi David,

I agree with you, and have already voted "NO". The NPSS has what I consider to 
be the best information on this topic, see

http://ieee-npss.org/proposed-ieee-constitutional-amendment/


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEEE Elections and Constitution

All,

I'm sure you all have been receiving emails from the IEEE about the upcoming 
elections and vote on the constitutional amendment. A link is below about it.

http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/election/2016_constitutional_amendment.html

I'd like to ask the people here their opinions about it. It's a major change in 
the structure of the IEEE.

My opinion are below.

I think there has been electioneering happening in favor of the proposal, and 
the consolidation of power in the BoD could eliminate checks on their ability 
to do as they wish. With this change it looks like the BoD approves candidates 
that would be elected to the board, thereby letting them choose their own 
membership with much less input from the societies and regions. So now a list 
of candidates would be published, and as few members have the time or ability 
to become familiar with these candidates, they will be rubber stamped. As the 
Board also controls the budget and bylaws, I see the elimination of checks on 
their power as a major problem. I also see too much corporate weasel words in 
the rebuttals to the objections that have been raised.  For example:

The proposal increases flexibility and agility in a complex and 
rapidly-changing world while providing for a governance structure that 
increases the members' voice in governing IEEE. The Board has taken 
considerable time and effort to review viable alternatives, including a review 
by external non-profit governance experts that concluded the risk of not 
changing was greater than under these changes. The Board identified these 
changes for the members' consideration as the most appropriate mechanism to 
achieve its strategic goals. Draft Bylaws, necessary to comply with changes in 
the Amendment if it is approved, are available on the Amendment webpage.

To me this reads as 'we want to change, and consultants we hired agreed with 
us'. It didn't address the opposition statement. That does not give me 
confidence in their sincere desire to improve IEEE instead of just making 
changes they wish to see.


David Schaefer
EMC Chief Technical Advisor
TÜV SÜD America Inc
Office: 651 638 0251
Cell: 612 578 6038
Fax: 651 638 0285

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  

Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Another typical construction style is the pan-type room, consisting of a single 
sheet of steel.

Edges are bent at 90 degrees (two 90 degree bends actually, to give rigidity, 
first bend ~5 mm from edge, second bend ~15 mm from first bend), gasketing 
material is placed between the (unpainted) exterior sides of the 15 mm wide 
faces, then these mating faces are clamped together with nuts and bolts. If you 
lay the sheet on the floor with the bends going up, it forms a pan 15 mm tall 
with a 5 mm wide lip.


Best Regards,
Mike

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

In a typical construction of particle board sandwiched between thin gauge steel 
facers, these are tied together at each edge where the clamping mechanism fit 
and hold the various pieces together. The idea is not a double-isolated room, 
like the old Lindgren double-electrically isolated screen rooms, but rather 
that for a conductor connected to the exterior, it doesn't penetrate the 
chamber wall, but only bonds to it.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Larry K. Stillings" 
>
Reply-To: "Larry K. Stillings" 
>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:47:37 -0400
To: >
Conversation: [PSES] Screened room mains filter
Subject: Re: [PSES] Screened room mains filter

All,

Another question I have is when a waveguide is added to a chamber wall, doesn't 
that bond the "outside" surface to the "inside" surface of the chamber, and 
therefore tie these "grounds" metal surfaces together?

I've never installed one.

Do they use a rubber gasket to keep the two metal surfaces inside and outside 
of the chamber isolated when installing a brass waveguide feed-through pipe 
penetration ?

I am just assuming this would defeat the purpose of having a 3 line filter.


Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
www.complianceworldwide.com 


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.


From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:00 AM
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 

Re: [PSES] Reliable means to attach thermocouple to object

[Heckrotte, Michael]

During college I had a summer job as an electronic technician for a company 
that made panel meters. Construction was two PCBs facing each other, one on 
top, one on the bottom, approximately 1" high by 2" wide meter movement on the 
front side, connector on the rear side. The layout of the two boards was 
coordinated so that tall components on one board would face short components on 
the other. Suffice to say, not much room for airflow...furthermore it had an 
unvented plastic case so couldn't even use the enclosure for heatsinking.

Anyway one unit failed when the series pass transistor for the voltage 
regulator (case style similar to TO-220, on the top board) fell out because it 
got so hot it melted the solder on its leads.

Apart from the obvious negative effect on the solder joint, it says something 
about the quality of the silicon that went into that batch of transistors. 
Maybe they should have put a taller component at that location on the bottom 
board, the meter could have continued working a while longer...or maybe not, 
the additional heat might have resulted in a fire.

Best Regards,
Mike


-Original Message-
From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 7:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reliable means to attach thermocouple to object

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your pointer to reference.  I will search them for further 
infomration.

Apart from the semiconductor overheating, I also concern the high operating 
temperature may bring negative effect to solder joints (become soft solder and 
cracked joint during vibration) and other components such as solid state 
capacitors and electrolytic capacitors, etc.

Regards.

Scott



> On 27 Feb, 2016, at 1:10 am, Brian O'Connell  wrote:
>
> UL and CSA have published specific procedures and material recommendations 
> for T/C use in Type Tests. Most NRTLs have some type of CIP program where a 
> sample power supply is sent to a company lab to verify test technique via TRF 
> data veracity.
>
> So the moral of the story is to use whatever technique that enables NRTL/NB 
> acceptance of your test data. In general, cyanoacrylates are my adhesive of 
> choice, along with Loctite 7452, where the attachment is only for limited 
> number of tests. Adhesion is only half of the problem. The other issues that 
> must be addressed are where the t/c is placed on the component, selection of 
> components, and test conditions.
>
> Tape is a poor choice, for many reasons, for most power supply components.
>
> " ...operating at a temperature of 120 degC..." has no meaning. Test 
> conditions and component ID? A Tj of 150deg does not mean that you are 
> allowed 150deg on the component body. TI, ST, and others have published some 
> good stuff on calculating component temps for power semiconductors. That 
> said, not unusual for normal operating temp of some components in some SMPS 
> to exceed 100deg. Of course, Arrhenius had something to say about this...
>
> In any case, just calculate power dissipation for the diode, then use to calc 
> the Tj. This will be your 'sanity check'.
>
> Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 8:53 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Reliable means to attach thermocouple to object
>
> I used to attach thermocouple to the object under temperature rise test using 
> Kapton tape.  Currently I looked at an SMPS that is operating at a 
> temperature of 120 degC under an ambient temperature of 20 degC.  The tape 
> seems not very reliable and rigid enough for long period of testing.  Is 
> there any other more suitable means to attach the thermocouple to such high 
> temperature point of interest?
>
> The spec quotes the max temperature of 150 degC.  Is it normal for the 
> rectifier to have such high operating temperature?
>
> 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) 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 

Re: [PSES] Best antenna for IEC 61000-4-3

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Many years ago I used a 3109XP for testing powered wheelchairs, needed 30 V/m 
down to 26 MHz. This antenna worked well up to 80/100 MHz or so, and does even 
better in a small chamber where the tips couple strongly to the walls (the 
antenna current increases and the impedances are such that the field strength 
at a 3 meter distance increased as well). This was successful with a 500 
watt-rated IFI tube amp (which actually put out ~1.2 kW in the 20-80 MHz range).

>From 80-1000 MHz, Ghery's point is well taken.

For Immunity you don't need a calibrated antenna, the calibration is based on 
the isotropic probe in the uniform plane.

Best Regards,
Mike


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 3:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Best antenna for IEC 61000-4-3

ETS/Lindgren shows two biconicals they claim will do 10 V/m with the headroom 
required for 80% AM with 100 Watts input: the 3109, and the 3109XP.
Not plugging ETS/Lindgren, just giving examples.

I think part of the problem with hybrid biconical-logperiodics is that the 
antenna is very deep, so that if the tip of the logperiodic is 3 meters from 
the uniform field area (UFA), then the low frequency portion is close to 5 
meters away. One way to fix that is to turn the antenna around, but if you are 
going to that trouble, you might as well have two different antennas, both 
optimized for their respective frequency ranges.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Doug Smith 
> Reply-To: 
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:06:51 -0800
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Best antenna for IEC 61000-4-3
>
> How about having an Amateur Radio Operator design an antenna optimized
> for the lower frequencies? Or design one, one's self. Then calibrate
> it against a known antenna. Should not be difficult.
>
> Doug
> University of Oxford
> 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 Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:44:07 -0800, "Ghery S. Pettit"
>  wrote:
> Talk to the antenna vendors. 20 V/m with 100 Watts is going to be tough.
>>
>> Ghery Pettit
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] Sent: Friday,
>> January 08, 2016 12:33 PM
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: [PSES] Best antenna for IEC 61000-4-3
>>
>> I'm looking for suggestions on the best antenna to use for Radiated
>> Immunity test according to IEC 61000-4-3 between 80Mhz and 1Ghz. (we
>> use a dual ridge horn above 1Ghz).
>>
>> Our goal is to find an antenna which is not too large, yet, will give
>> us good gain at the low end so we can generate 18-20V/m with a 100
>> watt amplifier.
>>
>> I've looked at the hybrid antennas and they just don't seem to have
>> enough gain at the low end. It appears that most labs that use this
>> type of antenna requires a 200 watt amp.
>>
>> Looks like a Log Periodic has much better gain and should work but we
>> don't want the radials to get too close to the floor. Plus, some of
>> these are nearly 2 meters long.
>>
>> Any suggestions or recommendations? What antenna do you use and how
>> much power do you required to achieve 10V/m with 80% AM modulation
>> without clipping??
>>
>> 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 the IEEE Product Safety 

Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test

[Heckrotte, Michael]

What about floating the DC supply with suitably rated isolation transformer and 
reversing relay, and building a cage around all three components?

The EUT chassis can then remain grounded.

Best Regards,
Mike

From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 7:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test

It would seem that you need a piece of test gear with a floating output that 
can have either end referenced.   Not sure I have seen anything like this.

Best, Doug.


From: Greg McClure
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 8:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Greg McClure
Subject: Re: [PSES] Dual polarity DC electric strength test


Doug, John,

We have discussed these options with our test equipment group and could build 
the test fixtures as suggested. However, we hesitate to use a reversing scheme 
with a switch or high voltage relay in manufacturing because it would require 
making the chassis of the product hot for one polarity and our practice has 
always been to keep the chassis/frame at ground potential to make it safer for 
the operator. We could build a cage that prevents access to any part of the EUT 
but that would require a major change to the design of the hi-pot station.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240 office
859 232 6882 fax

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Greg McClure 
gmccl...@lexmark.commailto:gmccl...@lexmark.com wrote:
All,

In reviewing IEC 62368-1 Clause 5.4.9.1 the test procedure states about halfway 
down the page:

The insulation is subjected to the highest test voltage as follows:

- by applying an a.c. voltage of substantially sine-wave form having a 
frequency of 50 Hz or 60 Hz; or

- by applying a d.c. voltage in one polarity for the time specified below and 
then repeat it in the reverse polarity.

Is anyone aware of a piece of test equipment that is capable of providing both 
polarities for the DC test on the high voltage output automatically or under 
software control?

The equipment we have in our lab only provides a single polarity, positive with 
respect to ground when in DC mode, which requires us to manually reverse the 
leads to perform the test. We would like to automate this without requiring the 
operator to manipulate the test leads.

We also do not want an operator to be involved in reversing the leads if we 
need to perform this as a routine test in manufacturing.

Response here or off-line would be greatly appreciated.


Gregory H. McClure
Lexmark Product Safety
859 232 3240tel:859%20232%203240 office
859 232 6882tel:859%20232%206882 fax

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

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

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely 
upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please 

Re: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Ed is the received field at a particular geometry. EdMax is the maximum value 
of Ed over a range of Rx heights, with Distance and Tx height held constant.

Regarding the complexity of the issue...

Certainly it is easy enough to calculate the entire geometry for any 
combination of Distance, Tx height and Rx height. The various hints in this 
thread help a great deal to simplify the visualization and calculations.

Things can get more interesting at the step of determining the Rx heights at 
which the maximum (in-phase) and minimum (out-of-phase) signal levels occur.

The numerical approach that I took kept things simple. Step the Rx height from 
1 to 4 meters (I chose a 0.01 m step size as this is on the order of the 
accuracy to which I could set the antenna height using reasonable care; the 
resulting resolution was quite adequate). Calculate Ed for each Rx height and 
store in an array. Find the maximum value of Ed; from the corresponding array 
index determine the Rx height.

The geometry for the in-phase conditions can then be calculated. The same 
process can be used to find EdMin for the anti-phase conditions.

An analytical solution could conceivably be found by taking the partial 
derivative of Ed with respect to Rx height, setting the derivative to zero, and 
solving for Rx height. At each solution, take the second partial derivative to 
determine which are maxima and which are minima. Find the highest maximum and 
the lowest minimum. The equations are going to get messy.

I used LabVIEW, which includes complex arithmetic. I can confidently say that 
it took me far less time to write the program, run it and print out graphs, 
than would be needed for me to derive and solve the proposed analytical 
equations.

A literature search shows that Manny Barron followed the same numerical 
approach, however he first derived analytical expressions (as functions only of 
real numbers) for the absolute values of the complex-number factors in the 
EdHoriz and EdVert equations. This enabled calculations to be performed in 
Excel.

Various references:

Smith, A. A., Jr., German, R., Pate, J., Standard site method for determining 
antenna factors, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC-24, 
pp. 316-322, no. 3, Aug. 1982.

Smith, A. A., Jr., German, R., Pate, J., Calculation of Site Attenuation from 
Antenna Factors, IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibilty, EMC-25, No. 3, August 
1982, pp 301-316

Barron, M., 3-D Surface Plot of Theoretical Normalized Site Attenuation 
Calculation by Spreadsheet Analysis, 2001 IEEE International Symposium on EMC, 
Seattle, WA. Pp 133-138

Best Regards,
Mike


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 2:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

In message
dm2pr04mb8955244ee213552f09d187498...@dm2pr04mb895.namprd04.prod.outlook
.com, dated Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Heckrotte, Michael
michael.heckro...@ul.com writes:

Perhaps someone with a postgraduate degree in mathematics could derive
an analytical formula, but as an engineer I used numerical methods by
calculating Ed over the range of Rx height variation.

You seem to be addressing a much more complex issue than I understood the 
enquirer to be asking about.

What is 'Ed'?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product

Re: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Things can get more interesting at the step of determining the Rx
heights at which the maximum (in-phase) and minimum (out-of-phase)
signal levels occur.

You mean constructive or destructive interference between the direct Tx-Rx 
path and the indirect path with one reflection?

Yes.

I agree it's a valid topic but the original enquirer didn't ask about it.

Actually, he did, in his first paragraph:

I'm trying to calculate the distances/angles at which a maximum (in phase) or 
minimum (anti-phase) signal would occur on an OATS/SAC.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

Re: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Perhaps someone with a postgraduate degree in mathematics could derive an 
analytical formula, but as an engineer I used numerical methods by calculating 
Ed over the range of Rx height variation. Then it was a simple matter to find 
EdMax and the height at which EdMax occurs. Since I was calibrating antennas 
and needed to get the right values I used complex arithmetic and the original 
Smith, German, Pate formulas. These have been republished in various antenna 
calibration standards.

Not sure how close scalar calculations that only consider phase difference but 
neglect the loss terms will be, however this might be a consideration depending 
on what you are going to use this for.

Seconding Gert's comment, the results are enlightening.

Best Regards,
Mike

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

Note that vertical waves invert in polarity on reflection with the ground 
plane, where horizontal polarized waves do not.
I remember that calculations were much easier when the send antenna is seen as 
if it were under the ground plane for the reflected wave
and above for the direct wave.
Also note that conclusions drawn (and they are spectacular) about the 
functioning of the OATS are correct but applicable
to a infinitely small radiate/receive antenna only. For larger antenna one 
might need to integrate over the size of both the antennas.

Gert Gremmen

Van: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 31 juli 2015 16:59
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: [PSES] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

Hi,

I'm trying to calculate the distances/angles at which a maximum (in phase) or 
minimum (anti-phase) signal would occur on an OATS/SAC.

I can do this simply when the TX and RX antennae are the same height above the 
reflecting surface as the point of reflection lies halfway between the two 
antennae, Distance_tx = Distance_rx. The direct and reflected paths can be 
calculated using simple geometry and the wavelength is given by lambda = c / f.

However when the height of the RX antenna is different to the height of the TX 
antenna then the horizontal distance to the reflection point is no longer 
equidistant. I can see that the ratio Height_tx / Distance_tx = Height_rx / 
Distance_rx remains the same because the angle of reflection is the same. But 
I'm left with two unknown Distance terms in the equation.

Is there a standard equation for calculating the reflection angle on an 
OATS/SAC with a varying height antenna? Or can someone give me some pointers to 
help me figure it out myself? I was so distracted thinking about this that I 
missed my turnoff whilst cycling home the other day.

I've tried Googling but maybe I'm not putting in the right search term.

Any assistance gratefully received.
Thanks and 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 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, 

Re: [PSES] Use of dual antenna masts in 3m chamber

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi Mac,

Yes, UL is doing this.

The key is to make the chamber wide enough so the antennas can be spaced far 
enough from each other and far enough from the absorbers to meet NSA, SVSWR and 
hybrid correlation as applicable. The required chamber size will depend on the 
quiet zone size, absorber design, selected antennas, etc.

Best Regards,
Mike

From: Elliott Mac-FME001 [mailto:fme...@motorolasolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:07 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Use of dual antenna masts in 3m chamber

Hello Group

I got a question from a lab thinking about performing dual antenna mast testing 
for radiated emissions in a 3m semi-anechoic chamber.

I have questions about doing this due to antenna coupling, especially below 1 
GHz, and also whether or not this configuration would pass CISPR SVSWR tests 
above 1 GHz since the antennas would be fairly close to the sidewalls.

Is anyone doing this successfully?


Best regards,

Mac Elliott

[] General Public
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

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

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] OTA and LTE Test Lab In SF Bay Area

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Tim,

There was no on behalf of to reply privately. UL in Fremont can assist you, 
my contact information is below.


Best Regards,
Mike

Michael Heckrotte, Principal Engineer
Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
UL Verification Services Inc., Consumer Technology Division

michael.heckro...@ul.commailto:michael.heckro...@ul.com
47173 Benicia Street
Fremont, CA 94538
Direct: (510) 771-1121
Cell: (408) 644-9843
Fax: (510) 661-0885
Main: (510) 771-1000

From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:57 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] OTA and LTE Test Lab In SF Bay Area

Hello Group,

I am looking for a test lab in the San Francisco Bay Area to perform both OTA 
and LTE testing.

How many labs are available who can do both? What is the typical lead time to 
get into the lab?

Anyone with info can message me privately so we don't start an advertising 
thread here.

Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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)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 emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

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

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] EFT Generator series inductance

[Heckrotte, Michael]

We use a bank of lead-acid batteries.

Haven't tried it, but if your test is going to run a long time you could 
probably connect an electronic power supply to keep the batteries charged.

A related issue is the residual pulse voltage at the power input port of the 
decoupling network (applies to both burst and surge). This cannot be reduced 
much below that which is allowed in the standards without compromising the 
wanted waveform.

Electronic power supplies may or may not tolerate this, depending on their 
output impedance at other than DC and protection circuitry.

I have heard a story of a dramatic interaction between a switching AC inverter 
and a surge generator, resulting in the destruction of the generator as a 
result of this residual energy pulse. Apparently one or the other can/will blow 
up, depending on which one has greater current/power capacity.

We use linear AC inverters and have never had this problem. A motor-generator 
setup is another solution.

Best Regards,
Mike

From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 7:48 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EFT Generator series inductance

I'll premise my reply by saying I could be wrong.. BUt...

My understanding to the Decoupling network in the CDN is to prevent common mode 
noise from leaving back to the power source. The concept is not to insert 
differential mode impedance. Any DM impedance there is is likely due to leakage 
inductance, and more than likely will be less than typical power wiring.

We meet this problem on some designs because they can't cope with even the LISN 
impedance, or the EMI room power line filters.

So, MHO is that the power supply you are testing doesn't have enough internal 
capacitance. In the real world, the wires leading from the power source to your 
power supply will have significant inductance, and you need to be able to 
function with that by making short term energy needs are available inside the 
power supply.

Next opinion please :-)

Derek Walton
L F Research

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.ukmailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
To: EMC-PSTC EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 9:37 am
Subject: Re: [PSES] EFT Generator series inductance

In message 20674C50F7E3794CA35FDCAD2B0E494027996D4A90@hubmail, dated

Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Kannan Dhamodaran 
kan...@india.tejasnetworks.commailto:kan...@india.tejasnetworks.com

writes:



I?m facing a problem while connecting 48V DC-DC converter, with 6A

input current, to EFT generator CDN. DC supply fed through CDN is

unstable and produces huge ripple that leads to my DC-DC converter

shutdown. This is observed while just powering ON and EFT not applied.



I think that some converter techniques can be intolerant of supply

inductance in the way you report. The incremental input impedance of the

converter can look like a capacitor in parallel with a negative

resistor, so oscillation might occur with an inductive supply.



The resistor is negative because the output current and voltage are kept

constant, so that if the supply voltage decreases, the input current has

to increase.



One to frighten the standards committee with!

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.ukhttp://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

If dictionaries were correct, we would only need one, because they would all

give the same information.

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



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

discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to

emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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 emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net

Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org



For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org

David Heald: dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto: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 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Amund,

This approach typically includes a set of design and/or installation guidelines 
and engineering justification as needed to establish a presumption of 
conformity with the Directive for the untested combinations. The reasonable 
number of tests, the number of full tests, the number of partial tests, and 
the particular guidelines are case-by-case and subject to discussion with and 
approval by the NB.

Best Regards,
Mike

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:53 AM
To: Heckrotte, Michael; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: SV: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

Mike

I see that approach.
Radio tests on one combination of A+B is approximate $10.000. So doing a 
reasonable number of combinations will be very costly. And we can run into 
problems that is caused by Item B's, which are made from other manufacturers ...

But we have done a successful test on Item A + B previously. We could measured 
the IF spectra on output port (coax cable) of old Item A model, and compared it 
with similar measurements (harmonics, spurious, freq. drift, etc) on the new 
Item A model. Then should at least the input signals to Item B be in the same 
range.

#Amund






-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Heckrotte, Michael [mailto:michael.heckro...@ul.com]
Sendt: 20. mars 2013 17:07
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

Amund,

Regarding your second paragraph, a cost-effective approach is to develop a Test 
Plan that specifies tests on a reasonable number of combinations, submit it to 
a Notified Body for review, then get the Notified Body Expert Opinion based on 
that plan and the test results.

Best Regards,
Mike

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

Thanks!
I see the 'intended function'  ... Agree that Item A should be handled as a 
radio product.
But it will be hard to make compliance to radio standards since the product 
Item, A is only a part of a total radio systems. Radio parameters according to 
ETSI / EN standards will not be able to check before a complete systems (Item A 
+ B) is running. These parameters will not be able to check before the complete 
system is running.

Let me just comment that Item A is made by a single manufacturer and Item B is 
made by manufacturer B and there are many possible Item B's on the market. 
Testing out all possible configurations of Itema A + Item B is considered 
unacceptable, since it will cover 95% of configurations which never will be 
used and it would also cost a huge amount of $$.

Thanks.

#Amund




-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sendt: 19. mars 2013 20:42
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

In message
3f0347ac6ed9504191f91f07629fbb0c01540...@thhsle14mbx2.hslive.net,
dated Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com
writes:

Product B isn’t a radio without product A attached, therefore product A
is part of a radio system and the RTTE Directive applies.

I would tentatively agree: in CENELEC long ago, the question was (half
seriously) raised as to whether a washing machine with a  microprocessor was a 
household appliance or ITE. The answer was  that the 'intended function' is 
definitive.

I think this can be extended to products like A and B, which are not intended 
to work alone but are components of a system. The 'intended function' of the 
system is a radio, so the component parts are 'radio'.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk SHOCK HORROR! Dinosaur-like 
DNA found in chicken and turkey meals John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: 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

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Amund,

Regarding your second paragraph, a cost-effective approach is to develop a Test 
Plan that specifies tests on a reasonable number of combinations, submit it to 
a Notified Body for review, then get the Notified Body Expert Opinion based on 
that plan and the test results.

Best Regards,
Mike

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

Thanks!
I see the 'intended function'  ... Agree that Item A should be handled as a 
radio product.
But it will be hard to make compliance to radio standards since the product 
Item, A is only a part of a total radio systems. Radio parameters according to 
ETSI / EN standards will not be able to check before a complete systems (Item A 
+ B) is running. These parameters will not be able to check before the complete 
system is running.

Let me just comment that Item A is made by a single manufacturer and Item B is 
made by manufacturer B and there are many possible Item B's on the market. 
Testing out all possible configurations of Itema A + Item B is considered 
unacceptable, since it will cover 95% of configurations which never will be 
used and it would also cost a huge amount of $$.

Thanks.

#Amund




-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sendt: 19. mars 2013 20:42
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] RTTE - Radio product or not

In message
3f0347ac6ed9504191f91f07629fbb0c01540...@thhsle14mbx2.hslive.net,
dated Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com
writes:

Product B isn’t a radio without product A attached, therefore product A
is part of a radio system and the RTTE Directive applies.

I would tentatively agree: in CENELEC long ago, the question was (half
seriously) raised as to whether a washing machine with a  microprocessor was a 
household appliance or ITE. The answer was  that the 'intended function' is 
definitive.

I think this can be extended to products like A and B, which are not intended 
to work alone but are components of a system. The 'intended function' of the 
system is a radio, so the component parts are 'radio'.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk SHOCK HORROR! Dinosaur-like 
DNA found in chicken and turkey meals John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: 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 
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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


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

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: