Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Patrick]

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 
wrote:

> Silly wild ass guess is what I mean when I use that acronym.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Ken Javor
>
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:29 AM
> *To: *
> *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 
> *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  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  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)
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750611954/mechanical-engineers-reference-book>,
> 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
> <https://www.sciencedire

Re: [PSES] dielectric strength question

[Patrick]

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  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 2.2 gives
> approximate values for some of the more common dielectric materials.
>
> Table 2.2. Dielectric strength of some common insulators
>
> *Material*   * Thickness (mm)* * Dielectric strength (kV/mm)*
> Air 0.2 5.75
> 0.6 4.92
> 1.0 4.36
> 10.02.98
> Mica0.01200
> 0.10115
> 1.0061
>
> Thanks, and best regards,
>
> 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
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] RS or RI Modulation?

[Patrick]

Is anyone interested in a discussion surrounding use of modulation during
radiated immunity/susceptibility?

I'm developing some new project-specific procedures for RI/RS.  My guess is
I'm not the first one to think deeply about modulation?  I would like to
gather insight from industry experts and practitioners.

I have resources to organize one or two online meetings and I would like to
encourage as many view points and anecdotes as possible.

if you are interested in contributing, or just want to drop in, let me know
and I'll add you to the invite.

I would like to have the zoom before end of January.  I look forward to
hearing from you.

Thank you.
Patrick

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] 10m chambers in Colorado?

[Patrick]

Hi Brian

Call Bob Polverari at (720) 745-6024.

Bob manages the Element Longmont Environments Lab.  Bob should be able to
get you the local Element EMC contact.

Good luck!
-Patrick

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023, 13:54 Ken Wyatt  wrote:

> As far as I know, NTS is now the only 3rd party test lab in Colorado with
> 10m chambers.
>
> Kenneth Wyatt
> Woodland Park, CO
> Sent from my iPhone.
>
> On Nov 8, 2023, at 14:25, Brian Gregory  wrote:
>
> 
>
>  Hello experts,
>
> once upon a time, there were several 10m chambers in Colorado, 3-4 north
> of Denver that I knew about.
> The only one I know should still exist is at NTS in Longmont;  the ones
> that were at Hp and StorageTek are long gone, I'm afraid.
>
> NTS is now owned by Element, with whom I've engaged to no effect (not even
> a bid from West coast or Chicago labs).
>
> So, do any know of functioning 10m EMC chambers in the Denver area?  Even
> Colorado Springs is acceptable at this point.
>
> thanks,
>
> Colorado Brian
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All
> emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>
> --
>
> 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:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] BBC news article re Li-ion batteries...

[Patrick]

Hi Ted

Thank you for the interesting read on NYC deliveries.  With the size of the
NYC food market, the economic forces must be immense.  Economic markets
have a way of creating solutions.  In this market, the first person with a
good solution will win big!  Seriously interesting problem!




On Fri, Jul 28, 2023, 06:39 Ted Eckert <
07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> I can give additional background on the reason why these fires have become
> common in New York. A large number of residents of New York City use
> delivery services for goods and food, such as Uber-Eats, DoorDash, and
> GrubHub. The adoption of these delivery services accelerated during the
> COVID lockdown, and it has become a major business in the city. The drivers
> for these services are contractors, not employees, and they get paid based
> on delivery without reimbursement for expenses. Driving a car is expensive,
> and finding parking is very hard. Delivery people who drive cars often lose
> money because they incur too many parking tickets. The delivery people have
> switched to battery-powered electric scooters and bicycles.
>
>
>
> These small electric vehicles are optimal for the delivery services since
> they can move around stopped traffic easily, and they can be brought inside
> the door of a building for a delivery, avoiding the risk of parking fines
> or the vehicle getting stolen. However, the batteries will only last for a
> few hours of use at most. The delivery people want the option of using the
> electric bicycle or scooter all day to try to make more money. The common
> solution is to remove the battery that came with the vehicle and replace it
> with a much larger after-market replacement. The delivery services do not
> pay well, so people look for the cheapest option they can find for a large
> battery. The regulations in the United States make it easy to order
> something online that has undergone no safety testing at all. The result is
> that a battery of dubious quality is placed in an electric bicycle by a
> person with dubious technical skills. No effort may have been made to match
> the charger with the battery. The battery may not be provided with the
> physical protection necessary to avoid damage during use. The question
> isn’t why there are so many fires, but why there aren’t more considering
> the circumstances.
>
>
>
> In the United States, there is reasonable indemnification of the test
> laboratories. The test laboratories accredited under the OSHA Nationally
> Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL) system have a reasonable level of
> protection. If a product carrying one of their certification marks fails,
> they can be sued, but it would be hard for that law suit to make it to
> court. The test laboratories will indicate that they tested samples on a
> given date and found those samples to meet the technical requirements of
> the standard at that time. Their report does not state that the samples
> were safe. It only states that they passed testing of specific
> requirements. The legal system places the responsibility for safety onto
> the manufacturer.
>
>
>
> The challenges that I see are that battery manufacturers willing to ignore
> safety might be willing to forge safety certification marks and documents.
> I strongly suspect you can buy product online and have them shipped to the
> UK or Europe with a Declaration of Conformity based on nothing. I suspect
> manufacturers will claim their products meet requirements without testing
> or documentation to back it up. If the manufacturer is located outside of
> Europe and has no legal presence there, they can sell on line and avoid
> responsibility. I strongly suspect that this is why there are stricter
> requirements for online importers and distributors in the new GPSR.
>
>
>
> The overall issue is not new. Insufficient testing, forged or missing
> documentation, irresponsible actors shipping from the far side of the world
> and the other problems have existed for a while. However, the large size of
> the batteries in these scooters and bicycles, and the common charging of
> them indoors in buildings with a large number of residents, creates an
> issue where a failure can jeopardize many more lives in a single incident.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
>
>
> *The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew Wilson | GBE 
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2023 2:11 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] BBC news article re Li-ion batteries...
>
>
>
> I thought this news article that was on the BBC TV broadcast bulletins 27
> th July might be of interest.
>
>
>
> “Batteries for e-bikes should be regulated in the same way as fireworks,
> heavy machinery or medical devices because of the fire risk they pose, a
> charity [UK based Electrical Safety First] has said”
>
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66304564
>
>
>
>
>
> *Disclaimer:**​*
>  This 

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[Patrick]

I've been busy last couple of days and only now seeing the additional convo
around measurement uncertainty(MU).   I like the comments.  Most folks
appear to be either agnostic or in support of MU for use as a quality and
confidence builder.  I notice there are no MU-deniers??

Ok, I'll break the ice..., I think MU is a waste.  It wastes a labs (and
engineers) most precious resource: time.   I also cannot think of a single
customer, internal or external, that was ever willing to pay for this
metric.  If your experience is different, hit reply-all with an anecdote.


Here's an idea:  If customers are willing to pay, then wouldn't they also
be willing to pay for any upgrade? Would they pay for a better MU for their
product test? Maybe a lab can offer two levels of MU service?  Similar to a
how a lab offers Data Report(lower cost) vs Accredited Formal Report(full
cost)?  Maybe call it... 'Certified GMO & MU-free test data'?  Hmm, I
should trademark that idea.


Another thought... a two question survey for customers.   This is for the
P owner, the one that pays the invoice...

#1) Ask if they are willing to pay 10% extra for each dB of uncertainty you
remove.

#2)  Ask them if lab can ignore MU for their product and give them 10%
discount.


Drop the response here in the mail list.


... all in good fun!

As always, I wish all the best for my friends in EMI world !


Patrick.

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 13:53 John Woodgate  wrote:

> Quite right. We don't need to add uncertainty to EMC measurements, because
> they are uncertain enough already.
>
> ==
> Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi
> (340 - 245 BC)
>
>
> On 2023-07-12 21:17, Elliott Martinson wrote:
>
> A fun thing to do if you have access to a semi-anechoic chamber is use
> lots of duct tape to make sure *absolutely* *nothing* changes between
> measurements other than a certain design change--one accepted long ago that
> already went into production, which cost $$$ (cable ferrites, wrapping
> cables multiple times through ferrites, various black
> magic/witchcraft-based ideas)--and end up with evidence that a pass at a
> compliance lab years ago was misattributed to an expensive design change
> instead of a new test setup. Even all the duct tape in the world, however,
> doesn’t bring the uncertainty to 0.
>
>
>
> The standard  almost addresses this as you’re supposed to (as best as I
> can remember) adjust the EUT’s position on the turntable relative to the
> cables, which are also to be individually adjusted (position/orientation)
> to maximize emissions for each frequency “of interest” (along with mast
> height if I remember right). Try that with a console with 20+ cables at
> even one frequency… with a simplifying assumption that a cable can either
> be laid out in state “A” or state “B”, that’s still over 1 million
> combinations. Good thing for the lab techs (and whoever pays the labs’
> hourly rates) to have some “uncertainty” cushion
>
>
>
> -Elliott
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Brian Kunde 
> *Reply-To: *Brian Kunde 
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:31 AM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions
>
>
>
> If I may pile on late, keep in mind that measurement uncertainty is Plus
> or Minus (±). Years ago when I was with a previous company, we had a
> buy/sell piece of junk product that we were selling with our company's
> brand/name on it. It was audited in Sweden as part of their
> surveillance program and it failed by 2dB.  The test lab said they could
> not say it FAILED because 2dB was within their measurement uncertainty, so
> we could continue to ship and sell this product in Sweden.
>
>
>
> Has anyone else ever experienced this?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 8:28 AM Brent DeWitt  wrote:
>
> Hi Brian.  It's not entirely clear which measurement range you are asking
> about, but I'll assume conducted emissions in the range of 150 kHz to 30
> MHz.
>
> Short answer: You can skip QP and Avg detection if the peak detection
> level is below the Avg detection limit.
>
> No margin is "required" to pass any emissions limit.  Zero dB margin is
> still passing.  That said, measurement uncertainty in that range is
> generally 3-4 dB, so having a passing margin greater than that gives you
> some confidence that a re-test at another time and lab will still pass.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> respectfully,
>
> Brent DeWitt
> Milford, MA
>
> On 7/8/2023 12:38 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
>
>
>
>  Hi

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[Patrick]

what year did measurement uncertainty become a required component of lab
accreditation?

was there massive radio interference at homes and in offices that suddenly
ceased the year after?

asking for a friend.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:28 Chas Grasso  wrote:

> When the concept of measurement uncertainty came about, the company I
> worked for at the time decided that
> irrespective of the technical niceties of statistics if emission exceeded
> the spec but was within the stated MU,
> then that was still considered a FAIL. The difficulty came when the
> emission PASSED but was within the MU.
> The company decided that - even if the testhouse would not declare the
> pass, the product still shipped.
>
> In other words - life as usual.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 9:13 AM Ken Javor 
> wrote:
>
>> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
>> ken.ja...@emccompliance.com  *
>> --
>>
>> Not in the commercial sector, but people try this argument all the time
>> when failing a MIL-STD-461 limit by less than 3 dB, on account of the
>> measurement system integrity check has to be within that margin.
>>
>>
>>
>> They *never* express such concerns when they pass within 3 dB of the
>> limit, however.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ken Javor
>>
>> (256) 650-5261
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Brian Kunde 
>> *Reply-To: *Brian Kunde 
>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:31 AM
>> *To: *
>> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions
>>
>>
>>
>> If I may pile on late, keep in mind that measurement uncertainty is Plus
>> or Minus (±). Years ago when I was with a previous company, we had a
>> buy/sell piece of junk product that we were selling with our company's
>> brand/name on it. It was audited in Sweden as part of their
>> surveillance program and it failed by 2dB.  The test lab said they could
>> not say it FAILED because 2dB was within their measurement uncertainty, so
>> we could continue to ship and sell this product in Sweden.
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone else ever experienced this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> The Other Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 8:28 AM Brent DeWitt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian.  It's not entirely clear which measurement range you are asking
>> about, but I'll assume conducted emissions in the range of 150 kHz to 30
>> MHz.
>>
>> Short answer: You can skip QP and Avg detection if the peak detection
>> level is below the Avg detection limit.
>>
>> No margin is "required" to pass any emissions limit.  Zero dB margin is
>> still passing.  That said, measurement uncertainty in that range is
>> generally 3-4 dB, so having a passing margin greater than that gives you
>> some confidence that a re-test at another time and lab will still pass.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> respectfully,
>>
>> Brent DeWitt
>> Milford, MA
>>
>> On 7/8/2023 12:38 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hi there,
>>
>>
>>
>> A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47.
>>
>> Does the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg and Peak.
>> When do peak readings trigger the need to report QP?  I'm pretty sure Part
>> 15 has AVG and QP limits listed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Next was what sort of margin is expected in order to pass CE emissions
>> requirements (CISPR 16 or 32)?  Memory serves that one wants 3dB of margin,
>> but memories can be imperfect!
>>
>>
>>
>> "Colorado" Brian
>> 720-450-4933
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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:
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher 
>> David Heald 
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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:
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail 

Re: [PSES] Good Morning - bad breakup?

[Patrick]

So,  it's true!

With most breakups, parties hire lawyers and split assets.  Since I'm both
an iNARTE Certified EMC Engineer and Member IEEE EMC Society, I wonder
which party will claim me?  ;-)

On the serious side, I wonder if employers will continue to value either
certificate.  Did they ever?


On Tue, Jan 10, 2023, 16:49 Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> The IEEE EMC Society has withdrawn from the Memorandum of Understanding
> with Exemplar Global.
>
>
>
> https://www.emcs.org/  (scroll down to “iNARTE MoU Status”)
>
>
>
> Best wishes for the New Year!
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Manny Barron 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2023 11:14 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Good Morning - bad breakup?
>
>
>
> I came across this publication a few days ago, see attached file, but I
> can't remember where I downloaded from.  Also I couldn't find any
> information about it on the EMC Society website:  https://www.emcs.org/
>
>
>
> So it appears to be true based on a 3rd party publication, but it would be
> best to hear it from the EMC Society or iNarte.
>
>
>
> Manny Barron
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:21 AM Patrick  wrote:
>
> Hi All -
>
>
>
> I read an article this weekend where IEEE EMC Society is breaking up with
> iNARTE.
>
> I struggle to find verification of this.
>
>
>
> Wondering if this is fake-news, or did they really end the relationship?
>
>
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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
>
> 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:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Good Morning - bad breakup?

[Patrick]

Hi All -

I read an article this weekend where IEEE EMC Society is breaking up with
iNARTE.
I struggle to find verification of this.

Wondering if this is fake-news, or did they really end the relationship?

-Patrick

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?

[Patrick]

Ken - once again, I agree with you.

I don't see any path where dual antenna or dual tone can be used for
thresholding and debug
Finding any susceptibility moves a test to "normal" mode.

My motivation comes from the last RS test I was in... (really, every RS
test I've ever been in!)
It was 8 to 10 hours of boredom with one or two minutes of excitement.

As an engineer, I can't help but ask, how can I make this more efficient?
Or...
Why spend 10 hours in test, when 2.5 hours might provide the same result?






On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:20 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> If the signal generators are inexpensive enough, more signals is more
> efficient. Rather than two antennas, I again suggest a log-spiral, where
> you get both polarizations at once.
>
>
>
> With any of these “hurry up” schemes, if you see a susceptibility, you
> will need to step back and use the traditional technique.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Javor
>
> (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:14 PM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> yes, agree.
>
> two tones and single antenna is promoted by AR.  So what is next level
> improvement?
>
>
>
> Can we speed tests even more with two antennas, simultaneous V ?
>
>
>
> Wondering if 2x antenna plus 2x tone will cut test time by 4x.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022, 09:08 Ken Javor  wrote:
>
> The AR approach of multiple frequencies at the same time from a single
> antenna seems simpler.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Javor
>
> (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:01 AM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> Hi Bill and everyone-
>
> I am grateful for the insights.
>
>
>
> I have two goals- first is two antennas for radiated emissions.
>
> Second goal is dual antenna for radiated susceptibility(i.e. immunity ).
>
> The insights on emissions are a great start.
>
>
>
> Has anyone attempted dual antennas for susceptibility/immunity?
>
>
>
> -Patrick.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:52 PM Bill Owsley <
> 00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
> No clue as to what your thinking is about using multiple antennas in
> testing.
> We used 4 masts, high band and low band at 3 m and 10 m..
> NSA came out fine.  Been doing it for about 3 or more decades.
> If ya gots the money, spend it on more hardware.
> One radiated run in about 30 minutes cover high and low band at 3m and 10m.
> All interesting freq noted for followup.
>
>
> ps. Even tho' all document the azimuth and altitude, no one uses it later.
> Useless info to fill out.  Every test setup is different, even using the
> same equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 2, 2022, 06:10:34 PM EDT, David Schaefer <
> 12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Prescans you could do vertical and horizontal at the same time, but the
> problem with final data is you need to maximize. The worst turntable angle
> for V and H is probably different, so you can’t maximize the antenna height
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> There is also the issue of NSA – was NSA data taken with the 2nd antenna
> and mast in the chamber? And with them both moving how will that affect
> results?
>
>
>
> I heard the Keysight team in California was planning on taking some data
> to investigate, but that was pre-covid so it probably got put on the back
> burner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080c99d407143]
>
> *David Schaefer**​*
>
> Technical Manager
>
> Element Materials Technology
>
> 9349 W Broadway Ave
>
> Brooklyn Park
>
> ,
>
> MN
>
> 55445
>
> ,
>
> United States
>
> O *+1 612 638 5136*
>
> ext. 10461
>
> *david.schae...@element.com* 
>
> www.element.com
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080ce3bbe0cd4]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080cd97345b81] <https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080c8926e77f2]
> <https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
>
> *From:* Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 2, 2022 3:59 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during R

Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?

[Patrick]

yes, agree.
two tones and single antenna is promoted by AR.  So what is next level
improvement?

Can we speed tests even more with two antennas, simultaneous V ?

Wondering if 2x antenna plus 2x tone will cut test time by 4x.

On Fri, May 6, 2022, 09:08 Ken Javor  wrote:

> The AR approach of multiple frequencies at the same time from a single
> antenna seems simpler.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Javor
>
> (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:01 AM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> Hi Bill and everyone-
>
> I am grateful for the insights.
>
>
>
> I have two goals- first is two antennas for radiated emissions.
>
> Second goal is dual antenna for radiated susceptibility(i.e. immunity ).
>
> The insights on emissions are a great start.
>
>
>
> Has anyone attempted dual antennas for susceptibility/immunity?
>
>
>
> -Patrick.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:52 PM Bill Owsley <
> 00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
> No clue as to what your thinking is about using multiple antennas in
> testing.
> We used 4 masts, high band and low band at 3 m and 10 m..
> NSA came out fine.  Been doing it for about 3 or more decades.
> If ya gots the money, spend it on more hardware.
> One radiated run in about 30 minutes cover high and low band at 3m and 10m.
> All interesting freq noted for followup.
>
>
> ps. Even tho' all document the azimuth and altitude, no one uses it later.
> Useless info to fill out.  Every test setup is different, even using the
> same equipment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 2, 2022, 06:10:34 PM EDT, David Schaefer <
> 12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Prescans you could do vertical and horizontal at the same time, but the
> problem with final data is you need to maximize. The worst turntable angle
> for V and H is probably different, so you can’t maximize the antenna height
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> There is also the issue of NSA – was NSA data taken with the 2nd antenna
> and mast in the chamber? And with them both moving how will that affect
> results?
>
>
>
> I heard the Keysight team in California was planning on taking some data
> to investigate, but that was pre-covid so it probably got put on the back
> burner.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080c99d407143]
>
> *David Schaefer**​*
>
> Technical Manager
>
> Element Materials Technology
>
> 9349 W Broadway Ave
>
> Brooklyn Park
>
> ,
>
> MN
>
> 55445
>
> ,
>
> United States
>
> O *+1 612 638 5136*
>
> ext. 10461
>
> *david.schae...@element.com* 
>
> www.element.com
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080ce3bbe0cd4]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080cd97345b81] <https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
>
> [image: cid:18099e0080c8926e77f2]
> <https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
>
> *From:* Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 2, 2022 3:59 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of Element Materials
> Technology. *DO NOT* click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if
> you are in any doubt about this email.
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have seen that too at HP in Sacramento, CA. One antenna was in Vertical
> polarization and the other in Vertical. In my personal opinion, it is Ok
> for pre-scan, but I think it is complicated for the final scan. I think you
> still have to test each frequency and polarization one by one.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Dieter Paasche
>
>
>
> 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:* Manny Barron 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2022 4:46 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This e

Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?

[Patrick]

Hi Bill and everyone-
I am grateful for the insights.

I have two goals- first is two antennas for radiated emissions.
Second goal is dual antenna for radiated susceptibility(i.e. immunity ).
The insights on emissions are a great start.

Has anyone attempted dual antennas for susceptibility/immunity?

-Patrick.

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 10:52 PM Bill Owsley <
00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> No clue as to what your thinking is about using multiple antennas in
> testing.
> We used 4 masts, high band and low band at 3 m and 10 m..
> NSA came out fine.  Been doing it for about 3 or more decades.
> If ya gots the money, spend it on more hardware.
> One radiated run in about 30 minutes cover high and low band at 3m and 10m.
> All interesting freq noted for followup.
>
> ps. Even tho' all document the azimuth and altitude, no one uses it later.
> Useless info to fill out.  Every test setup is different, even using the
> same equipment.
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 2, 2022, 06:10:34 PM EDT, David Schaefer <
> 12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
> Prescans you could do vertical and horizontal at the same time, but the
> problem with final data is you need to maximize. The worst turntable angle
> for V and H is probably different, so you can’t maximize the antenna height
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> There is also the issue of NSA – was NSA data taken with the 2nd antenna
> and mast in the chamber? And with them both moving how will that affect
> results?
>
>
>
> I heard the Keysight team in California was planning on taking some data
> to investigate, but that was pre-covid so it probably got put on the back
> burner.
>
>
>
> <https://bit.ly/3gt02wc>
>
>
> David Schaefer​
> Technical Manager
> Element Materials Technology
> 9349 W Broadway Ave
> Brooklyn Park
> ,
> MN
> 55445
> ,
> United States
> O *+1 612 638 5136*
> ext. 10461
> *david.schae...@element.com* 
> www.element.com
>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
> <https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
> <https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
>
> *From:* Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 2, 2022 3:59 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of Element Materials
> Technology. *DO NOT* click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if
> you are in any doubt about this email.
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have seen that too at HP in Sacramento, CA. One antenna was in Vertical
> polarization and the other in Vertical. In my personal opinion, it is Ok
> for pre-scan, but I think it is complicated for the final scan. I think you
> still have to test each frequency and polarization one by one.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Dieter Paasche
>
>
>
> 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:* Manny Barron 
> *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2022 4:46 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Back around 1998 when I worked for Tandem Computers (purchased by Compaq
> in 1998, then purchased by HP in 2001), I visited the HP EMC Lab in
> Washington state (I went to see their 10m chamber since we were thinking
> of getting a 2nd 10m chamber, which we did).
>
>
>
> Well they used two antennas connected to two separate receivers for their
> RE tests. Can't remember if it was horizontal and vertical OR if it was two
> frequency ranges (30-300MHz and 300-1000MHz), but it was definitely two
> antennas and two receivers.  At that time they were also experimenting with
> 4 antennas but I think still 2 receivers, but don't know if that was
> actually implemented. They wrote their own custom test software to handle
> the multiple antenna / receiver combinations.  The guy who ran t

[PSES] Dual antenna during RE test ?

[Patrick]

Hi All -

I'm wondering if there is any academic or practical literature on the use
of two antennas during an emissions test.  For example, research or
experiments on the use of two DRH's above 1.0 GHz, side-by-side, one
vertical, the other horizontal.

Have any researchers looked at this?
Are there any experimental studies?

Thank you.
-Patrick

-

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] UN Regulations for Vehicles

[Patrick Lawler]

Hi David,

Thank you.  Upon further digging, I realized the new set of regulations
came about when I wasn't involved in regulatory issues.  Normally, I would
have known about the changes.

We'll be selling a subassembly to a vehicle manufacturer.  Although they
may want test results, I don't think  certification is something we'll be
dealing with.  Good to know, regardless.

Have a good week,
Patrick

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:21 PM David Schaefer 
wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
>
>
> That is what is more commonly known as UN ECE Regulation 10, or Reg 10.05
> (fifth edition). For EMC it has pretty much replaced the EU directive
> (2004/104/EC being the most recent) for EMC for automobiles.
>
>
>
> Since it is a UN doc more than just the EU are signed onto it – I don’t
> have the list in front of me, but I think AS/NZS, South Korea, and South
> Africa may use it among others. I don’t know their regulatory requirements
> though.
>
>
>
> One of the biggest things to be aware of – immunity related devices as
> defined in the regulation require certification – no self declaration like
> for CE. You need a Technical Service as designated by an Approval
> Authority. Each country has an Approval Authority – e.g. NSAI in Ireland,
> Ministry of Transpot in the Czech Republic, etc.
>
>
>
> Testing has to be witnessed by someone approved by a Technical Service,
> and post test there is certification paperwork – conformity of production
> is a big deal and covered in a clause in ECE R10.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> <https://bit.ly/3gt02wc>
>
>
> David Schaefer​
> Technical Manager
> Element Materials Technology
> 9349 W Broadway Ave
> Brooklyn Park
> ,
> MN
> 55445
> ,
> United States
> O *+1 612 638 5136* <+1%20612%20638%205136>
> ext. 10461
> *david.schae...@element.com* 
> www.element.com
>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
> <https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
> <https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
>
> *From:* Patrick Lawler [mailto:plawl...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2022 5:36 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] UN Regulations for Vehicles
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of Element Materials
> Technology. *DO NOT* click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if
> you are in any doubt about this email.
>
> Good Friday afternoon,
>
>
>
> I’m reviewing a customer specification for EMC requirements for the
> battery charger used in their electric vehicle.  They’re calling out a
> document that sounds official, yet I have not heard of before.  With the
> emblem of the United Nations on the title page, the title is:
>
>
>
> ‘Concerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations
> Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted
> and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal
> Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations
> Regulations’
>
>
>
> The document number is ‘E/ECE/324/Add.9/Rev.5/Amend.2’, and a copy can be
> found at:
> https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2019/E-ECE-324-Add.9-Rev.5-Amend.2.pdf
>
>
>
> Has anyone worked with this before?  How does it compare to EU Directives
> for automobiles?  What countries are requiring it?
>
>
>
> I’ve worked with EMC for tabletop equipment in different industries, but
> this is my first time in the automotive industry. I'm anticipating a very
> deep rabbit hole.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Patrick Lawler
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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 Dou

[PSES] UN Regulations for Vehicles

[Patrick Lawler]

Good Friday afternoon,

I’m reviewing a customer specification for EMC requirements for the battery
charger used in their electric vehicle.  They’re calling out a document
that sounds official, yet I have not heard of before.  With the emblem of
the United Nations on the title page, the title is:

‘Concerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations Regulations
for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be
Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of
Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations Regulations’

The document number is ‘E/ECE/324/Add.9/Rev.5/Amend.2’, and a copy can be
found at:
https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2019/E-ECE-324-Add.9-Rev.5-Amend.2.pdf

Has anyone worked with this before?  How does it compare to EU Directives
for automobiles?  What countries are requiring it?

I’ve worked with EMC for tabletop equipment in different industries, but
this is my first time in the automotive industry. I'm anticipating a very
deep rabbit hole.

Thank you,
Patrick Lawler

-

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] Ignition suppress ion question

[Patrick]

"springs" to mind  ha!

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:06 AM Charles Grasso 
wrote:

> Lots of shielding/filtering springs to mind
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:52 AM Lfresearch <
> 00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
>> 00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org
>>
>> Good morning folks
>>
>> I have a question or two about suppressing the EMC ramifications of a
>> multi circuit ignition system
>>
>> Does anyone have a good grasp on the various ways of suppressing noise
>> that might couple into a VHF radio some 10 to 12 feet away. I’m trying to
>> weigh benefits vs the pain of implementing the fix.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Derek.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> -
>> 
>> 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 
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher: 
>> David Heald: 
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> Dish Technologies
>
>  (c) 303-204-2974
>
> (w) 303-706-5467
>
> (h) 303-317-5530
>
> (e ) charles.gra...@dish.com
>
> (e2) chasgra...@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://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 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] Job Opening - Amazon

[Patrick]

Hi All

My team has a brand new opening for an EMC/EMI Engineer in Redmond. Check
this job number.  It's Ok to DM me, email below.

EMC/EMI Engineer

https://www.amazon.jobs/en/jobs/1898673/emi-emc-engineer-antenna-systems


Thank you.

Patrick Conway

prcon...@amazon.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] Pure silicate paint as shielding for work areas

[Patrick]

Ken-
agree with you on all points.

Charles-
is there any way to get a paint sample and run a test?  I can imagine a
stepped approach of ...apply one coat, let it dry, measure SE, apply
another coat, repeat...

seam treatment is a head-scratcher.   there are tried and true methods for
existing shield technology, but this would be something new.  need a
creative method to experiment and iterate into a solution.  Hmm

Patrick


On Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 09:29 Ken Javor  wrote:

> Obvious observations.
>
> Shielding effectiveness depends on the paint conductivity after applied
> and dried.  The solid content by volume needs to be that which achieves the
> desired cured/dried conductivity.
>
> Next, the surface conductivity will facilitate some degree of shielding
> effectiveness.  But you didn’t state the goal.  If one coat doesn’t deliver
> the required conductivity, then maybe multiple coats might, but whether
> that is practical totally depends on the ratio of single coat SE to desired
> SE.
>
> And finally, chamber SE is high-side bounded by the SE calculable from the
> paint conductivity. All seams, apertures, and penetrations must be handled
> in a manner to protect the SE inherent in the paint conductivity.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Grasso, Charles" 
> *Reply-To: *"Grasso, Charles" 
> *Date: *Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:05:14 -0700
> *To: *
> *Subject: *[PSES] Pure silicate paint as shielding for work areas
>
> Hello all,
>
> We are considering the use of  pure silicate paint to shield a room,  Does
> anyone have experience with using a paint like this in this sort of
> application?. Obviously all the normal
> rules apply for ensuring a contiguous bond - I have only a limited idea on
> the difficulties that
> requirement will entail!  FYI, the "spec" does not specify % by volume of
> the solid content. I am guessing that 50-70% by volume should be sufficient
> - does that make sense?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> --
> Charles Grasso
> Dish Technologies
>
>  (c) 303-204-2974
> (h) 303-317-5530
> (e ) charles.gra...@dish.com
> (e2) chasgra...@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://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 
> 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.org
> 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 


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] Job Posting

[Patrick]

Hi Ken -
Thanks for confirming.
I also received several DM saying the same, the message got through.
I still have not seen it, so maybe my gmail is blocking.

Thanks again to everyone who replied.
Have a great day !

-Patrick

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:15 AM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> I saw one. Something about a compliance manager for a company selling into
> the EU, or all over, or some such.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> ------
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:20:52 -0800
> *To: *
> *Subject: *[PSES] Job Posting
>
> i'd like to post a job opening, but can't seem to get through.
>
> .. this is second attempt to get a message onto the forum.
> message sent yesterday not showing in my inbox...
>
> does anyone see a message from me, from yesterday, with a job posting?
>
> -Patrick
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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 
> 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.org
> 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 


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] Job Posting

[Patrick]

 i'd like to post a job opening, but can't seem to get through.

.. this is second attempt to get a message onto the forum.
message sent yesterday not showing in my inbox...

does anyone see a message from me, from yesterday, with a job posting?

-Patrick

-

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] Job Opening

[Patrick]

We are designing brand new hardware and systems that deliver internet to
the world.



As everyone on *this list knows, navigating world-wide regulations for EMC,
Wireless and Product Safety are key to our success.  So, should be no
surprise that...



*We have an opening for a Sr. Product Reg Compliance Engr.*

https://www.amazon.jobs/en/jobs/1671057/sr-product-reg-compliance-engineer-customer-terminal




It’s OK to reply to me, or reply directly to the job website.

I'll answer all questions that I can, and when I don’t know I’ll put you in
touch with the right person.



Thx

Patrick

(work email) prcon...@amazon.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] Basic Schematic Creation Software

[Patrick Lawler]

Hi Brian,

I wasn't aware of the 'Dia' software until Brent mentioned it.  While
looking through the developers site, I saw there are additional symbol
packs already designed that may meet your needs:
http://dia-installer.de/shapes/index.html.en

Regards,
Patrick Lawler

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:53 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:
>
>
> I am in need of a simple program for creating simple schematics of Safety 
> Circuits in a variety of States.  I envision something that I can easily 
> insert door switches, relays, button switches, e-stops, fuses, circuit 
> breakers, etc..  It would be nice if once laid out, I can simply click to 
> change the state of a switch or relay to represent different states of a 
> Safety Function.  And then save it off in .pdf format.
>
> Does anyone know of some software that will do this for a low cost or maybe 
> Free?  This is something we will use only a few times a year.
>
> Thanks to all in advance for any information.
>
> Regards,
> The Other Brian
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 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 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] Conducted emission - AC line filters makes it worse

[Patrick]

Hi Amund

This sounds like a very interesting problem.  Likely many people will have
advice.  Maybe get lucky and someone will have had this exact same problem.

I'd like to help if I can.  Do you have more information on the failure?
What test standard and test method did you use?  How much over the limit?
What filters were used and how were they connected?

It could be an installation of good filters, but not wired for the emission
type.  Also could be wrong filter type for problem?

Very interesting.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 2:58 AM Amund Westin  wrote:

> A 3-phase product has three internal AC driven devices.
> The product fails on Conducted emission. When connecting AC filters to
> each internal AC driven devices, the emission gets even worse.
>
> Any clue about this phenomena? Is it some kind of impedance mismatch
> which derate the filters performance?
>
> 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 <
> 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 
> 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] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

[Patrick]

Hi Michael

I'm glad to hear more folks are thinking through the whole system, and
whole environment, not just piece-parts.   A component approach to
requirement allocation makes sense when you procure a component.  When you
procure or integrate the entire system then the standard approach needs new
thinking.  Sometimes that's simply asking "why?".  The why question brings
out history and evolution.  I find these to be invaluable in determining
next- steps.   Very glad to open these questions and have input from folks
like Ken who helped drive years of evolution.

Our company also worries about end-to-end performance.  We delivery
receivers and antennas, sometimes integrated, sometimes as piece parts.  We
carry the whole burden of RF front end performance.  Questions like the
ones you ask matter to us.  They are carefully considered and discussed in
our team meetings.   We find our "customer" appreciates that we are
thinking more about helping the war fighter accomplish their mission and
return home than about pushing requirements out to someone else.  Glad to
know we are not the only ones!  Keep up the good work!

I've enjoyed this thread and look forward to more.
-Patrick.

On Fri, May 29, 2020, 9:08 PM Ken Javor  wrote:

> Well, you may be in the uncommon position of procuring a brand new IFF
> transponder for your aircraft, and if that is the case, then as an
> integrator you can levy any spec you choose, but in general, the military
> buys certain models built by outfits such as Rockwell Collins (or whatever
> they are called today) and the avionics manufacturer is building to a
> single spec – MIL-STD-461 – regardless of what the end item platform might
> someday be. Few receivers are built for one particular platform, if only
> because the point of a radio is to establish a communication link,  so that
> it ends up on multiple platforms.
>
>
>
> In your example of IFF, with transmit and receiver frequencies close
> together and no inherent filtering from the antenna itself, a certain
> amount of isolation has to be built into the radio itself. Much like a
> radar has to be able to reject any close-in reflection or crosstalk of the
> transmit signal into the receive path, in order to be able to receive the
> desired reflection from far away.
>
>
>
> But in term of setting a limit, the required CS103/104/105 reject ratio in
> the radio’s tunable range but outside the receiver bandwidth is 80 dB above
> MDS.  That is pretty good performance.  And out-of-band to the radio, with
> a limit at 0 dBm, you are looking at on-the-order-of 100 dB of rejection
> (MDS ~ -100 dBm). It seems to me that it is reasonable to place any
> required isolation beyond that on the integrator, either through the
> out-of-band rejection of the antenna (if the threat is far enough away from
> the antenna’s design  frequency range), and/or if a broadcast pattern comm
> type antenna, placement so as to achieve antenna-to-antenna shading, or the
> use of antennas at higher frequencies with some sort of waveguide, even if
> it is just waveguide-to-coax conversion, providing for rejection of lower
> frequencies through waveguide-beyond-cutoff performance, or through
> operational controls or blanking.  The integrator has various tools at his
> disposal, and the placing of 80 – 100 dB of isolation on the receiver
> itself seems quite sufficient a burden.
>
>
>
> Also if the EME is from a carrier deck, consider that at the same time the
> EME is that intense, the signal to be received from the ship is much higher
> than MDS, so that just plain old-fashioned frequency-independent
> attenuation can and will be employed by an AGC circuit to keep the intended
> signal in the linear range of the IF strip, and maybe even out front of the
> mixer depending upon how sophisticated the design.
>
>
>
> If someone is trying to impose an untailored CS103/104/105 on a radio in
> terms of the desired signal being MDS, while tailoring the reject band
> limit based on a stringent -464 EME, I’d say they need to sharpen their
> pencils some.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Javor
>
> (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> *From: *Michael Viau 
> *Date: *Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:22 PM
> *To: *Ken Javor 
> *Cc: *"EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org" 
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers
>
>
>
> Hey Ken, thanks for jumping in.
>
> I realize that I’m talking to someone who knows more about this subject
> than I ever will, so please read this as if someone with the humility of
> Piglet wrote it.
>
>
>
> For some clarity, I am an integrator and we usually have a good idea of
> the end product we are integrating into when we are procuring the receiver.
> As well as at least a rough idea of 

Re: [PSES] Unreasonable Design Penalties on Receivers

[Patrick]

Hi Michael
I've also wondered about this series of tests and relationship to -464.

I think this breaks down to two considerations- a) the environment is
friendly or not, and b) the receiver is expected to operate or just survive.

My conclusion is that the CS10x tests are examining the receivers ability
to operate as expected in a non-contested environment.  That environment
contains other friendly tx/rx comm channels and the receiver under test
needs to be able to reject those other friendly comms and operate without
error.

Whereas the -464 environments represent a different environment that is
either contested or non-friendly, or maybe just the top deck of an Aircraft
carrier.   In that case the receiver under test "might" not be expected to
operate, but is expected to survive and recover.

So for the first case we test with standard levels expected to be seen in a
friendly environment.  And for the second case we blast the heck out of it
to see if it survives!!

I'm not an expert, just trying to figure this out myself...

-Patrick

On Thu, May 28, 2020, 9:31 PM Michael Viau  wrote:

> Can someone help me circle this square?
>
> MIL-STD-461 (E-G) mentions in the Appendix for CS103/4 that we shouldn’t
> attempt to apply external levels like 200 V/m to this test. Even when
> accounting for antenna characteristics they mention that it would place
> unreasonable design penalties on the receiver.
> But it doesn’t seem unreasonable in light of the 464 EME requirements,
> which even go so far as to recommend lab testing for verification.
> I understand why we may want to leave CS103 as its own hunt for intermods,
> but for antenna connected receivers there seems like no better test than
> CS104 for verifying the subsystem would be operational in a 464 Table X
> environment.
> I’m also aware that 464 recommends in-line filters to meet the needs for
> these methods but it’s easier to find a good and airworthy 20 dB filter
> than it is a 60 dB one. So it seems totally reasonable to at least test
> CS104  to the expected EME levels to find your vulnerabilities/thresholds
> and get the filter based on those.
>
> What am I missing here? Why is the wording so benevolent to the equipment
> manufactures in this case?
>
> Thanks! And long time reader, first time poster.
> Michael
>
> -
> 
> 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 
> 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] ESD network schematic

[Patrick]

As my son says...
"...  but Dad, that was back in the 1900's..."

:)

-Patrick (Resident Old Guy !!)


On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:32 PM doug emcesd.com  wrote:

> It is obviously jistvair discharge only. I suspect this is from the 70s,
> maybe earlier. The output rise time will be slow further indicating a very
> early design when they thought ESD had a ten ns risetime.
>
> Doug
> Sent from my iPhone
> IPhone: 408-858-4528
> Office: 702-570-6108
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Website: http://dsmith.org
> --
> *From:* Richard Georgerian 
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2019 20:11
> *To:* emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
> *Subject:* [PSES] ESD network schematic
>
>
> Greeting colleagues,
>
>
>
> I am trying to find out what standard or document the below ESD discharge
> network/ESD gun circuit comes from. It does not appear to come from either
> IEC 61000-4-2 or the MIL Standard.
>
> The Rs and Cs are the discharge network for a specific ESD waveform. The
> LS looks like the internal inductance of the ESD gun; the CH looks like the
> capacitance (maybe the parasitic capacitance of the ESD gun). The LH looks
> like the inductance of the ESD tip and the RH looks like the limiting
> resistor that is part of the ESD tip circuit.
>
> I cannot put a date as to when this schematic was made, so it could be
> something recent or from many years ago.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
> Richard Georgerian
>
> Applications 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 <
> 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 
> 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 
> 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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>
-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check

[Patrick]

Once again, I agree completely!

For large platforms (e.g. Aircraft Carrier, intercontinental bomber, etc.)
the exact distribution may not be known for a particular equipment bay.

For many smaller platforms (e.g. helicopters, UAVs, controlled munitions,
etc. ) the power distribution is exactly known.

So both cases exist.  It is risky to assume one or the other, and
worthwhile to research this detail within the specification. If any
uncertainty remains, it's always good to discuss with your customer.


On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> For the record the reason that MIL-STD-461 forbids using shielded power
> wires for EMI testing is because even if a particular load gets shielded
> power from the point–of-distribution (circuit breaker or fuse box), that
> doesn’t means the electrical power bus between the point-of-generation and
> distribution is shielded. In the vast majority of cases, it is not.  So it
> is cheating to shield power between test sample and LISN and pretend that
> emissions can’t leak out, or that strong fields can’t couple directly to
> power lines.
>
> Only on those platforms where power is shielded from point-of-generation
> to point-of-distribution and from there to the load is it possible to
> tailor the standard and allow shielded power for EMI testing. Another
> possibility is unshielded power from point-of-generation to
> point-of-distribution, or even elsewhere, then brick wall filtering and
> shielding from that point on. But that isn’t a typical installation, either.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:52:00 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor 
> *Cc: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> yes, agree completely:  customers and suppliers can agree to tailor where
> it makes sense... and that tailoring can be contained within the contract.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ken Javor 
> wrote:
>
> Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise
> contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be
> shielded during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring
> diagrams.
>
> This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below
> and that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in
> “F” and retained in “G.”
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note
> that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual
> installation and usage.  If your installation requirements include shields
> on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the
> procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test
> configurations meet expectations.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) <
> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
> That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
> James
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor 
> *Sent:* 15 January 2019 15:34
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to
> electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power
> developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with
> dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft
> platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run
> some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you
> cited, but the ac power would not.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 -
> *To: *
> *Subject: *[PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> Hello all,
>
> MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly
> carrying “primary power” i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be
> separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test
> setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall
> not be shielded.
>
> I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of
> the standard are most helpful.
>
> My interpretation is that:
>
>
>1. this only applies to AC power b

Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check

[Patrick]

yes, agree completely:  customers and suppliers can agree to tailor where
it makes sense... and that tailoring can be contained within the contract.



On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ken Javor 
wrote:

> Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise
> contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be
> shielded during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring
> diagrams.
>
> This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below
> and that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in
> “F” and retained in “G.”
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> ------
> *From: *Patrick 
> *Reply-To: *Patrick 
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note
> that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual
> installation and usage.  If your installation requirements include shields
> on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the
> procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test
> configurations meet expectations.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) <
> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
> That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
> James
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor 
> *Sent:* 15 January 2019 15:34
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to
> electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power
> developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with
> dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft
> platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run
> some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you
> cited, but the ac power would not.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" 
> *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 -
> *To: *
> *Subject: *[PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
>
> Hello all,
>
> MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly
> carrying “primary power” i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be
> separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test
> setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall
> not be shielded.
>
> I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of
> the standard are most helpful.
>
> My interpretation is that:
>
>
>1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in
>MIL-STD-1399
><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/>
><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/>
>) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some
>Associated Equipment
>2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded
>cable if that is what is specified in the final installation
>
>
> Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my
> interpretation was correct?
>
> Many thanks as always,
> James
>
>
> James Pawson
> Unit 3 Compliance
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> <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 Safet

Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check

[Patrick]

-
>
> 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) <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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>
-- 
//
Patrick

-

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

[Patrick]

Hello Ed -
Great story- thanks for sharing!

Just last year, we had a broken sensor head on a HI-6053.
It was built circa 2015, so it would be considered a "modern" probe.
I did the same as you and took it apart - it was already broken, so nothing
to lose!
(how many of us have been doing that since we were kids!)

The description you give of the "old" probe matches exactly what I found
inside the HI6053.
Dimensions were a bit different, and electronics are in a square box.
But the basic design of sensor and high impedance connecting cables are the
same!
I guess some designs are robust enough to survive for decades.

Thanks again for the story.

BTW- thanks also for yesterday's story about the evolution of our industry.
It reminds me that what we think is "settled" is really just the boundary
of our understanding.
And, as our understanding grows then those boundaries move too.

Always great to hear your perspective!
Thank you !

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Edward Price <e...@jwjelp.com> wrote:

> *Patrick:*
>
>
>
> *The probe manufacturer says something like “keep the probe box away or
> out of the field” or “best results are obtained with the probe placed on a
> slant.” But then they show us isotropicity data that promises +/- ¼ dB. It
> seems like those are contradictory statements.*
>
> *Back around 2002, I decided to dissect a dead Narda 8762(?) probe which a
> customer helped me drop. The Narda was a white Fiberglas, 300 MHz to 1 GHz
> probe that looked like a very elegant German “potato masher” hand grenade
> equipped with a cable that plugged into an IFI EFS field sensor. I wish I
> had taken some good pictures of the project, as few people venture that
> deep into such expensive territory.*
>
> *The head contained the orthogonal three-dipole array, with the conductive
> arms looking like gold foil on a thin Fiberglass substrate. The length of
> each dipole was about 1.5 inches. The sensing elements might have been
> thermocouples, thermistors or diodes, and they were mounted in the dipoles.
> Each sensor was also connected to a pair of very high resistance plastic
> wires (possibly doped with carbon like automotive spark plug wires) that
> ran to the far end of the stalk where an analog signal conditioning
> amplifier summed the three channels and provided a DC output proportional
> to field strength. I was struck by the delicacy of the sensor head, looking
> at what must have been a very labor intensive assembly.*
>
> *BTW, the signal conditioning amplifier was enclosed in a ¾” diameter by
> 4” long section of tubular steel, so it was obvious that this conductive
> mass (not to mention the shielded, multi-conductor power & signal cable)
> would distort the measured field and degrade the isotropicity.*
>
>
>
>
> *Ed Price **WB6WSN*
> *Chula Vista, CA USA*
>
>
>
> *From:* Patrick [mailto:conwa...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2018 7:37 AM
> *To:* Edward Price
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
>
>
> Hello Ed -
>
>   Good morning!
>
>
>
>   You are correct - the factors stored in the probe correct for the
> non-linearities of the diode detector.
>
>   (  as a side note- hearing a presentation live, and asking/answering
> questions, is always more educational than a sterile slide deck.
>
>   i wish we all could sit through this presentation, ask questions,
> and have dialog. )
>
>
>
> Did you notice the warnings about errors possible in the calibration
> process?
>
> For instance, the "probe on a stick" is calibrated at an angle???
>
> And for that probe they say the electronics box should be kept out of the
> field???
>
>I understand the reasons, but keeping the box out of the field is
> nearly impossible for most of our semi-anechoic chamber applications!!
>
>And I rarely see them used at the same angle as calibrated.
>
>   How does one quantify those effects?
>
>   (...a topic for another thread ?)
>
>
>
> But, getting back to the frequency response question...
>
> Here is what I recall-
>
> ... As shown in the slides, the detector is connected across a small
> (tiny?) dipole.
>
>  the size of the dipole has some real-world limits.
>
>  large enough to capture enough power to make a measurement possible.
>
>  small enough to minimize disturbance in the field.
>
>  the three orthogonal dipoles have to be close enough to represent the
> same physical space.
>
>  So the size, placement and response is a compromise away from "ideal"
> (i.e. not flat ).
>
>
>
> ... IMHO, there is nothing rev

Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration

[Patrick]

http://ieee.rackoneup.net/rrvs/10/Zhong%20Probe.pdf

Look at the last slide, the last bullet.

The detail analysis can be found within the slides themselves, but that
last bullet summarizes the point.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
wrote:

> Didn’t find cited article but did find published ETS/Lindgren specs on a
> laser-powered sensor, showing frequency-dependent performance well within
> +/- 1 dB tolerance over entire specified frequency range below 1 GHz.
> Also, no standard out there requires the level-of-effort to post-process
> the field sensor electronics unit output on a frequency-by-frequency basis.
>
>
> http://www.ets-lindgren.com/sites/etsauthor/ProductsManuals/Probes_
> Monitors/EMC%20Field%20Probes%20399395%20A.pdf
>
> Page 55.
>
> Also found:  “Practical Considerations for Radiated Immunities Measurement
> using ETS-Lindgren EMC Probes,” with nothing about frequency dependence
> corrections.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *Patrick <conwa...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:36:11 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> *Cc: *<EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
> A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
> The author is Zhong Chen, an engineer with one of the probe manufacturers.
> I was lucky enough last year to be in the audience for a live presentation
> of this at our local EMC Chapter.
>
> I found it by searching:  "ets lindgren e field probe theory"
>
> It states, among other things, that frequency response correction is
> applied during end use!
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't state the amount of correction needed, nor the
> frequency resolution needed (doh!).
> But, it does answer questions on whether modern probes are frequency
> dependent devices.
>
> It is an interesting presentation, and I highly recommend it for anyone
> that wants to learn more about their test equipment.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> wrote:
>
> In turn:
>
> Everyone does not know that MIL-STD-461 requires RS103 pre-test
> verification.  I don’t.  Please explain further.
>
> RTCA/DO-160 requires pre-calibration of the field in a manner similar to
> that in the exercise that started this thread. Note at one point only, so
> that the point about field variations down the length of the test set-up as
> for RS103 also applies here.
>
> My use of the 61000-4-3 example was a pedagogical tool to illustrate that
> the OP test results looked good relative to a very stringent industry
> standard.
>
> When you ask whether some tolerance is insignificant, that begs the
> question as to what is the required tolerance.  In MIL-STD-461, the effect
> of the ground plane and immediate vicinity of the test sample and the lack
> of good quality absorption below around 80 MHz are way bigger factors than
> non-idealities in probe calibration.   MIL-STD-461 requires only one probe
> (more are allowed) so that even if the field intensity is within the
> correct tolerance at that point, there is no control over what the fields
> are down the length and breadth of the test set-up.  And MIL-STD-461 allows
> for 3 dB variation in instrumentation tolerances, so there you go on your
> field probes.
>
> And I don’t know what all sorts of control software is envisioned out
> there, but an off-the-shelf field probe and control-display unit at least
> at the time when RS103 was written (1989-1993) was not a frequency
> sensitive device. The unit reported a field intensity only. The frequency
> information came from the transmit side.  Leveling was performed on the
> field intensity reported by the probe electronics unit.  There was no
> correction envisioned for probe factors at each tuned frequency.  Not
> saying that couldn’t be done in a controller external to the probe
> electronics given detailed probe calibration info, just that wasn’t part of
> the plan back in the day. I would be interested to hear from readers as to
> whether that is now common.
>
> As Mr. Woodgate notes and I affirm, a 20% variation in probe calibration
> is way down in the noise even in a 61000-4-3 UFA calibration, not to
> mention the OP set-up with probes 10 cm over a ground plane, which to my
> knowledge is never the requirement.
>
> Which all leads up to an answer to this question:
>
> “Would you agree, as an engineer, its always better to have the data, then
> to operate in the blind?”
>
> The answer is, “Not only no, but hell no, if I know beforehand that the
> numbers don’t matter.”
>
>
> Ken 

Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration

[Patrick]

A great presentation on field probes can be found on the web.
The author is Zhong Chen, an engineer with one of the probe manufacturers.
I was lucky enough last year to be in the audience for a live presentation
of this at our local EMC Chapter.

I found it by searching:  "ets lindgren e field probe theory"

It states, among other things, that frequency response correction is
applied during end use!

Unfortunately, it doesn't state the amount of correction needed, nor the
frequency resolution needed (doh!).
But, it does answer questions on whether modern probes are frequency
dependent devices.

It is an interesting presentation, and I highly recommend it for anyone
that wants to learn more about their test equipment.


On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
wrote:

> In turn:
>
> Everyone does not know that MIL-STD-461 requires RS103 pre-test
> verification.  I don’t.  Please explain further.
>
> RTCA/DO-160 requires pre-calibration of the field in a manner similar to
> that in the exercise that started this thread. Note at one point only, so
> that the point about field variations down the length of the test set-up as
> for RS103 also applies here.
>
> My use of the 61000-4-3 example was a pedagogical tool to illustrate that
> the OP test results looked good relative to a very stringent industry
> standard.
>
> When you ask whether some tolerance is insignificant, that begs the
> question as to what is the required tolerance.  In MIL-STD-461, the effect
> of the ground plane and immediate vicinity of the test sample and the lack
> of good quality absorption below around 80 MHz are way bigger factors than
> non-idealities in probe calibration.   MIL-STD-461 requires only one probe
> (more are allowed) so that even if the field intensity is within the
> correct tolerance at that point, there is no control over what the fields
> are down the length and breadth of the test set-up.  And MIL-STD-461 allows
> for 3 dB variation in instrumentation tolerances, so there you go on your
> field probes.
>
> And I don’t know what all sorts of control software is envisioned out
> there, but an off-the-shelf field probe and control-display unit at least
> at the time when RS103 was written (1989-1993) was not a frequency
> sensitive device. The unit reported a field intensity only. The frequency
> information came from the transmit side.  Leveling was performed on the
> field intensity reported by the probe electronics unit.  There was no
> correction envisioned for probe factors at each tuned frequency.  Not
> saying that couldn’t be done in a controller external to the probe
> electronics given detailed probe calibration info, just that wasn’t part of
> the plan back in the day. I would be interested to hear from readers as to
> whether that is now common.
>
> As Mr. Woodgate notes and I affirm, a 20% variation in probe calibration
> is way down in the noise even in a 61000-4-3 UFA calibration, not to
> mention the OP set-up with probes 10 cm over a ground plane, which to my
> knowledge is never the requirement.
>
> Which all leads up to an answer to this question:
>
> “Would you agree, as an engineer, its always better to have the data, then
> to operate in the blind?”
>
> The answer is, “Not only no, but hell no, if I know beforehand that the
> numbers don’t matter.”
>
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *Patrick <conwa...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:10:52 -0700
> *To: *Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> *Cc: *<EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
> Well, some of us have to consider other requirements, not just EN's.
>
> What if the test is -461, or DO-160 ?
> And what if the requirement is 200 V/m ?
>
> As everyone knows, those require a pre-test verification, not a
> requirement for "uniform field"?
>
> So a 20% error gives anywhere from 160 V/m to 240 V/m.
> A 600 V/m target is anywhere from 480 V/m to 720 V/m.
>
> Is that insignificant?
> Maybe, maybe not.
> Depends on you and your customer.
>
> I recommend to always check a test labs calibration factors.
> If the factors don't show the resonances, then there are built in errors.
> An informed decision can be made whether to accept, or move to another lab.
>
> Would you agree, as an engineer, its always better to have the data, then
> to operate in the blind?
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am totally with John Woodgate on this – 20% deltas are insignificant in
> the larger picture. I only used 61000-4-3 to demonstrate the fallacy of
> worryi

Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration

[Patrick]

Well, some of us have to consider other requirements, not just EN's.

What if the test is -461, or DO-160 ?
And what if the requirement is 200 V/m ?

As everyone knows, those require a pre-test verification, not a requirement
for "uniform field"?

So a 20% error gives anywhere from 160 V/m to 240 V/m.
A 600 V/m target is anywhere from 480 V/m to 720 V/m.

Is that insignificant?
Maybe, maybe not.
Depends on you and your customer.

I recommend to always check a test labs calibration factors.
If the factors don't show the resonances, then there are built in errors.
An informed decision can be made whether to accept, or move to another lab.

Would you agree, as an engineer, its always better to have the data, then
to operate in the blind?


On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
wrote:

> I am totally with John Woodgate on this – 20% deltas are insignificant in
> the larger picture. I only used 61000-4-3 to demonstrate the fallacy of
> worrying about such small deviations when the overall requirement in a
> really well-designed and expensive chamber is +6, - 0 dB. Consider the type
> of absorber used, the limited frequency range (80 – 1000 MHz), the total
> lack of conducting material, and the fact that 25% of the UFA may be
> excluded from the 6 dB variation.
>
> Your variations are well within that tolerance, and your room and set-up
> nowhere near that good.  If you want better than what you have, you will
> need a chamber and set-up much better than that for 61000-4-3 –
> impractical, to say the least.
>
> The point is, make sure you have enough amplifier to do the job with some
> margin. That’s as good as you are going to get.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
> *Reply-To: *John Woodgate <j...@woodjohn.uk>
> *Date: *Mon, 5 Mar 2018 16:19:10 +
> *To: *<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
>
>
> +/- 20% doesn't seem to be enough to explain the reported result. After
> all, assuming the +/- 20% is off the spectrum analyser, 1.2 is +1.6 dB and
> 0.8 is -1.9 dB. These are small, but not negligible. If the +/-20% relates
> to power, they are even smaller in dB, of course.
>
>
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
> <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2018-03-05 15:57, Patrick wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi David -
>
>
>
> I had this same problem.
>
> I'm actually glad to see another engineer looking into this!
>
> The answer is not test setup,
>
>
> not ground plane,
>
> not distance to tabletop, etc.
>
>
> Each of those can be significant, and should be controlled, but...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The problem you describe sounds exactly like one I had two years ago.
>
> If it is the same problem, the root cause is the *probe calibration*.
>
> The "normal" calibration data that every cal lab provides is too course.
>
> It hides (skips over) resonances in the probes.
>
> Only a finer calibration step size will resolve this problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is my abbreviated story...
>
>
>
>
>
> I started with data just like yours.
>
> I had 6 probes: they were two model FP4000, and four of the HI6053.
>
>
>
>
> ...  amplifiers, chambers, height above table, orientation, etc>
>
>
>
>
> The root cause is the "normal" cal.
>
> It uses a course step size in frequency.
>
> When it is too course, it misses resonances in the probe.
>
> Those resonances are significant, as much as +/- 20% in my equipment.
>
>
>
>
> To prove this, I sent a probe out for "enhanced" cal.
>
> I requested both a "normal" cal and a higher resolution cal.
>
> I asked for 5% steps below 1 GHz and 100 MHz steps above 1 GHz.
>
>
>
>
> When the data came back I plotted the cal factors on top of each other.
>
> It was obvious.
>
> The course cal points of a "normal" calibration will hide resonances that
> are +/- 20% deviations.
>
>
> (above sentence should be BOLD, UNDERLINE, asterisks)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My conclusion:  Any probe used for accredited test must have calibration
> data showing the resonances.
>
> If it doesn't, then the lab is guaranteed to be over-testing and
> under-testing.
>
>
>
>
> DM me and I'll be glad to discuss.
>
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Schaefer, David <ds

Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration

[Patrick]

Hi David -

I had this same problem.
I'm actually glad to see another engineer looking into this!
The answer is not test setup,
not ground plane,
not distance to tabletop, etc.
Each of those can be significant, and should be controlled, but...


The problem you describe sounds exactly like one I had two years ago.
If it is the same problem, the root cause is the *probe calibration*.
The "normal" calibration data that every cal lab provides is too course.
It hides (skips over) resonances in the probes.
Only a finer calibration step size will resolve this problem.


Here is my abbreviated story...

I started with data just like yours.
I had 6 probes: they were two model FP4000, and four of the HI6053.

... 

The root cause is the "normal" cal.
It uses a course step size in frequency.
When it is too course, it misses resonances in the probe.
Those resonances are significant, as much as +/- 20% in my equipment.

To prove this, I sent a probe out for "enhanced" cal.
I requested both a "normal" cal and a higher resolution cal.
I asked for 5% steps below 1 GHz and 100 MHz steps above 1 GHz.

When the data came back I plotted the cal factors on top of each other.
It was obvious.
The course cal points of a "normal" calibration will hide resonances that
are +/- 20% deviations.
(above sentence should be BOLD, UNDERLINE, asterisks)


My conclusion:  Any probe used for accredited test must have calibration
data showing the resonances.
If it doesn't, then the lab is guaranteed to be over-testing and
under-testing.

DM me and I'll be glad to discuss.

Patrick



On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Schaefer, David <dschae...@tuvam.com> wrote:

> Ken,
>
> This data was not taken with 61000-4-3 primarily in mind. We do -4-3, but
> also MIL, RTCA, and ISO testing. I should have had the probe at least 15 cm
> for ISO or 30 cm for MIL like you said, but 10cm is how I took the data.
>
> Uniform field calibrations will be a concern eventually, but the variance
> is my problem. This was not four probes set up on a bench next to each
> other. This was data with one probe on the bench, centered in front of the
> antenna, then removed and replaced as precisely as possible with the next
> probe.
>
> So if I do a single point cal for ISO 11452-2, one probe might tell me 100
> V/m and another 140 V/m. I'll get questioned by customers if they fail one
> day and pass another. This also runs into another issue - purchasing
> amplifiers. If I specify an amp to reach a desired field strength but when
> it shows up we can't hit levels due to using a different field probe, there
> will be hell to pay.
>
> Standards are silent on probe orientation as well.  Do you position the
> probe to maximize field strength? If I can get an extra half a dB of power
> by having it an angle instead of straight on, why not do that? I can save
> that amplifier cost - at least until I get a new probe. The calibrations
> don't seem to mean that much based on my data, so with a composite reading
> whichever probe orientation gives me the highest field should be ok.
>
> Also, any replies I make may be delayed. It seems like I usually see a 4+
> hour delay between when I email the listserve, and when it is delivered.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Schaefer
>
>
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 12:17 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Field probe calibration
>
> In turn:
>
> It is not surprising at all that it takes less power to generate the
> vertical field than the horizontal field.  That's the effect of the
> conducting ground plane. The OP doesn't say what spec they are working to,
> but that is why MIL-STD-461 below 1 GHz has the probe 30 cm above the
> ground plane, to limit that effect.
>
> Comments, such as Gert Gremmen's, that measurements in the presence of a
> ground plane (or any conducting structure) are useless, are themselves
> useless.  The comment reflects a difference in standards of value.  If one
> is starving, food is the most important priority. If one is asphyxiating,
> oxygen is the primary need.  It is logically incorrect for two people
> suffering these two conditions to point at each other and say the other one
> is wrong about his priorities: they are both correct within the scope of
> their individual circumstances. The only logical observation that can be
> made is that oxygen needs to be supplied sooner than food, if the standard
> of value is immediate survival.
>
> In the world of goods slated for use in home, office and factory, the coin
> of the realm is accuracy and minimum uncertainty, so that qualifications
> everywhere result in a level economic playing field. Required field
> intensities (1/3/10 V/m) are ver

Re: [PSES] Use of LED Spots in EMC Chambers [General Use]

[Patrick]

We purchased these for a 10 m chamber.  They are floods, not spots, but I
thought it worthwhile to forward.

They have an option for suspended mount, but we chose to mount them flush
to the ceiling.  The emissions are so low that we can not detect any change
to the ambient (commercial freq range, 30MHz - 40 GHz) with power on or
off.

We liked them so much we bought another set for our second chamber.  Very
pleased with the product.  No affiliation

Cree CXB-A-UV-H-40K-8-UL-10V


-Patrick


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 AM Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) <
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com> wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> Has anyone had experience with using LED Spot lamps in EMC Chambers?
> What types/manufacturers would be recommended?
>
> Would appreciate help in trying to solve someone's problems with noise
> during radiated emissions.
> Test Facility has just had all their chambers converted to LED Spots and
> they are suffering broadband noise issues.
>
> 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 andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com>
>  leonardocomapany.com
> HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS /
> SPACE
>
> * Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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 <
> 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>
>
-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] Uncertainty in ESD testing

[Patrick]

@Ken.Javor - I had to look this up...  "erudite".The act of looking it
up showed that I am not!  Ha!

Thanks again for the Friday humor!
-Patrick

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
wrote:

> I made this point (in a less erudite manner) within the TSWG when we were
> drafting MIL-STD-461G, but with a requirement such as RE102 already on the
> books, we are all well acquainted with uncertainty and unafraid of it...
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
> --
> *From: *Douglas Smith <d...@emcesd.com>
> *Reply-To: *Douglas Smith <d...@emcesd.com>
> *Date: *Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:37:45 -0700
> *To: *<EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *Subject: *[PSES] Uncertainty in ESD testing
>
>
> I recently replied to another post and mentioned uncertainty in ESD
> testing. I thought it would be good to post it separately to start a wider
> discussion, so here we go:
>
> In ESD testing, the poor specification of the simulator in standards, like
> IEC 61000-4-2  , leads to uncertainty (that one cannot
> calculate) that far exceeds any uncertainty calculation one could make on
> ESD testing. Until we fix the standards, uncertainty calculation for ESD
> testing is meaningless. What is needed is a maximum di/dt limit everywhere
> on the current waveform and a radiation spec on the simulator. And this is
> only for contact discharge. For air discharge, the large uncertainty of the
> discharge itself will likely dominate unless hundreds of discharges are
> used at each point to reach statistical significance.
>
> Doug Smith
> Sent from my iPhone
> IPhone:  408-858-4528 <(408)%20858-4528>
> Office:702-570-6108 <(702)%20570-6108>
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Website: http://dsmith.org
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> 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>
> <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.org>
> 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://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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] God EMC practice

[Patrick]

the 80/80 rule is just the dogma of mathematics. (excuse the religious
overtone...)

here is a real-world story
if a customer buys 1000 laptop computers (or set top boxes, or cell phones,
or whatever ...), and they have an ESD problem, does the 80/80 calculation
prevent them from returning all 1000 units, and buying from a competitor
instead?  All the customer cares about is the one, or the one thousand,
that they purchase.


The 80/80 rule might keep you out of court, but it will never save your
business.

My opinion only

-Patrick

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Douglas Smith <d...@emcesd.com> wrote:

> How would you relate the tolerance of placement of system components like
> cables or PCs (in cm) to measurement uncertainty? Just setting up for the
> next test can make a few dB difference. In a large system, it may even
> affect antenna placement in the chamber to get the right distance to the
> EUT.
>
> Separately, in ESD testing, the poor specification of the simulator in
> standards, like IEC 61000-4-2, leads to uncertainty (that one cannot
> calculate) that far exceeds any uncertainty calculation one could make on
> ESD testing. Until we fix the standards, uncertainty calculation for ESD
> testing is meaningless. What is needed is a maximum di/dt limit everywhere
> on the current waveform and a radiation spec on the simulator. And this is
> only for contact discharge. For air discharge, the large uncertainty of the
> discharge itself will likely dominate unless hundreds of discharges are
> used at each point to reach statistical significance.
>
> Doug Smith
> Sent from my iPhone
> IPhone:  408-858-4528 <(408)%20858-4528>
> Office:702-570-6108 <(702)%20570-6108>
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
> Website: http://dsmith.org
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:05, Knighten, Jim L <jim.knigh...@teradata.com>
> wrote:
>
> A good practice is to use your calculated measurement uncertainty for
> emissions as your minimum margin requirement.
>
> That will often put you in the 3-4 dB range.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> 
>
> James L. Knighten, Ph.D.
>
> Teradata
>
> 17095 Via Del Campo
>
> San Diego, CA 92127
>
> 858-485-2537 <(858)%20485-2537>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 01, 2017 6:01 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] God EMC practice
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> One of our customers want to know if there are some good practice for
> emission compliance. I normally recommend 3 dB margin, but I don't have any
> reference to why this is OK.
>
>
>
> I know that some companies have internal rules for 3 or even 6 dB margin
> to compensate for production deviations and for many years ago VDE did have
> some rules like that.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have some good references on this subject?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mr. Kim Boll Jensen
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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.org>
> 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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/lis

Re: [PSES] God EMC practice

[Patrick]

God and Compliance Margin...  two topics that generate a lot of preaching!
I think everyone has a "tradition" of what worked for them, and what
did not.

Here is my sermon on margin:

I don't consider myself a monk of the EMI Chamber...
...but over the years I have preached various margins.
...margins are always situational, always depending on the business,
and the products.
...call it relativism?


On one end of the extreme, I've been in the aerospace industry.
Here, a single unit is built, and flown successfully, with *zero dB* of
margin.

On the other end, consumer products.
Here, just one or two units comply during development.
Then the factory produces a million units a month for a year.
Yes, that is 12 million units based on a couple of passing samples!
In this industry, initial margin can not predict performance of the
500,00th unit.
So, the industry performs on-going EMC audits.


In both those cases, the dogma of margin was irrelevant.
For aerospace, what mattered was coexistence.
For commercial, it required an ongoing liturgy of audits.


What really drives margin is the product, the market, and the target usage.
Everything else is just "tradition" & "hearsay".
Every company needs enlightened margin decisions based on their own
circumstances.



Thanks for the bit of humor to end the week!

-Patrick

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Kim Boll Jensen <k...@bolls.dk> wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> One of our customers want to know if there are some good practice for
> emission compliance. I normally recommend 3 dB margin, but I don't have any
> reference to why this is OK.
>
>
>
> I know that some companies have internal rules for 3 or even 6 dB margin
> to compensate for production deviations and for many years ago VDE did have
> some rules like that.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have some good references on this subject?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mr. Kim Boll Jensen
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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 Modulated Power Output. [General Use]

[Patrick]

 Of course!  But I'm never that lucky !  :)

On Jul 5, 2017 13:27, "John Woodgate" <jmw1...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> If they do agree, there are an even number of mistakes (counting 0 as
> even), of course.
>
>
>
> 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:* Patrick [mailto:conwa...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 05 July 2017 19:45
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Calculating Modulated Power Output. [General Use]
>
>
>
> Hi Andy -
>
>
>
> The calculation can be done either way, using dBW or Watts.  Either method
> will produce the same result.  Actually, I will often perform that
> calculation in both dBW and in Watts, then compare the results.  I use this
> to check my calculations.  If the two methods do not agree, then I've made
> a mistake, at least one, somewhere.
>
>
>
> Good luck!
>
>
>
> -Patrick
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) <
> andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I hope one of the RF engineers can help with this.
>
> When calculating ERP you use the Tx power either in dBW or W and the
> antenna gain in dBi.
> So when you have pulse modulation,  example 9.3GHz, 38.5dBW (7676.89W) ERP
> at a duty cycle of 13%, do you calculate the modulated power level by using
> the ERP dBW or the actual ERP Watts?
>
> 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 <+44%201268%20883308>
>  Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888 <+44%207507%20854888>
>  andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com<mailto:and
> rew.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 <
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> //
>
> Patrick
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee

Re: [PSES] Calculating Modulated Power Output. [General Use]

[Patrick]

Hi Andy -

The calculation can be done either way, using dBW or Watts.  Either method
will produce the same result.  Actually, I will often perform that
calculation in both dBW and in Watts, then compare the results.  I use this
to check my calculations.  If the two methods do not agree, then I've made
a mistake, at least one, somewhere.

Good luck!

-Patrick

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) <
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com> wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> I hope one of the RF engineers can help with this.
>
> When calculating ERP you use the Tx power either in dBW or W and the
> antenna gain in dBi.
> So when you have pulse modulation,  example 9.3GHz, 38.5dBW (7676.89W) ERP
> at a duty cycle of 13%, do you calculate the modulated power level by using
> the ERP dBW or the actual ERP Watts?
>
> 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<mailto:and
> rew.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 <
> 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>
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] Safety Test Labs Currently in and around SF Bay Area

[Patrick]

https://www.nts.com/services/product_safety


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Leo Eisner <l...@eisnersafety.com> wrote:

> Hello EMC-PSTC,
>
> It's been a long time since I have been in this community.  So, hello all.
>
> Please respond with any test labs in and around the SF Bay Area with what
> there specialities are.  I do not have a current list and would like to
> include the big name brands and the smaller independents as well.  This
> will help me provide better service to my clients.
> Also, one other point with this list please advise your understanding if
> the labs that are provided are capable of doing IEC 60601-1 (medical
> electrical equipment and systems standard).  If you also have any direct
> contact info to the medical group that would be greatly appreciated too.
>
> The ones I know and please correct if I am wrong are:
> UL - SJC - Electrical Safety - they do medical
> ETL or Intertek - Menlo Park - Electrical Safety - they do medical
>
> I know there are other labs in the Bay Area but haven't used any of late
> to know which ones are still around.
>
> Thx so much for your help with this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
> Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
> Phone: (503) 244-6151
> Mobile: (503) 709-8328
> Email: l...@eisnersafety.com
> Website Consulting Service: www.EisnerSafety.com
> Website Standards Reconnaissance Database: www.EisnerSafety.net
>
> *** 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.
>
> ***
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] EN 61000-4-8 test for medical equipment per EN 60601-1-2

[Patrick]

Marina -
A new version of the standard is in process of being adopted, and this test
is one of the areas that is evolving.

Regarding power frequency magnetic fields:

1-The IEC 60601-1-2 {Edition 3} has no exceptions that I can find.

2-However, IEC 60601-1-2 {Edition 4} includes a note regarding power
frequency magnetic fields.
Table 4 of the {Edition 4} includes this note:
"d) Applies only to ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS with magnetically sensitive
components or circuitry."


Based on the above info, if a medical product is testing and declaring to
{Edition 4} then this exclusion is available.  Otherwise, the test is
required.

Hope this helps.
-Patrick

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:27 PM, MARINA PEYZNER <epeyz...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Dear members.
>
> Does anybody can point me out the mandatory of request for Power Frequency
> Magnetic Field testing for medical equipment even if none magnetic
> sensitive elements are in the EUT ?
>
> If this test is a must regardless of existence or not these elements.
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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) <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.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>



-- 
//
Patrick

-

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] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?

[Patrick]

Ahhh, our old friend: "Margin".
Margin is one of those timeless EMC topics.

IMHO- there is simply no evidence that margin is helpful.

In a practical sense we all know that a "single-measurement-plus-margin" is
not a confidence builder.
As an example, think about the last time you worked on your home wiring.
How many times did you read that multi-meter before you touched the wires?
Did you read it just once?  Then add some margin?

Nope- I'll bet you did like me:  I read that meter, and double-read it.
Then I read it again.
One measurement is simply not enough to build confidence.

Next time someone asks you for "reasonable margin" ask them about their
last wiring project

-Patrick
OOO.


On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Douglas Powell <doug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> Very good points. If minimum passing margins are a result of ‎edge rates
> on transistors, diodes or ICs, then a second source or "upgrade" to a
> faster device can be counterproductive with regard to the emissions
> profile.
>
> If such engineering changes or supplier changes have occurred, then a
> retest is often the best policy. I was also aware that several cumulative
> engineering changes over time can result in a non-compliance.‎Each
> change, when evaluated by itself was inconsequential. But in aggregate,
> result was a failure. This is often the reason I would require a retest
> after some number of engineering changes had been applied to a product.  Of
> course, keeping full data test reports on each passing result is really the
> only way to do this well.
>
> Doug
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> *From: *Ted Eckert
> *Sent: *Monday, October 12, 2015 2:44 PM
> *To: *EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Reply To: *Ted Eckert
> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,)
> Where?
>
> In addition to the responses from Doug, Ghery and Brian, I will note that
> margin protects you from unexpected or unknown changes from component
> suppliers. To some extent, this falls under the manufacturing variance Doug
> mentioned, but component changes is just another area that can be hard to
> control.
>
>
>
> I’ve had IC vendors do a die shrink on a part resulting in sharper edge
> rates on the outputs. At a previous employer, I was running emissions
> testing on a number of samples where Motorola did a die shrink on the
> microcontroller we were using. Some of my test samples had the old part and
> some had the new. It took a long time to figure out why some samples were
> significantly worse than others after controlling for all other variables.
> Having 6 dB margin to begin with provides some protection against this type
> of change.
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> ted.eck...@microsoft.com
>
>
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Itzenheiser, Jerry (GE Healthcare) [mailto:
> gerald.itzenhei...@med.ge.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 12, 2015 12:26 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello EMCers,
>
> I would like to ask…
>
> Is there anyone out there that tests to stricter limits than the legal
> (CISPR, IEC, etc.) limits? If so, what was the rationale behind selecting
> the stricter limits? Our engineering teams are curious as to where the
> stricter recommended limits come from, such as the 6dB margin for emissions
> testing.
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
>
>
> *Jerry Itzenheiser Jr*
>
> EMC Technician - Waukesha
>
> GE Healthcare
>
> Global Engineering Technologies
>
> EMC Laboratory Waukesha
>
>
>
> T  + 262-548-2217
>
> M + 262-720-8846
>
> *gerald.itzenhei...@med.ge.com <gerald.itzenhei...@med.ge.com>*
>
> www.ge.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ge.com%2f=01%7c01%7cted.eckert%40MICROSOFT.COM%7c1f785e71fc11409e76c408d2d33bbe0a%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=WGwl3c%2bUU7WAC%2bg6Bk9SLRF9h6fEB5snjR84zIbqoVY%3d>
>
>
>
> 3000 N. Grandview Blvd.
>
> Mail Code W618
>
> Waukesha, WI  53188
>
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.pr

Re: [PSES] What is a Test Plan?

[Conway, Patrick]

Tony –
If “Test Plan” is re: EMC, then in some cases
there are requirements for content.

Try this search result (2 pages) for some examples:
http://www.everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-EMCS/

//
Patrick
pcon...@ball.commailto:pcon...@ball.com
303.533.7165
303.408.9904 (cell)
Westminster, CO 80021

From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] What is a Test Plan?

What is a Test Plan? What should a Test Plan contain?

My questions are intentionally vague and I ask this Group in the context of the 
interests of this group.

Thanks in advance for your input,
Tony.


-


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.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=78ad13272d7f96fd54cb1b36d5eab780d734110115ebf6d283a8ce30f9ae6379

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=d92541dbc3e2fea6146f1a5bf5b9718bf9f4809b6d774e347c4f256445abb2c1
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=166d0017d264ef3dccd68e04a3a04c643fd58ec6c79e3ef542536711ef08738c
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=01578cd31614f3d03592db384efcdc19e7c84a899df5a699867c870122188ab3
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=88e7e03056ee3d649ef54e2654b8c340e489436a75f3597dac649d984a279eb5

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 and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee.  Please 
notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient.  If you are 
not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this 
message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions 
may be unlawful.  Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages 
and enclosures sent to or from this email address.


-

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

[PSES] user's group ??

[Conway, Patrick]

We are considering new automation tools for some of our MIL-STD-461 and
DO-160 tests.

I am hoping that there are user's groups or forums for some of the more
popular software packages.

 

Does anyone know of, or belong to, forums for TILE!, EMC Automation
(TDK), RadiMotion (DARE!!), EMITest (CKC), or any other?  

 

Thanks in advance.

//

Patrick Conway

pcon...@ball.com

303.533.7165

Wetmoor WMR1

Westminster, CO 80021

 




This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee.  Please 

notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient.  If you are 

not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this 

message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions 

may be unlawful.  Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages 

and enclosures sent to or from this email address.

-

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

Re: [PSES] Light Bulb provokquium

[Conway, Patrick]

q the industry wouldn't have ... if the ban hadn't been introduced q

...so, industry didn't build that, the gov't did?

(weak attempt at election year humor)

//
Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Light Bulb provokquium

In message 
CAByvTVPDdQ343GbF8=AxXZSgajd7cvH1Q=P2zp98Q+QHAD-=c...@mail.gmail.com, 
dated Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Doug Powell doug...@gmail.com writes:

Make the alternative bulbs economically competitive and dump the 
legislation.

Chicken and egg; the industry wouldn't have spend a lot of RD $$$ on 
CFLs and LED lamps if the ban hadn't been introduced. Prices are coming 
down, but not equal yet.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Instead of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or
too
much, too early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them
into
total confusion.
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 and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee.  Please 

notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient.  If you are 

not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this 

message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions 

may be unlawful.  Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages 

and enclosures sent to or from this email address.

-

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

Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries

[Conway, Patrick]

Another difference is tested  vs. qualified.

 

In the MIL world the emc testing of a stand-alone smart-battery *may be*
used for qualification, depending on the procurement.

In the commercial world the emc testing of a stand-alone smart-battery
*cannot be* used for qualification, due to the lack of intrinsic
function.

 

//

Patrick 

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries

 

The difference is that in the case of stand-alone batteries, they are
qualified without connection to the equipment in which they are meant
to be used... .  Instead, they are connected to a generic load
representative of in situ current draw, and a fixed potential charging
source with fixed low output resistance.
  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@ieee.org
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Smart Batteries

It must be in the syntax, but it seems these two just agreed on the
subject.

  
 
 
  



 From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
 To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
 Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:34 PM
 Subject: Re: Smart Batteries
  
 
Re: Smart Batteries 
That is simply not true in the general case.  What about a 28 Vdc
battery that backs up the essential bus on an aircraft? What about a
MANPACK battery that is discharged while being worn, and connected to a
mains or generated-powered charger after the mission is over.

In the commercial world, what about a battery designed to be used in an
UPS? I have purchased several replacement batteries designed to replace
the OEM battery in same.
  
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net
Reply-To: k...@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:58:15 -0400
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Smart Batteries

   
Smart batteries are electronic subassemblies that don't work properly
outside of the equipment in which they are meant to be used and must be
tested in it.
 
 Cortland Richmond
 
 On 8/22/2012 1243, rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
 
 

Can someone tell me if there are any EMC standards for the so-called
smart batteries? These are batteries that communication with the
charger or EUT for charge rates, time left, overheating, etc. 
 
 Thanks,
 Bob Heller
 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
 Tel: 651-778-6336
 Fax: 651-778-6252
 


 -


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 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

Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries

[Conway, Patrick]

q It was like testing fuses q

Exactly!  Most smart-batteries have non-resettable fuses designed to be tripped 
by over-temp.  Originally thought to protect the chemistry from reaching 
ignition temps.  But as Ed found, also a very good one-time RF detector!

//
Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries

At my previous employer, we began using smart batteries around 6 years
ago. These batteries were mounted into a soldier-worn fabric harness, and
were the power source for both the optical detectors  signal processing
equipment, plus the pulsed 20 Watt peak RF data transceiver. Batteries were
charged in a shop environment, then plugged into the soldier harnesses and
used in the operational environment for a few days (either before the
training scenario ended or a fresh battery was installed). Thus, MIL-STD-461
dictated testing in two environments; the stringent operational environment
(imagine a squad hopping on a helicopter, with all transceivers chirping
away and subject to the airborne RF environment) and the much less stringent
charging environment (imagine the corner of a storage shed, with a few dozen
batteries sitting in charging trays).

The first time I encountered these batteries, I didn't realize that they had
built-in microprocessors that never turned off. In addition to the normal
user noise problems, I now had what had always been considered to be a
passive device contributing its own EMC problems.

One interesting thing was that these smart batteries had a rather
long-period, short duration mode in which the battery brains would call for
a capacity test that created a quick noise burst. Another problem was that
the battery manufacturers were (initially) very EMC naive; no shielding,
long internal sensor leads that acted like little antennas and fed directly
into microprocessor inputs, apparently no history of ever doing any previous
component-level EMC investigation.

So these batteries had emission and immunity problems all by themselves, and
we had to adopt several less-than perfect fixes in order to use them. We
went through powerline filtering, discrete harness pouch shields, wrapping
foil around the batteries, and even to conductive fabric harness pouches.

And then, after we got happy with our fixes, we suddenly began having many
field failures, dead batteries everywhere! It seems that we had changed
battery vendors, and the new vendor had an internal design that was an
extremely good RF detector. Batteries could be killed with only a few V/M
(you could get 10 V/M from a cell phone at 6-foot separation, and anyway,
461 defined a 50 V/M requirement)! Investigation revealed that the batteries
were also very position and polarization sensitive; they might survive 50
V/M from the front, but roll them 90 degrees and expose the back, and the
microprocessor goes to silicon heaven in microseconds. The culprit turned
out to be the wiring for inter-cell temperature sensors; these fed the RF
directly into the microprocessor. During the course of one investigation, I
was directed to expose 25 batteries to varying positional and RF level
exposures; not one battery was alive by the time I was up to 20 V/M. It was
like testing fuses. We got that problem under control by going back to the
old vendor, and fortunately, since the batteries were designed to be easily
replaceable, there was no major field-fix problem. 

Since that was over 5 years ago, I would hope that smart battery vendors
would have become much more familiar with RF techniques and have hardened
their designs to withstand the commercial and military environments. OK,
this turned into a war story, but the lesson is that a smart battery now has
every EMC vulnerability itself, and has to be tested in every operational
and support mode associated with your product.


Ed Price
El Cajon, CA
USA
 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries

Ken,

For MS461, did you test the batteries as a seperate item, or as part of a
charger or the end-use unit?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:55 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Smart Batteries

Not what you personally are looking for, but in the military world
MIL-STD-461 applies to such batteries just as to any other item that
contains electronics.  I have tested them and found them susceptible, albeit
at field intensities much higher than required in the commercial world.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: rehel...@mmm.com
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:43:03 -0500
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Smart Batteries

Can someone tell me if there are any EMC standards for the so-called smart
batteries

Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

[Conway, Patrick]

 Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test technique? 

In my opinion, your technique legitimate.  I observe that the entire
world of ESD testing is centered around a defined stimulus of current
and voltage.  Any time a zap deviates from this then it is not part of
a test.  

This has two effects on testing of a floating apparatus.  The first
effect is with the second ZAP.  Without a bleed of charge the second ZAP
no longer conforms.  It is no longer a X kV ZAP.  The display on the
ESD gun reads X volts, which is between ESD gun tip and ground.  But
since the apparatus is no longer @ ground potential, the X voltage
reading is invalid.  And the same is true for the third, fourth, etc.  

The second effect is the one discussed in this thread- where the bleed
happens with a strap.  The wave shape of current during that event is
undefined.  Any response from the apparatus during the bleed event is
not part of the test and cannot be considered in the pass/fail criteria.


My opinion only...
//
Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

For automotive stuff (ISO10605), I have to be careful about bleeding
charge
after each iteration because test level = 25kV. I use a 470k Resistor
attached in series with a short braid that is screwed into the ref
plane,
and touch the UUT. The strap is used for discharge only and is not
attached
during testing.  I have seen the commercial CISPR25 labs do similar.

I have not seen the discharge create additional problems - perhaps I
have
just been lucky. Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test
technique?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:53 PM
To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

This is a classic test problem.  I've seen this several times.  For this
setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps.  So,
how
to discharge between zaps?  The easy answer  is to briefly connect a
strap
from apparatus to ground.  But that casues lots of problems, including
false
failures.
 
The reason?  The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is
uncontrolled.  If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is
not
bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge.  The
problem
is that the waveform will not be representative of the human-body-model.

 
Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns.
They must conform to an exact waveshape.  But the zero-Ohm ground strap
has
none of the circuit elements to shape the curve.  So there is a
likelyhood
of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc.  All things that no longer
represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the appratus it
cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not HBM.
 
Check with your customer on how they are testing.  If the appratus
survives
the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the strap,
then
you have the asnwer.  The easy solution for Test is to place the bleed
resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the appratus survives.

 
The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and
certainly
not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM standards.  On the
other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or your product needs
testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap discharge, then that is
a
perfectly good test.
 
//
Patrick
 

 
Different question about ESD.
 
I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for
a
table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer
places
this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When
they
send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have
the
pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm
bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided
strap
attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very
similar
results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be
a
short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since
the
discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture
that is grounded. 
 
What does the standard say about  the VCP and HCP?
 
Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer  

 
//
Patrick 
 
From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD
 
Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the
medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks
handling
new products being introduced now or in the very near future? Just got a
quote back

Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

[Conway, Patrick]

I do have one story from the trenches, involving a laptop, ESD and
non-standard testing.  

...back in the day, at a previous company...  

we had a customer complaint about a mysterious lockup.  There is a
side-story about sales, management, pressure, schedule, cost and all
that noise.  But sparing that, the lockup could only be duplicated by
floating the laptop and discharging to the MODEM connector several
times.  No bleed-off between zaps.  Eventually a secondary discharge was
heard inside the laptop.  

Apparently the MODEM circuit has some floating circuits due to TELCO
hi-pot requirements.  The circuit did fine under TELCO testing, which I
recall went to 3kV.  But if the stored charge in the MODEM circuit got
to about 7 kV, then there was a secondary arc to another circuit and
havoc ensued.

It was an interesting lesson for me about the (negative)virtues of
isolated circuits inside an apparatus.  As far as I know, this type of
test was never adopted by any standards body, but it became a regular
part of my internal engineering testing.  


//
Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

For automotive stuff (ISO10605), I have to be careful about bleeding
charge
after each iteration because test level = 25kV. I use a 470k Resistor
attached in series with a short braid that is screwed into the ref
plane,
and touch the UUT. The strap is used for discharge only and is not
attached
during testing.  I have seen the commercial CISPR25 labs do similar.

I have not seen the discharge create additional problems - perhaps I
have
just been lucky. Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test
technique?

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:53 PM
To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

This is a classic test problem.  I've seen this several times.  For this
setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps.  So,
how
to discharge between zaps?  The easy answer  is to briefly connect a
strap
from apparatus to ground.  But that casues lots of problems, including
false
failures.
 
The reason?  The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is
uncontrolled.  If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is
not
bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge.  The
problem
is that the waveform will not be representative of the human-body-model.

 
Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns.
They must conform to an exact waveshape.  But the zero-Ohm ground strap
has
none of the circuit elements to shape the curve.  So there is a
likelyhood
of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc.  All things that no longer
represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the appratus it
cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not HBM.
 
Check with your customer on how they are testing.  If the appratus
survives
the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the strap,
then
you have the asnwer.  The easy solution for Test is to place the bleed
resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the appratus survives.

 
The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and
certainly
not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM standards.  On the
other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or your product needs
testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap discharge, then that is
a
perfectly good test.
 
//
Patrick
 

 
Different question about ESD.
 
I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for
a
table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer
places
this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When
they
send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have
the
pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm
bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided
strap
attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very
similar
results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be
a
short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since
the
discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture
that is grounded. 
 
What does the standard say about  the VCP and HCP?
 
Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer  

 
//
Patrick 
 
From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD
 
Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the
medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks
handling
new products being introduced

Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

[Conway, Patrick]

This is a classic test problem.  I've seen this several times.  For this
setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps.  So,
how to discharge between zaps?  The easy answer  is to briefly connect a
strap from apparatus to ground.  But that casues lots of problems,
including false failures.

 

The reason?  The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is
uncontrolled.  If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is
not bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge.  The
problem is that the waveform will not be representative of the
human-body-model.  

 

Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns.
They must conform to an exact waveshape.  But the zero-Ohm ground strap
has none of the circuit elements to shape the curve.  So there is a
likelyhood of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc.  All things that no
longer represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the
appratus it cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not
HBM.

 

Check with your customer on how they are testing.  If the appratus
survives the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the
strap, then you have the asnwer.  The easy solution for Test is to
place the bleed resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the
appratus survives.  

 

The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and
certainly not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM
standards.  On the other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or
your product needs testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap
discharge, then that is a perfectly good test.

 

//

Patrick

 



 

Different question about ESD.

 

I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for
a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer
places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels.
When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I
don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and
removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I
ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane
below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really
look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed
resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people
touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. 

 

What does the standard say about  the VCP and HCP?

 

 

Gary McInturff

Reliability/Compliance Engineer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

//

Patrick 

 

From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD

 

Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the
medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks
handling new products being introduced now or in the very near future?
Just got a quote back and the US certifier wants to charge me twice once
for the 2nd edition and then to transition to the 3rd edition. I anyone
else running aground on this. Seems like this should be happening on
both sides of the pond - since a CB report to 3rd edition would run into
the second edition enforcement in the US (and maybe Canada - I don't
know their implementation date).

 

To be fair - I get good service once I get past the sticker shock and
don't have any complaints from that standpoint. In fact I enjoy the
engineering staff I work with.

 

Different question about ESD.

 

I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for
a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer
places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels.
When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I
don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and
removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I
ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane
below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really
look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed
resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people
touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. 

 

What does the standard say about  the VCP and HCP?

 

 

Gary McInturff

Reliability/Compliance Engineer

 

 

 

 

Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring

ADVANCED INPUT, MEMTRON, and LRE MEDICAL products

 

600 W. Wilbur Avenue

Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496

Office:208-635-8306

Cell:  509 868 2279

Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X 1238

gary.mcintu...@esterline.com mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com 

 

 

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies
http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput 

 

Technology, Innovation, Performance

Re: [PSES] Compliance engineering contacts at Plextor and Netgear

[Patrick Conway]

If these products sell into the EU, the DoC will be available.  Maybe on their 
website?  The DoC has a name, title and signature- can always start with that 
person.

//
Patrick.


On Feb 21, 2012 11:09 AM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote:

Typically, you would request their compliance people to submit the test
certs, cb report, emc report, etc directly to the UL assessment engineer.
For an end-use product that does not require professional installation, the
request for complete safety and EMC documentation is a bit unusual.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:34 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Compliance engineering contacts at Plextor and Netgear

Hi all,

I'm trying to obtain compliance related documentation for a couple of
products manufactured by both Plextor and Netgear.

The usual technical support channels yield nothing as this sort of request
is outside the norm, as I have a project that incorporates these
manufacturers products in to a larger system that is about to go through UL
Safety testing.

Many thanks for your support,

Edward Fitzgerald

-

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.comailto:dhe...@gmail.co

-

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

RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs

[Conway, Patrick R (bNB Houston)]

That comment makes me think of the interference possibility from different TX
waveforms.

 

 I am curious- has anyone seen correlation between 

levels or quantity of interference

vs

the two phone types:  CDMA and GSM ?

 

 

In a non-lab environment, the actual interference from GSM is orders of
magnitude larger than CDMA.  

But what about in the lab environment?  

 

 

 

Best Regards,

Patrick.

p.con...@hp.com

281-514-2259

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:46 PM
To: ieee
Subject: RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs

 

Similar problem in our lab. The signal path between the cell tower and the
cell phone is so weak that the output from the cell phone is near max (my cell
phone battery drains pretty quickly as a result) which makes it easier for the
analyzer to pick it up.  Better quality cables have helped, but I always turn
off my cell phone when making radiated scans. I've never seen a problem with
any other tests.

 

Bob Richards, NCT.



--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com wrote:

 

We used to pick up the cell phones, but then we fixed the cables and
connectors and now no more problems.  We routinely use cell phones while
testing and they are good indication when something is broken.

.

 

-

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

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...@ptcnh.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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

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...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

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

RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

...circling back to an old thread:

What would happen if we placed 8 access points in a circle around some popcorn?
YouTube here we come!



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:00 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

Recently we added two new food blasters to the lunch room and noted that some 
office areas no longer had reliable network connect.

Installed some isolation transformers between building mains and the food 
blasters - no more complaints from the sales/accounting dweebs, or whatever 
they do. Also noted that some of the power to the lunch room does not have a 
separate ground wire - uses the metal conduit, which probably does not help 
much.

As for the specific ID of these iso transformers, hmmm... we no longer make 
this particular model.

But I am going to upgrade my tin-foil hat, as I very much suspect that the 
space aliens are using the 2.4GHz carrier to link our brains to the NSA 
computers...

luck,
Brian


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 
don_borow...@selinc.com
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:27 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Cc: brian_ku...@lecotc.com
Subject: Re: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN

Except for rebuilding the break rooms with foil-lined dry wall, metal flooring, 
screened windows, filtered power, waveguide-beyond-cutoff ventilation grills, 
and RF tight doors, I don't know there is much for a solution.

I was told that in one major Boeing plant, communications as 2.4 GHz is all but 
impossible -- there are microwave ovens scattered around the various break 
rooms running off of all three phases of the electrical power
(120/208 volts Y); and due to variety of manufacturers, generating RF during 
both polarities of each phase. In other words, continuous
2.4 GHz
RF.

Except for specialize industrial units, I don't think you will find microwave 
ovens running at any other frequency.

Don Borowski
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA, USA




 Kunde, Brian
 brian_kunde@leco
 tc.com
To
 Sent by:  emc-pstc
emc-p...@ieee.org
 emc-p...@ieee.org
cc


Subject
 10/06/2008 01:02  Microwave Oven
Interference with
 PM2.4Ghz Wireless LAN










I have just received and interesting call from our IT guys in our production 
facility. They have installed a 2.4Ghz wireless LAN system in our production 
and stock room areas, which is a huge area, and which includes 13 Access Points 
and a couple dozen wireless devices such as bar code readers, computers, and 
printers.

They discovered that they are having a major interference problem which they 
have narrowed down to the Microwave Ovens in the two break areas.
Evidently, Microwave Ovens run at 2.45Ghz.

It would be very difficult to remove the ovens or to move the break areas.

Have any of you experts have experience with this issue?  Any suggestions?  Are 
new ovens better then older ones? Are the microwave ovens that run at a 
different frequency? Would it help to try and shield the ovens better?  Please 
help.

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.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE

RE: FM Modulator Information

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

A family member forwarded the below email.
(I'm pleasantly surprised that they remember my field of work !)

Does anyone on this list subscribe to XM?
It would be interesting to know the details of the interference problem.



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway, NCE.
Hewlett-Packard Co.
p.con...@hp.com
281.514.2259
281-514.5473(fax)

~~


From: XM Radio [mailto:xmra...@xmradio.chtah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:11 AM
To:
Subject: FM Modulator Information


Dear XM Subscriber,

The FCC has notified XM that some of our older receiver models (generally, 
those purchased before August, 2006) may not operate in the manner required by 
the FCC and may cause interference to nearby FM radio users depending on how 
the XM radio is installed or used.

The receiver models include the Roady2(r), SKYFi2(r), MyFi(r), Airware(r), Tao, 
RoadyXT(r), Xpress(tm), Sportscaster, XR9-XCX9, Jensen JXR9, inno(r), 
Helix(tm), and Nexus(r). Please note this notice does not apply to you if your 
new car came installed with an XM receiver.

If you do have one or more of the receivers mentioned above and use it with the 
wireless FM option or you have had the receiver professionally installed, then 
we have several options available at no cost to you to alleviate this possible 
interference. Please visit our website at www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo 
http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4  or call us 
toll-free at 866-410-0096 to choose one of the following three options:

Option A:
We will send you ferrite beads to attach to your XM antenna and power adaptor 
cables. (Ferrite beads are typically placed on the end of data cables to reduce 
interference.)

Option B:
We will send you a replacement cassette adapter to use with your XM radio. Only 
choose this option if your car radio has a cassette player.

Option C:
If your car does not have a cassette player, we will provide you with ferrite 
beads and an installation kit, with hardware, to use in connection with a 
professional installation of your radio along with a coupon redeemable at no 
charge for professional installation.

Please visit the following website, www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo 
http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4  for more 
information and to select your option. If you do not have access to the 
Internet, you may call 866-410-0096 for information on how to alleviate this 
possible interference. To help expedite your order, please have your 8-digit 
Radio ID (found on Channel 0 of your XM radio) and your FCC ID (found on the 
back, the bottom, or under the battery of your XM radio), available when you 
start this process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards,
XM Management

Note - If you are using your XM radio's FM modulator to send the XM signal to a 
home or car stereo, your radio will work best if you use an unused FM 
frequency. Go to www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/vacant 
http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm5  to find the best 
FM frequencies to use in your area.



Please do not reply to this email. This is a service email from XM Satellite 
Radio. Please note that you may receive service email in accordance with your 
XM Satellite Radio Customer Agreement, whether or not you elect to receive 
promotional email.

XM Satellite Radio Inc., 1500 Eckington Place NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. 
Copyright 2008 XM Satellite Radio. All rights reserved.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

FW: EE Contract Opportunity

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Posting this as a favor to an outsider.
This is not connected to me or my employer.
Please contact the recruiter directly using the info at the bottom of the page.
 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 




From: Jennifer Bingham [mailto:jbing...@americancontractgroup.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:39 PM
To: p.con...@ieee.org
Subject: EE Contract Opportunity 



 ... wanted to let you know about a 6 month + E.E. (EMI) position in the
Chicago, IL area. Our client is looking for a U.S. citizen with a BSEE.
Following is a description of the job. Please contact me if you’re
interested and available. An updated version of your resume would be much
appreciated!

 

Description:

“Under the general supervision of the Director of Electrical Engineering and
the Project Engineer, this lead electrical engineer will have responsibility
for design and test work relating to system level electrical architecture,
power, thermal, shock, vibration, and EMI design for our next generation and
current products. The candidate must be able to work effectively as part of a
team that designs electrical and electro-electrical systems and work with
other engineers. Good communication skills are required to interact
effectively as part of a technical team, integrating mechanical, software, and
electrical designs.”

 

More specifically, this is what they’re looking for:

 

* BSEE

* 10-15 years related experience, at least 5 on DoD or equivalent
government contracts

* Ability to develop and support electrical and electronic concepts
from design through production

* Capability to conduct product design analysis and verification  

* Experience with Military Specifications and Standards

* Strong verbal and written communication skills

*US Citizen able to obtain DoD security clearance

 

 

Jenn Bingham 

American Contract Group

591 North Ave ,Suite 4, 2nd Floor

Wakefield MA, 01880

Toll Free Phone 877-723-9087 Ext 308

Phone 781-245-9000

Fax 781-245-9009

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

 
This is great information.  
Thank you for providing some details.  
 
The comment: had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W).   is informative.  It
indicates that the RFID was not the only transmitter in the proximity of the
medical EUT.  This RFID reader adds another parameter that requires control
and investigation during the test.  
 
continuing the list of possibilities:
 
f)  is it possible that the RFID tag has much less effect than that of the
RFID reader?
Would be informative to find out if the RFID reader, in the absence of the
tags themselves, can duplicate any of the EUT problems.

 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dean Gerard
(Medical Physics)
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:48 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: FW: EMC in the news: RFID  Medical






Just nominal power outputs and separation distances between interfering and
susceptible equipment. 

Output info given is - 
 The passive RFID system selected for this study (OBID, Feig Electronic,
Weilburg, Germany) had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W). The active RFID system

(Eureka RFID, Avonwood, England) had a 125-kHz reader (68_10E-3 µT at 1m)
that forces tags to transmit in its proximity. The active RFID tag had an
operational frequency of 868 MHz at 2 µW

Interference effects were provoked at separation distances ranging from 5 -
600cm, depending upon equipment affected. 



Ged Dean 
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust 

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

[SPAM] RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Gert-
You mention one possible reason for the test results is that the EUT's
have immunity deficits.
I agree, that is one possibility.  
 
here are a few other possibilities:   
(BTW- not affiliated in any way with medical devices nor with, all
comments OOO )
 
 
b)Could it be a systemic testing error?
Was a shield room used?   
Were the ambients controlled and eliminated?
Were the devices connected to a patient simulator?
Did the test engineer have his personal GSM phone OFF?  etc. 
(...crazier things have happened.)
 
 
c)Maybe the EUT are old.
Through outdated design specs perhaps RFID proximity was not a
consideration during their design.
And yet, in today's hospitals, the two types of devices may be in
close proximity.
If this is the case then the study has done a great service to the
community by uncovering a problem that was unknown.
 
 
d)Maybe the EUT are old (not a repeat) 
Through many years of use perhaps once immune equipment has lost
some of their designed immunity?
Again- if this is the case this study may have uncovered a
previously unknown problem.
 

e)Is it possible for an RF ID device to overwhelm the immunity levels of
the EUT?
If a medical device is tested at 10 V/m and an RFID device TXout is in
the mW range- is it possible for a RFID mW transmitter to generate 10 V/m?
Perhaps.
For instance- since an RFID device operating at 125 kHz in not
transmitting in the classic sense, then there may be near-field resonant
effects that are not previously understood in the medical device immunity
requirements?
   
 
 
It seems that we, as professionals in this field, have the unique ability
to analyze these reports like no other community can.  I wonder if we will
find the answers to the large number of questions raised by the article.  
 
 
 
All comments OOO.

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:administra...@ce-test.info] 
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:57 AM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC in the news: RFID  Medical



The report was produced by TNO, a Dutch private organization

(http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context
marktencontent=markt_persberichtlaag1=189item_id=200806250026Taal=2)

 

and some results are available here:

 

http://www.amc.nl/?pid=5266

 

Manufacturers name and equipment type included.

 

Please note that the energy levels of RFID are in the milliwatt range,

so all problems are to be categorized as immunity deficits.

 

 

It is astonishing that the security of healthy persons (like car drivers) 

is taken much more seriously (by car manufacturers for example )

as the security  of people with bad health like in hospitals.

Most medical equipment is tested  at 10 V/meter or less.

where critical car parts must  be tested up to 200V/m.

 

Cars are to be sold at low prices (relatively) , medical equipment

at sky-high costs.  It seems that emc quality is the inverse of the

costs of equipment. Where much attention is given to

reliability and electrical safety of medical equipment,

emc is still  neglected. 

Note that this investigation was made in a Dutch

University Hospital;

On  European soil , where immunity requirements have been 

virtually law since 1996 

 

The lack of EMC care might be related to the fact that

medical accidents are easy to cover up, (more easy then car accidents)

and liability of medical staff is difficult to prove, let alone

the liability of a medical equipment manufacturer.

See the discussion on the Therac-25.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Conway, Patrick R
(Houston)
Verzonden: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:08 PM
Aan: Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org
Onderwerp: RE: EMC in the news: RFID  Medical

 

...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn.  :)

 

 

 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EMC in the news: RFID  Medical

“The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the
effect of holding both passive and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical
devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and
pacemakers.

A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced
an incident in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were
deemed either significant or hazardous.

In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical
ventilators, completely stopped the working of syringe pumps, caused external
pacemakers to malfunction, and halted dialysis machines.

The device did

RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn.  :)
 
 
 
Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EMC in the news: RFID  Medical



“The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the
effect of holding both passive and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical
devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and
pacemakers.

A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced
an incident in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were
deemed either significant or hazardous.

In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical
ventilators, completely stopped the working of syringe pumps, caused external
pacemakers to malfunction, and halted dialysis machines.

The device did not have to be held right up to the machine to make this happen
- some hazardous incidents happened when the RFID was more than 10 inches
away.”

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7471008.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7471008.stm 

Best Regards,

Adam Rudd

Electrical Engineer (EMC)

NCR Corporation, RHSS

Duluth, GA

(770) 495-2825

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Proposed EuP directive?

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

Kristiaan, 
Thank you.  
 
 
And thanks to all list members that replied.
 

Best Regards, 

Patrick. 
p.con...@hp.com 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carpentier
Kristiaan
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:52 PM
To: lauren_cr...@amat.com; Conway, Patrick R (Houston)
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Proposed EuP directive?



2 major Implementation measures are under discussion:

- External Power Supplies (EPS).

The EPS IM measure is a Vertical IM  Product specific. Limits are actually
taken over from Energy star V2.

Implementation expected from H2 2009.

- Off  Standby mode losses.

The latter is a Horizontal Implementation measure affecting a broad range of
products, including ITE equipment; it requires that products go automatically
in Standby or Off mode with limits down to 1 or 2 Watt  even lower values a
few years later.

Implementation expected from H2 2009.

 

These requirements are legal requirements and will have to listed on the EU
DoC of the product.

 

Best regards,

 

Kris Carpentier

Regulatory  Approvals



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 23:13
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston)
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Proposed EuP directive?

 


Check out http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/index_en.htm 

The EuP (Energy Using Products) directive has been out for a while and already
has three product sectors in scope (ballasts, refrigerators,and water
heaters).  There have been recent consultation efforts and proposals to expand
the list of products that fall under EuP (which happens to be a CE marking
directive). 

Regards, 

Lauren Crane (Mr.)
Product Regulatory Analyst
Corporate Product EHS Lead
Applied Materials Inc.
Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540]

-External Use-

Save paper and trees!  Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail. 



 




Conway, Patrick R (Houston) p.con...@hp.com 
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

06/11/2008 11:32 AM 

To

emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org 

cc

 

Subject

Proposed EuP directive?

 

 

 

 

 

  




  
List-members. 
  
I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power
usage in the EU. 
  
Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations? 
  
Thanks in advance. 
  
  
  
Best Regards, 
  
Patrick Conway, NCE. 
  
Hewlett-Packard Co. 
p.con...@hp.com 
  
281.514.2259 
281-514.5473(fax) 
  
  
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p

Proposed EuP directive?

[Conway, Patrick R (Houston)]

 
List-members.
 
I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power
usage in the EU.
 
Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations?
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
 
Best Regards,
 
Patrick Conway, NCE.
 
Hewlett-Packard Co.
p.con...@hp.com
 
281.514.2259
281-514.5473(fax)
 
 
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.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...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

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

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Ferrite clamps

[Conway, Patrick R]

Gherry-
Thanks for the response.  I was very interested in knowing what the
responses were at the committee level to those basic questions.  From your
report it seems the basics of non-interference were brought up but other
factors weighed heavier in the argument.


If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I
think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000.  But since I work for
neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get
non-interfering product to market.


But, as you say- these points are no longer important.  The DOW
approaches.  So- now I have to go buy some clamps.



Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps?
Anyone started using these in their testing yet?


Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Patrick,

You make a number of valid points.  They are, however, mute.  A1:2000 to
CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world.
As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform
radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial
cost impact on the ITE industry.

The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs.
The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the
discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect.  We're stuck with them, for
better or worse.  We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing.
The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the
clamps will cause.  I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings.
We'll see what happens.

Ghery


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps


Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the noise generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
if it isn't broke, why fix it (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Hello Ghery-

Thank

[no subject]

[Conway, Patrick R]

All-

 I'd like to know if there are any opinions about...


 It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the
use of ferrite clamps during RE tests of table-top equipment.

Has anyone started using these devices during their testing?
Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the
use of these devices?



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

RE: Ferrite clamps

[Conway, Patrick R]

Gherry-
It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on
this topic.  The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the
original intent of the laws.  

I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain:


Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15
Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from
the noise generated by digital devices.  The original limits and test
methods were widely scrutinized over the years.  They have also been updated
and adjusted as necessary.  As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on
this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those
licensed services from interference.  So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking:
if it isn't broke, why fix it (my words, not theirs!!).  


Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease*
emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the
market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this
change may break it)


Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on
a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite
bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product.  How does
the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this?




I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have
agreeable measurements with another lab.  It's good business for him to say
he can agree with any one else.  However- if the foundation for the rules is
to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community)
a little off-base on this one ?


Maybe I'm missing some important details here.  Someone correct me
if I'm wrong...



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE

EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps



Patrick,

The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability
between labs.  I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for
radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies
accept the ferrite clamps.  Not a good thing.  I am working through an
industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them.  I've been working
on this for 2 years.  Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that
might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Hello Ghery-

Thank you for the information.

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting
process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a
bit contentious.  Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote
counts AT LEAST once.  There wasn't any hanging chad during that CISPR
vote, was there?


But- back to A1:2000:  The data you report indicates that the
emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps.  This
is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 

1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or
two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an
interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite
clamp at their facility.

2nd:  if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then
a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to
pass after the DOW.  

3rd:  since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite
clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and
time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test.



This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to
market in Europe.


Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation?  Was
it to increase repeatability at test sites?  Was it to reduce the number of
interference complaints from ITE installations? 



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Patrick,

I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was
still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US
vote.  I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and others may
go up when you add the clamps.  You will need to re-test products for Europe
as you can't predict what the change will by just

RE:

[Conway, Patrick R]

Hello Ghery-

Thank you for the information.

To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting
process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a
bit contentious.  Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote
counts AT LEAST once.  There wasn't any hanging chad during that CISPR
vote, was there?


But- back to A1:2000:  The data you report indicates that the
emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps.  This
is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 

1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or
two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an
interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite
clamp at their facility.

2nd:  if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then
a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to
pass after the DOW.  

3rd:  since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite
clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and
time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test.



This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to
market in Europe.


Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation?  Was
it to increase repeatability at test sites?  Was it to reduce the number of
interference complaints from ITE installations? 



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)



-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: RE: 


Patrick,

I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was
still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US
vote.  I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and others may
go up when you add the clamps.  You will need to re-test products for Europe
as you can't predict what the change will by just by inspection.

BTW, this amendment to CISPR 22 passed by 1 vote.  The US voted no as the
clamps were not adequately defined in the proposal.

Ghery Pettit
Intel


-Original Message-
From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:53 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: 




All-

 I'd like to know if there are any opinions about...


 It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the
use of ferrite clamps during RE tests of table-top equipment.

Has anyone started using these devices during their testing?
Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the
use of these devices?



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway  NCE
StorageTek
EMC Advisory Engineer
303.661.6391
303.661.6717 (FAX)






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

[Patrick Lawler]

Are you sure about the IEC 60521 reference?
  IEC 60521 (1988-03)
  Class 0.5, 1 and 2 alternating-current watthour meters

  Applies only to newly manufactured induction type watt-hour meters of
  accuracy classes 0.5, 1 and 2, for the measurement of alternating current
  electrical active energy of a frequency in the range 45 Hz to 65 Hz and to
  their type tests only. This publication supersedes IEC 60043 (1960), 60170
  (1964) and 60280 (1968). 


Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:55:57 -0400, Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com wrote:
I can help much, but, for this paragraph, the rationale at the back of the
standard states that Annex AAA of the Collateral Standard IEC 60601-1-2
states that the limits and methodology are under consideration by technical
committee 77.  This Particular Standard, however, refers for the time being
to IEC 60521 in which 400 A/m is required.

For the Second Edition of IEC 60601-1-2, Clause 36.202.8.1, the limit is 3
A/m.

Ned Devine
Program Manager
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548
1 616 248 9671 Phone
1 616 574 9752 Fax
ndev...@entela.com e-mail

Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business
www.entela.com 

-Original Message-
From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:40 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: IEC 60601-2-24 / Magnetic Field

Hi all,
A colleague was checking the IEC 60601-2-24:98 and found the Magnetic Field
Req't (paragraph 36.202.6) far too high: 400 Ampere-per-meter! I'd like to
check this requirement for its correctness or history with backgrounds for
such a demand. I know that 3A/m, 10A/m and 30A/m are often used, but 400A/m
.

Can anybody help?

Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway

PS: IEC 60601-2-24:98 - Medical electrical equipment - Part 2-24:
Particular requirements for the safety of infusion pumps and controllers


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: Anti-static Insulating Tape ???

[Patrick Lawler]

How do the safety standards (for example, IEC 60950 and their clones) define
'insulating tape'?
Are the insulating properties determined as applied in the end product by hipot
and leakage current?

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:16:16 -0700 (PDT), Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com wrote:
Thanks for sharing your findings on insulating tape
and anti-static tape.

All insulators have the property of insulation
resistance.  Modern insulations have insulation
resistances in the gigaohm and teraohm ranges.

I would guess that anti-static insulators have a
relatively low value of insulation resistance.  From
what you describe, the manufacturer has assumed that
his anti-static material is not suitable as an
insulator, presumably because the insulation 
resistance is relatively low.

The insulation resistance required by a circuit is
relative to the circuit resistances.  

Insulation is in parallel to circuit resistances.
The effect of insulation resistance is usually 
ignored because we assume the insulation resistance
is very high compared to the circuit resistance.

For relatively low circuit resistances, I would 
think that relatively low insulation resistances
-- say megohm range -- would be acceptable.  I 
would think that one could use an anti-static 
material as an insulator if the insulation 
resistance was sufficiently high compared to the 
circuit resistance.

I wonder of anti-static material manufacturers have
studied the long-term effects of various values of
working voltage on the material?


Best regards,
Rich







---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list


Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: CNS Standards

[Patrick Lawler]

For those interested, there was an article in Compliance Engineering in November
1999 comparing CNS 13438:1997 to CISPR 22:1993.  It also had some brief comments
on lab accreditation.

The article can be found on the web at
http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/Lin.html


On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:15:41 -0700, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com wrote:
Aha, the thread just hit the topic I was just waiting for, and I know this 
isn't going to be an easy question.
   Some countries won't take the data taken at a NIST accredited lab 
 without further agreements being signed. Taiwan is an example.  You can still 
 do it in country but your lab has to have some sort of arrangement with 
 Taiwan. A few, I don't have a clue to the percentage, labs have this and for 
 the extra translation fee etc, you can pretty much get the data you need 
 while doing a normal US/European set of tests, radiated emissions and 
 immunity.
   Some countries, like Russia will take the NIST (A2LA or NVLAP 
 accredited) EMC and CB data, but require a review and filing fee.
   A third set like Korea still want in-country testing. There is only a 
 single public lab in Canada that has an agreement with Korea to take the data 
 (now both emissions and immunity). At least as far as I currently know.
   Are their any more of the third set of countries that I should be 
 concerned about. Sorry I know this is a wide open question. 
   As a small company my current MO is to obtain the core countries that 
 we would immediate try to open as markets. Basically, North America, and 
 Western Europe, and Japan. I then just try to be prepared with CB data and 
 NIST lab data for those countries that essentially want to review that data 
 on their own for acceptance.
   Folks like Korea, just have to wait until our financials show us that 
 it is worth spending the money for what is basically a retest of the 
 equipment for a specific country. Sales, Marketing and I are on the same page 
 to this point, but they certainly would like to know those countries where I 
 need to re-test as soon as possible, both from a cost and a time perspective. 
 While I have asked that they help provide this information from the 
 in-country sales or distributors, that has met with limited success.
   Anybody aware of other, possible more obscure markets, that are still 
 looking for in-country testing.
   Gary
   
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Judge [mailto:bju...@ccsemc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:51 PM
To: 'Fred Borda'; rehel...@mmm.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: CNS Standards



Hi Fred,

Is that an official translation of CNS 13438?  By the way in visiting your
website I notice that you stipulate that In-country testing is required for
most equipment  Under the APEC Mutual Recognition Arrangement, both Taiwan
and the US being signatories, it is not required that testing be conducted
in Taiwan.  Testing may be conducted by a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB),
in the U.S., that has been Nominated by NIST and confirmed by DGT.  We are
still in Phase 1 of the Arrangement so submission to DGT is still required.
Once we move to Phase 2 the confirmed CABs under Phase 2 should be capable
of certifying products for DGT.  I'd be happy to discuss our capability with
you off-line. 

Best Regards,
Barbara
___
Barbara L. Judge
Vice President 
Compliance Certification Services
Designated TCB and CAB
561F Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
408-463-0885 ext.104   
Fax:  408-463-0888
e-mail:  bju...@ccsemc.com
http://www.ccsemc.com


-Original Message-
From: Fred Borda [mailto:fbo...@typeapproval.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:22 AM
To: rehel...@mmm.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: CNS Standards



Hello Bob,

Compliance International can provide the CNS 13438 standard for you. Please 
contact me off-list for details.

Best regards,

-Fred Borda
Compliance International
www.typeapproval.com



At PM 12:05 04/22/02 -0500, rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

Can anyone provide a source to purchase Taiwan EMC standards (CNS) in
English?

Thank you,
Bob Heller
3M Product Safety, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252



Fred Borda
Director
Marketing  Business Development
Compliance International
www.typeapproval.com
--
The experts in telecommunications equipment type approval
across the Asia-Pacific region
--
4713 First Street, Suite 280
Pleasanton, California 94566-7362 USA
Tel  +1.925.417.5571 (direct)
Fax  +1.925.417.5574
Mobile  +1.650.740.5762
fbo...@typeapproval.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 

Re: Scope of EN 61000-4-8 (Power Frequency Magnetic Testing)

[Patrick Lawler]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:31:02 +0100, Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:

snip
It's for this reason that for professional audio systems EN 55103 the
application of
a magnetic field source test is prescribed for the full audio frequency
range.

Is there a standard for magnetic field immunity over the audio range
(20Hz-20kHz)?

snip

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@spamtrap.west.net
(remove spamtrap to reply)
remove spamtrap to reply

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@attbi.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: Voltage Spikes on Power Lines etc

[Patrick Lawler]

Hi George:

Take a look at IEEE standard C62.41 ('Recommended Practice on Surge Voltages in
Low-Voltage AC Power Circuits').  It has summaries of transient voltage surveys
done by other people around the world.
Other portions of the standard suggest specific types of surge tests  test
levels.  These are based on geographic location, as well as location on the
premises (equipment connected deep within a building, connected near the main
circuit breaker box, or connected near the utility power pole.)

Note - it doesn't talk about equipment malfunction, just about the types of
transient voltages recorded.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:17:29 -0800, George Stults george.stu...@watchguard.com
wrote:
I am trying right now to convince some folks that power line voltage spike
problems can be and usually are severe enough to degrade or kill ITE
products that don't have adequate over-voltage protection.   I found a link
using Google that describes the problems [
http://www.kalglo.com/powrline.htm ] but I'm looking for additional links to
specifics or summaries if any one knows of such.

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

EMC-PSTC on a web site

[Patrick Lawler]

I finally read the bottom of a recent posting, and saw that the EMC-PSTC
discussion forum is now available through a web page.

Many thanks to those who put it together!

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: (no subject)

[Patrick Lawler]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:28:57 -0800, you wrote:
My apologies! In the last message I put a wrong address: maHordomo.. and
of course the message got rejected - there just ain't no AI in my address
book!
snip

You should be glad your address book has no AI.
Our company email program is Lotus Notes, which will automatically pick an
address from the corporate employee/customer/vendor address book if the name you
type is incomplete. IE, typing 'Pat' instead of 'Pat Lawler'.
More than once I've had to send follow-up emails to vendors and customers
apologizing for the email they received that does not concern them.

I finally found the menu option for this feature and turned it 'Off'!

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: Sanitary Standard Testing

[Patrick Lawler]

Are you looking for a laboratory to perform the testing, or a copy of the
standard so you can review the requirements?

In the United States, standards for food products are controlled by the FDA
(Food and Drug Administration).
I found one web page you might start with:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/prime.html

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:24:56 +0200, Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il
wrote:
Can anyone help identify a laboratory testing to Sanitary Standards for
Level Sensing Devices for Dry Milk and Dry Milk Products, Number 50-00?

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: Chamber Doors

[Patrick Lawler]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:08:09 +0800, Wan Juang Foo f...@np.edu.sg wrote:
snip
BTW, 'Be' (Beryllium) is a highly toxic metal that will not get out of your
blood once it enters it.  I would strongly advise anyone cleaning their
Be-Cu finger stocks from exposing themselves to any possibilities of cuts
or abrassions while cleaning these 'fingers'.
I understand the concentrations of Be is low but why would anyone take the
risk of prolonged exposure to Be dust and metal chippings?
snip
Are you sure?  Berylium Oxide (BeO) has a long-standing reputation for being
toxic, but I've never heard of metalic berylium (Be) posing a problem.

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: CM Choke simulation

[Patrick Lawler]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:22:04 EST, lfresea...@aol.com wrote:
I'm trying to model a common mode choke in Micro-sim. Has anyone tried this? 
Failing that, any suggestion on how to model one in Spice, possibly using 
magnetic models?

1) Coilcraft wrote an application note on this subject.  Go to their App note
page at http://www.coilcraft.com/appnotes.html and look for the paper titled
Common mode filter inductor analysis

2) There was a discussion in sci.electronics.cad in 1996 titled Common Mode
Choke Modelling in Pspice?.
I was able to retrieve it through the Google newsgroup search at
http://www.google.com/grphp?hl=en

3) Also try
http://www.highdensitysolutions.com/hdsol/General/TechnicalPapers.html for
Magnetic Components Modeling

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list

Re: EEC compliance for a ground based radar

[Patrick Lawler]

Does operating frequency affect the issue?
If the radar system is in an official ISM frequency band, use CISPR 11, but if
operating outside the those bands treat is as an RTTE device?

Also, what about the market served?  The original poster seems to have a
position with a military contractor.  Does CISPR 11 and/or the RTTE directive
apply to military equipment?


On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:07:02 -0500, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote:
Hold on a second. Why is it considered ISM and not RTTE? Seems to me that it
is subject to the RTTE Directive in that it uses the spectrum for
communications with a transponder - active or passive as the case may be.

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:48 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org

Subject: Re: EEC compliance for a ground based radar
I read in !emc-pstc that Woodcox, Edmund A edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com
wrote (in 9efd49e2fb59d411aaba0008c7e675c0073a5...@emss04m10.ems.lmco.c
om) about 'EEC compliance for a ground based radar', on Tue, 29 Jan
2002:
I have a ground based radar that is somewhat largish and I need to obtain
CE
compliance for this product.  I've reviewed the journal and am wondering if
a product like this is considered ISM or would the generic limits apply?
Anybody out there have any experience with this?  

It's an 'intentional radiator' and therefore ISM. EN55011 applies. ETSI
standards may also apply.

To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EEC compliance for a ground based radar
From: Woodcox, Edmund A edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:44:28 -0500

Hi Group,

I have a ground based radar that is somewhat largish and I need to obtain CE
compliance for this product.  I've reviewed the journal and am wondering if
a product like this is considered ISM or would the generic limits apply?
Anybody out there have any experience with this?  

   Edmund A Woodcox
   Specialty Engineering 
   Electromagnetic Environmental Effects
   =
   LOCKHEED MARTIN
   Naval Electronics  Surveillance Systems-Syracuse
   PO Box 4840
   EP5-D5MD45
   Syracuse, NY 13221-4840
   ===
   Phone: 315-456-2650
   Fax:  315-456-0509
   Email: edmund.a.wood...@lmco.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Is there an immunity spec complement to the EN61000-3-3 flicker emissions spec?

[Patrick Lawler]

In a recent posting, someone commented on the possiblity of 'flicker' emissions
(controlled by EN61000-3-3) causing a disturbance in 'victim' equipment.

Would EN61000-4-11 (Voltage dips, short interruptions and voltage variations) be
an immunity spec complement to EN61000-3-3? Or is EN61000-4-14 (Voltage
fluctuations) more appropriate?
What is the difference between the two?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6

[Patrick Lawler]

Sorry for the confusion - I should have started a new thread.
Let me try again.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:20:44 +, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:
I read in !emc-pstc that Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net wrote (in
d86u3ukalc0klgvpifajq86e13bmrcf...@4ax.com) about 'EN 50141 and EN
61000-4-6', on Fri, 11 Jan 2002:
This is a more of a general question, since I would actually test to 
EN61000-6-2
(which references EN61000-4-6.)

You can't do that for a UPS; the product standard takes precedence
**whether you like it or not**. You can't choose to apply the Generic if
a product standard exists.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Basic Test Standards: old vs. new - which one?

[Patrick Lawler]

If CENELEC has updated a basic test standard (like IEC801-2 being replaced by
EN61000-4-2), but the product standard used for system EMC testing calls out the
old basic test standard number, which one do you use?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Required separation between item with 3V/m radiated immunity and Class A (industrial) emissions?

[Patrick Lawler]

I belive emissions standards were designed to allow proper operation of radios
and televisions with minimal irritation.  This would include sound and video
quality.  I heard this story a long time ago with respect to FCC limits.

On the other hand, immunity standards were developed so equipment would not be
damaged, not 'lock up', and remain safe.

While equipment might meet a 3V/m immunity standard, I'll bet if it was an
'Intentional Receiver' like a radio (there are international radiators, why not
intentional receivers?), it would operate poorly when separated by 1m from a
CISPR Class A noise source.  Obviously, this assumes the noise was comparable in
frequency to the victim equipment.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:18:37 +1000, peter.pou...@invensys.com wrote:
At the moment I'm examining as a generic case, the potential for
interference with Item A (tested to comply with 3V/m radiated immunity)
caused by Item B (tested to comply with FCC or EN Class A [industrial]
emissions).

Using simple inverse distance ( E2 = E1 x d1/d2 ) extrapolation (assuming
dominant interfering frequencies will be in the far field), I come up with
a required separation distance of approximately 75cm to ensure the 3V/m
immunity limit of Item A isn't exceeded by the 47dBuV/m emissions from Item
B.

Based on this, I'd expect then the risk for EMC problems should be
relatively low provided:
1. A minimum separation of 1m was used between Items A  B;
2. No direct interconnection of A to B via cables;
3. Use of a mains filter and/or separate power supply sources for A  B;
4. The nature of Item B is such that no significant low (eg.power)
frequency magnetic fields are emitted;

Does anyone have any experience to suggest that the minimum separation of
1m under theses conditions would not be adequate?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: power supply to GOST 30429-96

[Patrick Lawler]

Hi Lou:

Try checking the AC input wiring to the power supply, and verify that it doesn't
have loops across the power supply.  Magnetic fields from the transformer may be
high, and excessive wire length acts as a magnetic pickup.

1) Are the parameters you posted for the conducted emission limits accurate?  I
tried plotting them, and got a big discontinuity at 0.15MHz.

2) Is there any change in the conducted emission test setup below 0.15MHz?

3) Does the GOST radiated emission standard specify an E-field (dipole,
biconical, log periodic, etc.) antenna below 30MHz?  Below 0.15MHz?  Or are
there magnetic loop antennas for some of the test ranges?
I have a hard time imagining E-field measurements below 30MHz at a 3m distance.

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:19:22 -0800, you wrote:
snip
The requirements for EMC of radio equipment in Russia (as well as in several
other CIS countries) are set by the standard GOST 30429-96 (Electromagnetic
Compatibility of technical equipment. Man-made noise from equipment and
apparatus used t6ogether with service receiver systems of civil application.
Limits and test methods), according to this standard the following
measurement must be done.
1. Conducted Emissions
Frequency range Limits, dB(uV)
0.009  MHz - 0.15 MHz  U = 90 - 28.9lg(f/0,01) (Quasi-peak)
0.15 MHz - 0.5 MHz  U = 66 - 22.7lg(f/0,15) (Quasi-peak)
0.5 MHz - 6 MHz   U = 54 - 12.97lg(f/0,5) (Quasi-peak)
6 MHz - 30 MHzU = 40 (Quasi-peak)
30 MHz - 100 MHzU = 48 (Quasi-peak) 40 (Average)

This test is done looking at the emissions from the 220 V power cables,
using a LISN
2. Radiated Emissions
Frequency range Limits, dB(uV/m)
0.01 MHz - 0.15 MHzE = 60 - 20.4lg(f/0.01)
0.15 MHz - 30 MHz   E = 37 - 7.39lg(f/0.15)
30 MHz - 100 MHzE = 36 - 21.0lg(f/0.30)
100 MHz - 1000 MHzE = 25 + 20.0lg(f/100)

According to GOST 30429-96 this test is done at 3 meters in frequency range
0.01MHz - 30 MHz and at 1 meter in frequency range 30 MHz - 1000 MHz in the
screen room. 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: EMI guard bands

[Patrick Webb]

Ideally one would want a good margin between the emissions of the EUT and
the limit to which it must comply.  There can be differences due to site
variations and EUT configurations or just different samples which have
already been discussed.  I am comfortable with 6dB of margin.  That is 6dB
below the required limit(Class A, B, doesn't matter).  3dB of margin is an
acceptable pass, but not comfortable and the emission should be seriously
investigated.  Anything less than that is an issue.  A margin of less than
3dB could quickly be over the limit with a different sample or another site.
I think it is a very high expectation to want 10dB below the class B limit.
Unless there is evidence to suggest that the level may be significantly
higher with another sample, site, etc., than 3 or 6dB should be adequate.

Patrick Webb
Compliance Engineer



-Original Message-
From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:06 AM
To: 'Gary McInturff'; Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: RE: EMI guard bands



Does anyone make Class A AND Class B
products?
if so, do you allow for a much smaller margin on the B
since its approx. 10 db quieter than A to start with.
or do you treat them equally.
Also Oats site to Oats site can differ as much as +/- 4 db
do to many factors.
any comments?
Richard,

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: RE: EMI guard bands



I hold with the 3 db under class B, as well as A. The only effective
argument, in my mind, is the uncertainty of measurement issue. Beyond that I
find that if I have 3 db everywhere my measurements next time down with that
product or with one off the shelf have also been compliant. So if pragmatic
repeated measurements is telling me I'm in then I am not going to spend the
time and money to make even more sure that I am in. The goal is to not
interfere with communications not to be invisible at all costs. If it ain't
broke I'm not fixing it.
Obviously, others disagree. By the way if a customer requests it,
they get what they want, if they want to pay for it, and I have never
rejected products with a 3 db band - and they haven't bitten me yet either.
My couple cents
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@auspex.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMI guard bands



Tania Grant wrote:

 Amund,

 My minimum criteria and recommendation has always been at least 6dB.
 However, how many engineering managers, upon finding a 1.5 dB margin
in
 their favor, rule ship it!

nod
Although in some markets, there are customers who
require -6dB under the Class A limit. Although if I had
it my way, I'd make it about -10dB under the limit.

- Doug McKean



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Heald

Re: Components to suppress fast transient / bursts

[Patrick Lawler]

I've had good results using ferrite cores.  They help radiated emissions as
well.

P.S.: I was surprised to see your location. I'll be coming to your city for the
first time on Saturday.  This visit caused me to ask the question concerning
snow on OATS sites.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 21:50:35 +0100, am...@westin-emission.no wrote:
I do not have any experience with components which could suppress a 2kV
(5ns/50ns) electrical fast transient (Burst).

Anybody in the group who could come up with some suggestions ?

Best regards
Amund Westin,Oslo/Norway

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Enclosed OATS facilities in snow country

[Patrick Lawler]

I saw some photographs of an enclosed OATS facility in an area subject to snow.

How does snow accumulation on the roof affect performance measurements?  Does it
affect the NSA figures?
Is the effect significant enough that attempts are made to keep the roof snow
free?  Or does the normal attempt at keeping the inside test area warm enough
for people take care of snow build-up?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Stepping receiver, step sizes.

[Patrick Lawler]

Are you saying that the results of a 'tuning' style measurement sequence are
different than a 'stepping' style measurement sequence?

On a slightly different note:
The HP 8591EM has the capability of log frequency sweeps without the use of an
external controller.  I looked at the X-axis output drive waveform once, and was
surprised to see that it was comprised of 7 or 8 ramp waveforms chained
together, of different durations.  I assume it was several linear sweeps chained
together, although I never checked.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:48:12 -0800, Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote:
Ken and I have been talking this over off-line, and it seems like an
important thing to note is that the HP / Agilent spectrum analyzers tune
over a measurement range by continuously sweeping their local oscillator.
Setting a resolution bandwidth and a span width does not mean that the
analyzer will tune in discreet hops. Even under external HP software
control, the analyzer firmware still does (perhaps a series of) analog
sweeps.

OTOH, if you use your own software, specify a resolution bandwidth, and then
send a series of tune, measure, tune,... commands, then you can miss
emissions between the skirts of the passbands if your step size is too
large.

You have to understand how your receiver or analyzer actually covers a
frequency range.

Regards,

Ed


Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780  (Voice)
858-505-1583  (Fax)
Military  Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis


-Original Message-
From: HALL,KEN (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:ken_h...@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:38 AM
To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; HALL,KEN (HP-Roseville,ex1); 'John Woodgate';
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Stepping receiver, step sizes.



Hello Gary and all,

The point is do an experiment with your Stepping receiver.

Ken 

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:36 AM
To: 'HALL,KEN (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; 'John Woodgate';
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Stepping receiver, step sizes.


Ken,

A spectrum analyzer sweeps through a range of frequencies.  
The resolution
of the display merely impacts the accuracy of the frequency 
determination
for a signal when digitized and sent to a computer over the 
bus.  Each point
on the display simply shows the highest level obtained in the 
range covered
by that point.  This is different than step tuning a receiver.

Or am I missing something?

Ghery Pettit
Intel

-Original Message-
From: HALL,KEN (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:ken_h...@hp.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:09 AM
To: 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Stepping receiver, step sizes.



Hello all,

We typically measure in 500 MHz spans, our spectrum analyzer 
has 400 bits so
1.25 MHz/bit. Concerned that we could miss an emission I 
perfromed the below
experiment, try it:

Injected a 2950 MHz signal into EMI Receiver, set for 1MHz 
RBW, and measured
it using diffrent Spans

3 000 MHz 67 dBuV signal, 400 bits 1 MHz RBW  
Span [MHz]Amplitude   Step/bit [MHz]
1066  0.025
500   67  1.25
1000  67  2.5
2000  67  5
3000  66  7.5
4000  67  10
6000  67  15

What we see is even with the step size 15 times the RBW the 
signal is not
lost.

Regards,

Ken Hall

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:16 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Stepping receiver, step sizes.



I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote
(in 
20011206195802.LCFL6698.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27])
about 'Stepping receiver, step sizes.', on Thu, 6 Dec 2001:
Keeping the step size to one-half the measurement bandwidth 
is an accepted
way of assuring that all possible signals are captured.  
Using a step size
equal to a measurement bandwidth is not quite as good but reasonable.

In the context of 8, 20 or 80 kHz steps to cover 4 GHz, I think
reasonableness wins. One would be extraordinarily unlucky to lose a
significant signal under those conditions.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk

After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Heald

Re: [Fwd: Who or what is W letter in a circle]

[Patrick Lawler]

It would help if you said what the item was that had the symbol.

The german company Wickmann also has a symbol consisting of the letter W in a
circle.  They make fuses, fuseholders, and other circuit protection devices.

 Subject: Who or what is W letter in a circle
 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:33:29 -0500
 From: paul_j_sm...@teradyne.com
 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org

 Folks,

 Is anyone familiar with Who or what is W symbol in a circle?
 Your commnets would be appreciated.

 Paul J Smith, Teradyne, Boston

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: LISN Calibration

[Patrick Lawler]

I ran into that exact problem (a floating power source) a few years ago.

The conducted emissions test results on a power supply at an outside lab were
4-5dB higher than our precompliance bench in-house.
I sent the LISN's back to the manufacturer for performance verification, and
they were fine.  I took the spectrum analyzer to the outside lab to compare its
performance to their equipment, and the results matched.

I finally realized the only difference between the test setups was the source of
power: labs fed their LISNs directly from a wall outlet (with grounded neutral),
while we fed ours from a variac followed by an isolation tranformer.  Out of
frustration, I connected our LISNs directly to a wall outlet.  The conducted
emissions readings finally agreed!
It turns out the filter in the switching power supply had differing values of
EMI capacitors from primary to chassis (after the rectifier), and using a
grounded source at the LISN input degraded its performance.

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net


On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:43:35 +, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:
I read in !emc-pstc that Peters, Michael mpet...@analogic.com wrote
(in 61c1e83d9da9d311a871009027d617f001632...@peaexch1.analogic.com)
about 'LISN Calibration', on Thu, 29 Nov 2001:
If you have not already done so, I would recommend an isolation transformer.
Many factories and office buildings have a great deal of ambient noise that
will interfere with your measurements.

That could be a bit problematic. The LISN was designed to work with
normal mains supplies, in which the neutral is earthed or earthy. You
may not get the same results with a floating supply.

My LISN has a mains filter on the incoming supply. CISPR16-1 mentions
that this may be necessary and, by implication, allows it.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Need test equipment.

[Patrick Webb]

We are currently looking for a 10/1000 module (model E509A) for the
Keytek ECAT system.  If there is anyone out there that may have one of these
that is not needed please contact me.  Please contact me at the address
below and not the post list.  Thank you.

Patrick Webb
Compliance Engineer
patrick.w...@genband.com
General Bandwidth


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: EN 55022 limits

[Patrick Wong]

Hi,

As I believe, class B (domestic appliances) are allowed for the 3 M method
whereas Class A may not.

Regards

Patrick Wong
EED
HKSTC
- Original Message -
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: EN 55022 limits



 I read in !emc-pstc that Stuart Lopata stu...@timcoengr.com wrote (in
 nfbbieghilgeclalhjnaeeifcaaa.stu...@timcoengr.com) about 'EN 55022
 limits', on Tue, 30 Oct 2001:
 The radiated limits are stated for 10 meters but our measurements are at
3
 meters.  Is it ok to use 3 meter data and what should the new limits be
(may
 be 10 dB higher)?

 You need to look in the standard to see if that is allowed. If it is
 allowed, the 10 dB factor is to be used, but measurements at 10 m are
 definitive.
 --
 Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 Eat mink and be dreary!

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: CISPR 13, EN 55013

[Patrick Lawler]

This sounds similar to the radiated emissions tests following EN55014-1:1997
(emissions for household appliances).  The unit of measure is also dBpW.

An absorbing clamp is placed on the AC power cord, and moved along the cord
looking for maximum emissions.  A table of correction factors converts from the
observed measurement unit of dBuV to dBpW.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:05:48 -0500, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
wrote:
A NASA colleague of mine has EN 55013 test results on an electronic
keyboard.  The test results are a graph of dBpW vs. frequency, with a
conversion chart for getting from measured data in dBuV to dBpW to be
plotted against the limit.  I have a 1975 version of CISPR 13 and can find
nothing that leads to a dBpW limit.  The keyboard is battery powered so I
assume the test was radiated in nature.  Any ideas out there on what was
measured?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Insulated Electrolytic Capacitors

[Patrick Lawler]

Our company manufactures switching power supplies to EN60950 and EN60601-1
standards, and our safety group looks for these issues.
In fact, I got 'bit' by that same problem last week.  Spacing was OK when the
PWB was mounted in the chassis, but when the cover was installed, it failed
primary-ground spacing.  I had to fix it.

As far as the sample power supplies you have:
- What safety standard does the manufacturer claim?
- What are the installation instructions, or 'conditions of acceptability'?
- Did they look as if they had been modified or installed in another chassis
assembly after it was manufactured?


On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:38:19 +0200, Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il
wrote:
I have submitted an ac input to dc output switching power supply for NRTL
approval. One deviation is that the primary ac insulated capacitor is too
close to the earthed chassis and that the insulation cannot be relied to
provide the required basic insulation. 

1. What is the group's opinion regarding this point? I have personally seen
many Listed/Recognized units with clearance distance less than 2.0 mm to the
earthed chassis without any additional insulation to provide the required
insulation. In fact, I am holding a switching power supply by a reputable
manufacturer with only approx. 0.7 mm between the primary and earthed
chassis. This power supply is  UL Recognized and TUV approved.

2. There is a UL Pag 156002 regarding this issue, but it seems that some
NRTL engineers are using their own judgement and approving units at their
own discretion.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: EFT Failures..Help!

[Patrick Lawler]

The power supply was probably not designed to _filter_ EFT signals, which can
range up to 50MHz.  Since power supplies are typically low frequency devices (as
compared to 50MHz signals), it make sense that it was unaffected.

Try using high frequency ferrite cores on the AC and DC lines.  The cores may
also may help reduce radiated emissions.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:22:50 +0100, Alex McNeil
alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com wrote:
I am at an EMC test centre today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, my product
failed EFT testing on the AC power port at 1KV. This is for various
combinations of Line, Neutral and Earth (L, N, E, LN, LE, NE and LNE)

My product is Class II, no Earth. It is supplied by an external power
supply. This supplies SELV to my product. The power supply manufacturer has
stated that his power supply meets EN61000-4-4 for 2KV and has emailed me
this report to verify this.

Has anyone got a quick solution to my problem so that I can implement here
at the EMC test house?

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Generic vs Product Specific Specifications for European Direc tives

[Patrick Lawler]

If product specifications for the LVD are not harmonized when announced in the
OJ, when _are_ they harmonized?

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:24:18 -0400 , wo...@sensormatic.com wrote:
Trevor, the new product specification must be applied by the date of
withdrawal (DOW) that can be found in the new standard. The date is also
posted on the CENELEC and ETSI web site - I don't know about CEN. However, 
keep in mind that the new product specification is not harmonized under
most directives (this does not apply to the LVD, for example) until its 
reference is published in the OJ. That reference will include the official
DOW which may differ from the one in the standard. Most often they are
identical, but not always. In practice, you can rely upon the DOW in the new
standard.

-Original Message-
From: Trevor Chainey [mailto:tchai...@telesoft-technologies.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:47 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Generic vs Product Specific Specifications for European Directives


If we test to a generic harmonised specification and issue a Declaration of
Conformity, what do we need to do if a Product Specific harmonised
specification is subsequently released, i.e. if we have just finished
testing and then another spec comes along, how long can we continue to
declare to the first spec before having to test and declare to the
subsequent spec?

Trevor Chainey 
Quality Manager 
Telesoft Technologies Ltd 
Telephone 01258 486568 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Component ESD Immunity Testing

[Patrick Lawler]

We have an engineer who did ESD testing once on the pins of ICs buried in a
power supply assembly.  The unit passed, and he thought it was a great way to
show product robustness.
However, when I asked him if he would redesign power supplies that failed his
special test, he replied he wouldn't.

Would _you_ redesign your system if it failed?


Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:02:10 -0600 , Aschenberg, Mat
matt.aschenb...@echostar.com wrote:
Since all of you have your ESD hats on. 

Are there standards for testing of components on a pwb? There is some
concern here that we should be testing individual components on the pwb. 

Thanks for your help. 
Mat Aschenberg

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: WTC - voice alarm system?

[Patrick Lawler]

For those who feel this list isn't the place to discuss issues like these, can
they suggest another forum?

I immediately thought of the newsgroup comp.risks, dealing with risks to the
public in computers and related systems.  However, the newsgroup only posts a
digest of items, and is not really a forum.

Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: ESD Testing

[Patrick Lawler]

I don't have the IEC 61000-4-2 ammendment, but CISPR24:1997
(Immunity for ITE) does have the phrases
... a minimum of 50 discharges at each point,
and
... test points shall receive at least 50 direct contact
discharges.

Maybe this is what you were thinking about.
---
Patrick Lawler
plaw...@west.net


On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:25:49 -0700, Doug McKean
dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote:
Both are 8kV air discharge, both require performance criteria B, 
but I'd say the current version of 61000-4-2  is more severe. 

Doesn't the current IEC 61000-4-2:1995 + A1:1998 version 
require a minimum of 50 hits per test point whereas the 1984 
version didn't?  I don't remember the specifics of the 84 version 
and I don't have any reference to it.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: ESD Testing

[Patrick Lawler]

The following doesn't directly address the issue of product
robustness, but I'll pass it along anyway.
My company makes power supplies for use in medical equipment, and
some of our customers test to IEC60601-2-24 (safety  EMC for
medical infusion pumps).  This standard requires 15kV air
discharges.
Because I only have a few pages from IEC60601-2-24:1998, I don't
know the pass/fail criteria.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:55:55 -0400, wo...@sensormatic.com wrote:
Do any of you perform ESD testing at or above 15 kV to improve product
robustness? I have the following questions.

o  What types of products
o  What type of user environment
o  What is the rational for testing above 15 kV
o  What test equipment is used above 15 kV
o  What test procedure is used above 15kV
o  What is the pass/fail criteria above 15 kV

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,

Re: Surge Test Question

[Patrick Lawler]

I've also seen this effect when testing component power supplies
(off-line switch-mode converters, 50-500W).

The problem became apparent when a customer added another EMI
filter ahead of our power supply, creating a system we didn't
anticipate.  The power supply alone passed the test, but the
additional EMI filter and power supply would not pass the
common-mode surge test.

When I sketched the AC input circuit of the composite system, I
realized the surge generator was simply pulsing into several
common-mode inductors and primary-ground capacitors - the circuit
had no load!

I set the surge generator to a relatively low voltage (200V), and
connected an oscilloscope probe from the power supply AC input
terminal to chassis.  I saw the 200V surge ring to almost 400V!
If this had been a 2kV common-mode surge, I expect that the power
supply would see about 4kV primary-ground, which it was clearly
not designed for. 

I think performing this simple test would be your best indication
of surge voltages seen in your system.  Since it involves
primary-connected components, be sure to observe proper safety
precautions.

brian_ku...@leco.com wrote:
When troubleshooting surge problems on products  we often see the surge pulse 
to
be much higher after the line filter (testing the AC Mains with Line-Earth 
surge
pulses according to EN61000-4-5). 

Can someone explain the science behind this and what effect the load might 
have?
Can this increase in the surge potential be anticipated ahead of time so proper
clearances can be designed in?

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,

Re: China

[Patrick Wong]

Hi Richard,

There are currently 2 national mark for China for electrical consumer
products, CIQ and CCEE. CIQ is for importing requirement to China. It has a
list of compulsory product list that must certify for product safety, out of
it there are several items such as printer, monitor, AV products as well as
SMPS are need EMC testing as well. Please be noticed that CIQ are only for
products that manufactured outside China.
For the products able to Sale in China, one would need CCEE mark. To make it
clear:

Products manufactured outside China CIQ (safety + EMC) and CCEE (safety
only) marks.
Products manufactured within China CCEE mark only.

Regards

Patrick Wong
Senior Manager,
Electrical and EMC Dept.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre
- Original Message -
From: wo...@sensormatic.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:05 AM
Subject: China



 I am aware of China's requirements for safety and EMC approvals for
imported
 equipment, but I have no clue as to the requirements for products
 manufactured in China. Can someone enlighten me, particularly about ITE
and
 power supplies?

 Richard Woods

 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,

Re: LVD directive in Scandinavia

[Patrick Wong]

Dear Raymond,

As EU countries will employ Euro-Norm standards for LVD testing, the
Scandinavia as well as other EU's uses EN with national deviations for
testing. This apply to the Scandinavia FIMKO, SEMKO, NEMKO as well as DEMKO.
Other national standards such as DIN and BSEN are all based on EN and
converted into their national languages.

Regards

Patrick Wong

Senior Manger,
Electrical and EMC Dept.
The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre
- Original Message -
From: raymond...@omnisourceasia.com.hk
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: LVD directive in Scandinavia



 Understand Scandinavia is part of EU or EFTA and LVD has to be applied to
 electronics and electrical products.  Scandinavia includes a number of
 countries.  Do they commonly accept one standard, I learnt German
standard,
 or different country standards?

 We have following ideas to approve the products to LVD and would like to
 have some input from experienced personnel.

 Take audio  video products as an example:-

 1.   On top of compliant report of BS EN60065, get the additional test
 according to countries deviations.

 2.   Get compliant report of EN60065 only.

 3.   Get CB IEC 60065 report only.

 Thanks and regards,

 Raymond Li
 Omni Source Asia Ltd.


 **
 Legally privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this
 message.  If you are not the addressee(s) legally 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 notify us immediately.  If you or your employer does not
 consent to Internet e-mail messages of this kind, please advise us
 immediately.  Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in
this
 message are not given or endorsed by my firm or employer unless otherwise
 indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message.
 Please note that neither my employer nor I accept any responsibility for
 viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any).


 ---
 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
 Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

 Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

 To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
  majord...@ieee.org
 with the single line:
  unsubscribe emc-pstc

 For help, send mail to the list administrators:
  Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
  Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,