[PSES] Conducted emissions test bench

[Brian Gregory]

  We're going to DIY a portable table for CE.  We won't have a dedicated space 
for it, so the table and ground plane will need to me ... portable.1.  How big 
must the test table be for normal FCC class B (CISPR 16, I think) conducted 
emissions, from  0.15 - 30 MHz?Same question for the ground plane.  We might 
have to be creative as our lab is already very cramped. 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 
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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 ps.  Old knowledge from old prior career experiences.
I use arc welding cables for connections, not 4 ga wire that takes a pipe 
bender to work into place.
Welding cables, are multi wire, and that means "multi" with a capital.
Very flexible and capable of very high amps.  It is for arc welding and 
flexible use !


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:10:22 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is 
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral 
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.
In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test these, I use a 3 
phase LISN rather than 3 individual LISN’s. It’s crazy to split the power cord 
to reach the mains terminal on each LISN.
Take care listening to sales guys….
My 10 cents,
Derek.


On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.  Current rating is 
whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers offering models 
designed for up to 16 A.   --   Ken JavorPh: (256) 650-5261     Hello and Happy 
Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 
3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 
50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but 
I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian From: Brian 
Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?  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...@listserv.ieee.ORGAll 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.htmlFor help, send mail to 
the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: Linford@ieee.orgFor policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bacher@ieee.orgTo 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 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 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: h

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 Long ago, the company had the budget, so we bought single phase for each line.
Thinking that we did not want any cross talk interference, which we had already 
experienced in the real world.
Then we also had built the various configurations for supply power that we 
used.  
In essence measuring sources and load responses !

Sales people, good for prices only.  cannot even get dimensions right.


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:43:31 PM EDT, T.Sato  
wrote:  
 
 On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT 
>needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only 
>slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone 
>remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 
>(one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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
  

-

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brent DeWitt]

It may be worth noting at any LISN using magnetic cores/elements in the 
50uH bit, must be calibrated at the maximum rated current to verify that 
saturation isn't a problem.


On 4/5/2024 9:56 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR, 
references the noise to "ground".  Any conductor not being measured 
should be terminated in 50 ohms.  Whatever network used needs to make 
that so.  Take your pick.


On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
   Brian Gregory  wrote:

  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 
120/240V EUT needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test 
bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but 
very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase 
LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not 
so savvy on EMC test equipment.
I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) 
LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, 
although

I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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


-

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


-

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brent DeWitt]

In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR, 
references the noise to "ground".  Any conductor not being measured 
should be terminated in 50 ohms.  Whatever network used needs to make 
that so.  Take your pick.


On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
   Brian Gregory  wrote:


  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs 
two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper 
than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd 
need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) 
but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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


-

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT 
> needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only 
> slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone 
> remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 
> (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Lfresearch]

The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is 
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral 
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.

In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test these, I use a 3 
phase LISN rather than 3 individual LISN’s. It’s crazy to split the power cord 
to reach the mains terminal on each LISN.

Take care listening to sales guys….

My 10 cents,

Derek.

> On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:
> 
> I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
> that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am 
> aware use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, 
> you just need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 
> 120 V and 240 simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.
>  
> Current rating is whatever you need. I believe there are several 
> manufacturers offering models designed for up to 16 A. 
>  
> -- 
>  
> Ken Javor
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  Hello and Happy Friday,
>  
> I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
> single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.
> That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky.
>  
> Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I 
> could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.
>  
> thanks, 
>  
> Colorado Brian 
> From: Brian Gregory  <mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net>>
> Reply-To: Brian Gregory  <mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net>>
> Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
> To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
> Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs 
> three-phase LISN?
>  
> 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 <mailto: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/ 
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <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 <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/  <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 <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto: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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Ken Javor]

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.

 

Current rating is whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers 
offering models designed for up to 16 A. 

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

 Hello and Happy Friday,

 

I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of single-phase 
LISNs for our CE test bench.

That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky.

 

Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I 
could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

 

thanks, 

 

Colorado Brian 

From: Brian Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?

 

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] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs 
two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly 
cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why 
I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the 
neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. 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 
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

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Ken Javor]

Resonance is something I had not considered, but could be an issue if it occurs 
below 30 MHz.  

 

Not sure what exactly is going to resonate here, though.  The capacity of the 
test sample enclosure relative to the floor ground has to tank with an 
inductance. The only inductance is if there is a wire or cable shield between 
the test sample enclosure and the floor ground.  That could certainly be a 
green wire if such were part of the power harness, or it could be a shield of a 
test sample-attached cable.  But  in this model, the table legs have no place.

 

Now if there were sufficient capacity between test sample enclosure and the 
table leg(s), that could look like a short at resonance. The earlier model I 
described clearly goes open-circuit.

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

From: John Woodgate 
Date: Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:03 PM
To: Ken Javor , 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

 

I agree with your interpretation of the enquiry. I think it is necessary to 
watch out for the legs. if they are frames (or some more complex construction) 
rather than single pillars, becoming resonant loops at some frequencies. I 
suppose single pillars could also resonate.

On 2023-12-28 22:00, Ken Javor wrote:

Ken et al,

 

I think the query was just the opposite.  The tabletop is wooden, but do the 
legs need to be wooden as wel?   The FCC paradigm (AFAIK) places the test 
sample 80 cm above ground, thus limiting parasitic capacity. My gut response is 
they should be fine with metal legs, as long as the tabletop is thick enough to 
limit stray capacity. If one had OCD tendencies, one could measure the capacity 
between a piece of metal laid on the tabletop and the ground plane, and as long 
as the capacity were suitably low (single-digit picofarads?) that would suffice.

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

From: Ken Wyatt 
Reply-To: Ken Wyatt 
Date: Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

 

Hi Brian,

 

The answer is yes and no. Yes, you can get a general idea, but no, you really 
need a ground plane to conduct the CM currents back to the LISN, which needs to 
be bonded to the plane. Just find a metal supply store and buy enough aluminum 
to cover one of your benches. In a pinch, and for quick troubleshooting, I just 
tape down heavy duty aluminum foil and copper tape the LISN to the foil.

 

You’ll see examples of the technique in my Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the trilogy.

 

Cheers, Ken


___

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


Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Contact Me!New Books!

 


  

 

 

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




On Dec 28, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Brian Gregory  wrote:

 

 Hello fellow experts,

 

we're looking to build a conducted emission pre-compliance test station to FCC 
Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential applications).

Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy? 

We have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that would fit 
far better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table into our modest space.

 

thanks all and Happy New Year,

 

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)
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 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

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[John Woodgate]

I agree with your interpretation of the enquiry. I think it is necessary 
to watch out for the legs. if they are frames (or some more complex 
construction) rather than single pillars, becoming resonant loops at 
some frequencies. I suppose single pillars could also resonate.


On 2023-12-28 22:00, Ken Javor wrote:


Ken et al,

I think the query was just the opposite. The tabletop is wooden, but 
do the legs need to be wooden as wel?   The FCC paradigm (AFAIK) 
places the test sample 80 cm above ground, thus /limiting/ parasitic 
capacity. My gut response is they should be fine with metal legs, as 
long as the tabletop is thick enough to limit stray capacity. If one 
had OCD tendencies, one could measure the capacity between a piece of 
metal laid on the tabletop and the ground plane, and as long as the 
capacity were suitably low (single-digit picofarads?) that would suffice.


--

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

*From: *Ken Wyatt 
*Reply-To: *Ken Wyatt 
*Date: *Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

Hi Brian,

The answer is yes and no. Yes, you can get a general idea, but no, you 
really need a ground plane to conduct the CM currents back to the 
LISN, which needs to be bonded to the plane. Just find a metal supply 
store and buy enough aluminum to cover one of your benches. In a 
pinch, and for quick troubleshooting, I just tape down heavy duty 
aluminum foil and copper tape the LISN to the foil.


You’ll see examples of the technique in my Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the 
trilogy.


Cheers, Ken


___

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



Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Contact Me! <http://www.emc-seminars.com/page1/Contact.php> New Books! 
<https://www.amazon.com/Kenneth-Wyatt/e/B00SNQ1LJ2>



cid:21BD2970-4E44-4FA4-874C-64DCA741AD24cid:9D7F9D64-3831-499F-B78B-7CBD3B19A06Dcid:456D35E9-DD3B-442C-AD08-69664B07C2A2

Web Site <http://www.emc-seminars.com> | Blog <https://design-4-emc.com>
The EMC Blog (EDN) 
<https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/4376432/The-EMC-Blog>
Subscribe to Newsletter 
<http://www.emc-seminars.com/Newsletter/Newsletter.html>

Connect with me on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kennethwyatt/>



On Dec 28, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Brian Gregory
 wrote:

 Hello fellow experts,

we're looking to build a conducted emission pre-compliance test
station to FCC Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential
applications).

Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy?

We have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that
would fit far better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table
into our modest space.

thanks all and Happy New Year,

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
<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/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


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

---

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Ken Javor]

Ken et al,

 

I think the query was just the opposite.  The tabletop is wooden, but do the 
legs need to be wooden as wel?   The FCC paradigm (AFAIK) places the test 
sample 80 cm above ground, thus limiting parasitic capacity. My gut response is 
they should be fine with metal legs, as long as the tabletop is thick enough to 
limit stray capacity. If one had OCD tendencies, one could measure the capacity 
between a piece of metal laid on the tabletop and the ground plane, and as long 
as the capacity were suitably low (single-digit picofarads?) that would suffice.

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

From: Ken Wyatt 
Reply-To: Ken Wyatt 
Date: Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

 

Hi Brian,

 

The answer is yes and no. Yes, you can get a general idea, but no, you really 
need a ground plane to conduct the CM currents back to the LISN, which needs to 
be bonded to the plane. Just find a metal supply store and buy enough aluminum 
to cover one of your benches. In a pinch, and for quick troubleshooting, I just 
tape down heavy duty aluminum foil and copper tape the LISN to the foil.

 

You’ll see examples of the technique in my Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the trilogy.

 

Cheers, Ken


___

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


Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Contact Me!New Books!

 


  

 

 

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



On Dec 28, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Brian Gregory  wrote:

 

 Hello fellow experts,

 

we're looking to build a conducted emission pre-compliance test station to FCC 
Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential applications).

Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy? 

We have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that would fit 
far better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table into our modest space.

 

thanks all and Happy New Year,

 

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)
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 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

[PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello fellow experts, we're looking to build a conducted emission 
pre-compliance test station to FCC Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential 
applications).Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy? We 
have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that would fit far 
better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table into our modest space. 
thanks all and Happy New Year, 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)
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] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

In the below message, I meant to mention but forgot that if the power switch
is fast enough, the LISN looks like 50 ‡ resistive and there should be no
ringing from the LISN along the leading edge.  For a 5 uH LISN, we¹re
looking at a risetime OTOH 100 ns, and for a 50 uH LISN, under 1 us. These
are both easily achievable with typical FET switches.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Ken Javor 
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:43:08 -0600
To: 
Conversation: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Well of course the switching device cycling the power is between you and the
electrical system. Where else would it be? The point is switching is done
between the common impedance of the bus (modeled by the LISN) and the
switched load.

You cannot switch on the power input side of the LISN (unless of course the
spectrum of interest is below that covered by the LISN, so below typically
150 kHz, or maybe 10 kHz).  If you try energizing the LISN along with its
load, you are measuring the effects as filtered though the LISN, which is
definitely not correct.  With the LISN at 12 Vdc, or 28 Vdc, or whatever the
nominal bus potential is, the switching device alternately connects that
potential to the load, or disconnects it. The load then draws a transient
current until it reaches steady-state potential, whereupon it generates the
emissions typically covered by frequency domain requirements spanning 10/150
kHz to 10/30 MHz, or sometimes beyond.

Someone mentioned using a voltage probe, implying don¹t use a LISN. That may
be acceptable if the intent is to measure inrush current, and the source is
nearby and stiff. But if you are in a screen room and the power is run
through facility EMI filters, then the LISN absolutely needs to be there to
provide a controlled impedance to work against. Or, if the bus is dc, you
can bypass the power with enough capacity that the voltage sag during the
inrush event is minimal, guaranteeing the measured inrush current is worst
case.  Measuring inrush current, or transient potential drop without a
controlled source impedance is every bit as unacceptable as measuring either
steady-state frequency domain current or voltage ripple in the absence of a
LISN or feedthrough capacitor.

It is an uncontrolled measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




From: Douglas Smith 
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 04:01:42 +
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

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

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

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:55:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
 
The purpose of a LISN when testing for vehicular use is to simulate the
common impedance between battery and fuse block.

There should be no power cycling ³behind² the LISN, because in the vehicle
there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition
switch itself.  

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Reply-To: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.I
EEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldr
y-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=RMadKU3rlYA8dxMr
L249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo=> >
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,
 
I have come across an unusual conducted emissions issue with a device where
the impedance stabilization network for automotive testing itself causes a
problem that will not let a class of equipment ever pass because of the
network not the equipment itself.
 
In this case,  the power is cycled every second and the device that does
that is behind the network as that is not being tested. The interrupted
power goes through the network (12 Volts) and to the EUT. We got to the
point where we replace the EUT with a DC load, 10 Ohm resistor in parallel
with a 10 uF cap, to simulate the inrush current. That combination fails at
the low end of the frequency spectrum a lot because the network, just a
collection of L, C, and R is ringing at each power

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

Well of course the switching device cycling the power is between you and the
electrical system. Where else would it be? The point is switching is done
between the common impedance of the bus (modeled by the LISN) and the
switched load.

You cannot switch on the power input side of the LISN (unless of course the
spectrum of interest is below that covered by the LISN, so below typically
150 kHz, or maybe 10 kHz).  If you try energizing the LISN along with its
load, you are measuring the effects as filtered though the LISN, which is
definitely not correct.  With the LISN at 12 Vdc, or 28 Vdc, or whatever the
nominal bus potential is, the switching device alternately connects that
potential to the load, or disconnects it. The load then draws a transient
current until it reaches steady-state potential, whereupon it generates the
emissions typically covered by frequency domain requirements spanning 10/150
kHz to 10/30 MHz, or sometimes beyond.

Someone mentioned using a voltage probe, implying don¹t use a LISN. That may
be acceptable if the intent is to measure inrush current, and the source is
nearby and stiff. But if you are in a screen room and the power is run
through facility EMI filters, then the LISN absolutely needs to be there to
provide a controlled impedance to work against. Or, if the bus is dc, you
can bypass the power with enough capacity that the voltage sag during the
inrush event is minimal, guaranteeing the measured inrush current is worst
case.  Measuring inrush current, or transient potential drop without a
controlled source impedance is every bit as unacceptable as measuring either
steady-state frequency domain current or voltage ripple in the absence of a
LISN or feedthrough capacitor.

It is an uncontrolled measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




From: Douglas Smith 
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 04:01:42 +
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

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

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

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:55:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
 
The purpose of a LISN when testing for vehicular use is to simulate the
common impedance between battery and fuse block.

There should be no power cycling ³behind² the LISN, because in the vehicle
there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition
switch itself.  

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Reply-To: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.I
EEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldr
y-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=RMadKU3rlYA8dxMr
L249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo=> >
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,
 
I have come across an unusual conducted emissions issue with a device where
the impedance stabilization network for automotive testing itself causes a
problem that will not let a class of equipment ever pass because of the
network not the equipment itself.
 
In this case,  the power is cycled every second and the device that does
that is behind the network as that is not being tested. The interrupted
power goes through the network (12 Volts) and to the EUT. We got to the
point where we replace the EUT with a DC load, 10 Ohm resistor in parallel
with a 10 uF cap, to simulate the inrush current. That combination fails at
the low end of the frequency spectrum a lot because the network, just a
collection of L, C, and R is ringing at each power transition.
 
Any thoughts? Seems like an artifact of the standard. The device cycling
power is a lab circuit and not part of the test and so should be behind the
network.
 
Doug

 
-


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
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org
=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbu
ww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwE

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Charles Grasso]

Hi Doug et al,

Two things spring to mind : If we take the position that the LISN is an
accurate representation of the line impedance (as set in the standards) the
there no option other than to deal with the inrush current and "fix" it (or
find something in the standard that addresses this issue directly) .
However, if we decide that the LISN is at fault then it seems that (for
this problem) negotiation with the standards body is required.

I take your point though regarding the resonances inherent in design of the
LISN though.

Chas

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:44 AM James Pawson (U3C) <
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:

>  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
>
> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Thinking aloud here:
>
>
>
> This strikes me as more of a flicker/inrush current kind of problem,
> whereas conducted emissions would be more of a steady state problem.
>
>
>
> In the AC mains flicker test it’s a “stiff” supply and a series impedance
> over which to measure the inrush current. In your case, the DC supply
> inrush probably won’t be dictated by EMC standards but by system
> performance, acceptable dips in supply rails, decoupling, etc.
> Inductance/capacitance of the interconnecting supply lines will probably be
> less than that created by the LISN.
>
>
>
> Conducted emissions are always there when the equipment is running. To my
> knowledge tests aren’t commonly carried out during power transitions, maybe
> for this very reason?
>
>
>
> If the power bus to the EUT isn’t “primary” of “platform” power in the
> context of a military or automotive standard, or if the cables don’t
> resemble an AC mains distribution network, where does the requirement to
> measure conducted emissions come from?
>
>
>
> If the power is only derived from the source unit that toggles the power
> to it, and if that source unit only powers this one device, then conducted
> emissions might be better measured on the input to the source device
> instead?
>
>
>
> Interesting issue.
>
>
>
> Anyway, hope this helps.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> The 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
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* doug emcesd.com 
> *Sent:* 10 December 2021 04:00
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
>
>
>
> Not a car. The power to our EUT is cycled by a a device. To put it on the
> other side of the LISN  would not mean much as we have no control of that
> device. And even if we did that, the continuous interruption of the DC
> current would still send the LISN into oscillation at each current edge.
>
>
>
> Doug Smith
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> IPhone: 408-858-4528
>
> Office: 702-570-6108
>
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
>
> Website: http://dsmith.org
> --
>
> *From:* Ken Javor 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:55:05 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
>
>
>
> The purpose of a LISN when testing for vehicular use is to simulate the
> common impedance between battery and fuse block.
>
> There should be no power cycling “behind” the LISN, because in the vehicle
> there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition
> switch itself.
>
> Therefore the power cycling device goes between the LISN output and the
> switched load.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *Douglas Smith  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>
> >
> *Reply-To: *Douglas Smith  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>
> >
> *Date: *Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
> *To: * <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Doug,

 

Thinking aloud here:

 

This strikes me as more of a flicker/inrush current kind of problem, whereas
conducted emissions would be more of a steady state problem.

 

In the AC mains flicker test it's a "stiff" supply and a series impedance
over which to measure the inrush current. In your case, the DC supply inrush
probably won't be dictated by EMC standards but by system performance,
acceptable dips in supply rails, decoupling, etc. Inductance/capacitance of
the interconnecting supply lines will probably be less than that created by
the LISN.

 

Conducted emissions are always there when the equipment is running. To my
knowledge tests aren't commonly carried out during power transitions, maybe
for this very reason?

 

If the power bus to the EUT isn't "primary" of "platform" power in the
context of a military or automotive standard, or if the cables don't
resemble an AC mains distribution network, where does the requirement to
measure conducted emissions come from?

 

If the power is only derived from the source unit that toggles the power to
it, and if that source unit only powers this one device, then conducted
emissions might be better measured on the input to the source device
instead?

 

Interesting issue.

 

Anyway, hope this helps.

James

 

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
Consultancy

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |
<mailto:ja...@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

 

 

From: doug emcesd.com  
Sent: 10 December 2021 04:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

 

Not a car. The power to our EUT is cycled by a a device. To put it on the
other side of the LISN  would not mean much as we have no control of that
device. And even if we did that, the continuous interruption of the DC
current would still send the LISN into oscillation at each current edge.

 

Doug Smith

Sent from my iPhone

IPhone: 408-858-4528

Office: 702-570-6108

Email: d...@dsmith.org <mailto:d...@dsmith.org> 

Website: http://dsmith.org

  _  

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

 

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Reply-To: Douglas Smith https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwM
FAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww
=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ec
shq2eAiFJgY7Xc=> >
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.I
EEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldr
y-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=RMadKU3rlYA8dxMr
L249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo=> >
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,
 
I have come across an unusual conducted emissions issue with a device where
the impedance stabilization network for automotive testing itself causes a
problem that will not let a class of equipment ever pass because of the
network not the equipment itself.
 
In this case,  the power is cycled every second and the device that does
that is behind the network as that is not being tested. The interrupted
power goes through the network (12 Volts) and to the EUT. We got to the
point where we replace the EUT with a DC load, 10 Ohm resistor in parallel
with a 10 uF cap, to simulate the inrush current. That combination fails at
the low end of the frequency spectrum a lot because the network, just a
collection of L, C, and R is ringing at each power transition.
 
Any thoughts? Seems like an artifact of the standard. The device cycling
power is a lab circuit and not part of the test and so should be behind the
network.
 
Doug

 
-
--

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi Doug,

Consider using a voltage probe instead of a LISN.


Best Regards,
Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


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

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org%26d%3DDwMFAw%26c%3DeuGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM%26r%3Dc9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww%26m%3DkavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A%26s%3DZlitdX1VfubivGC9jkpGQcoDatsRqj9Wo2t42QNZdps%26e%3D=04%7C01%7CMichael.Heckrotte%40ul.com%7C5f29f8ee022b49784e3d08d9bb91dbde%7C701159540ccd45f087b

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Douglas Smith 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>>
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=RMadKU3rlYA8dxMrL249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo=>>
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,

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

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

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

Doug
[cid:3721931705_1385162]

-


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 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=ZlitdX1VfubivGC9jkpGQcoDatsRqj9Wo2t42QNZdps=>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=x6v4xGMrPmoYHz7S80sJILsa99gfEHYLSX1WKcmVvRo=>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=YNjkXEZzf_I3M6vrDx5RMNqgCusIcDXqtImtrgDGEI8=>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=H5grCqOvpZBXxGk8OREKrGJLHZ5sIEBDvgZTYCSaPA8=>
Instructions:  
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OxdeheCrtcDPicj_IETnf2LiKY3G6GiYtZio-RAzNQg=>
 (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OxdeheCrtcDPicj_IETnf2LiKY3G6GiYtZio-RAzNQg=>>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html&

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

Not a car. The power to our EUT is cycled by a a device. To put it on the other 
side of the LISN  would not mean much as we have no control of that device. And 
even if we did that, the continuous interruption of the DC current would still 
send the LISN into oscillation at each current edge.

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Douglas Smith 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>>
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=RMadKU3rlYA8dxMrL249JcSU5tJZbNiPKINvJSO5bwo=>>
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,

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

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

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

Doug
[cid:3721931705_1385162]

-


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 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=ZlitdX1VfubivGC9jkpGQcoDatsRqj9Wo2t42QNZdps=>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=x6v4xGMrPmoYHz7S80sJILsa99gfEHYLSX1WKcmVvRo=>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=YNjkXEZzf_I3M6vrDx5RMNqgCusIcDXqtImtrgDGEI8=>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=H5grCqOvpZBXxGk8OREKrGJLHZ5sIEBDvgZTYCSaPA8=>
Instructions:  
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OxdeheCrtcDPicj_IETnf2LiKY3G6GiYtZio-RAzNQg=>
 (including how to unsubscribe) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

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

There should be no power cycling ³behind² the LISN, because in the vehicle
there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition
switch itself.  

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Douglas Smith 
Reply-To: Douglas Smith 
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

Hi All,
 
I have come across an unusual conducted emissions issue with a device where
the impedance stabilization network for automotive testing itself causes a
problem that will not let a class of equipment ever pass because of the
network not the equipment itself.
 
In this case,  the power is cycled every second and the device that does
that is behind the network as that is not being tested. The interrupted
power goes through the network (12 Volts) and to the EUT. We got to the
point where we replace the EUT with a DC load, 10 Ohm resistor in parallel
with a 10 uF cap, to simulate the inrush current. That combination fails at
the low end of the frequency spectrum a lot because the network, just a
collection of L, C, and R is ringing at each power transition.
 
Any thoughts? Seems like an artifact of the standard. The device cycling
power is a lab circuit and not part of the test and so should be behind the
network.
 
Doug

 
-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

Hi All,

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

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

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

Doug
[cid:image001.jpg@01D7ED18.2C067E20]


-

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] 24 volt dimmable 60 to 100W FCC Part 15 Class B conducted emissions (CE) compliant?

[Lee Hill]

Hi everyone:

It seems that there are lots of dimmable 24V LED power supplies out there,
but the first 3 or 4 that we have looked at do not pass CE for various
loading conditions. These are not simple 24V DC output supplies, these also
have a two-terminal input port to accept a 0-10V analog or PWM control
signal or variable resistance to dim the attached LEDs (NOT using high-side
triac). I know there is a lot of experience and ideas on this listserv, but
I'm not looking for workarounds like external AC input or DC output
filters, I'm looking for an off-the-shelf supply that actually passes :-).
Can anyone suggest a manufacturer or series?

MeanWell dominates and some of their standard 24V supplies are good, but we
have "different experience" with the dimmables.

What a pain!

Thanks in advance

Best Regards

Lee & Randal
SILENT Solutions LLC

-

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] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Bill,

 

If I remember correctly, the OP’s question had to do with unintentional 
radiators.  Your table below has limits for intentional radiators.

 

Ghery S. Pettit, iNCE

Pettit EMC Consulting LLC

 

From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:35 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

 

radiated emissions go a bit lower.


§15.209   Radiated emission limits; general requirements.


(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this subpart, the emissions from an 
intentional radiator shall not exceed the field strength levels specified in 
the following table:


Frequency (MHz)

Field strength (microvolts/meter)

Measurement distance (meters)


0.009-0.490

2400/F(kHz)

300


0.490-1.705

24000/F(kHz)

30


1.705-30.0

30

30


30-88

100**

3


88-216

150**

3


216-960

200**

3


Above 960

500

3

 

 

On Monday, August 12, 2019, 6:04:43 PM EDT, John Woodgate mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk> > wrote: 

 

 

A small point; the lowest carrier frequency is 153 kHz. Sidebands extend down 
to 148 kHz. All the European LF and MF broadcasting carrier frequencies are 
multiples of 9 kHz.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-12 22:21, Brent DeWitt wrote:

For the upper end; conducted measurements end where radiated emissions start.  
Back in the mists of time someone decided that a ten meter wavelength was 
something that could radiated fairly efficiently from cables, so radiated 
emissions sounded like more of a risk to telecommunications.

The 150 kHz number is more directly related to licensed services.  The limit 
was 450 kHz in the US until harmonization with the European measurements.  The 
US limit was based on protection of the AM broadcast band.  The European 
Longwave AM band extends down to 148kHz, so I assume they simply rounded up to 
150 kHz.

>From a practical standpoint, if you stick with a 50 uH LISN, it starts to 
>deviate from 50 ohms quite a bit as you go lower.

Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

On 8/12/2019 4:36 PM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org 
<mailto:06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>  wrote:

Hello group,

 

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at 150KHz 
and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why finish at 30 and not 
40MHz?

 

Thank you

Peter

-


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

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

 


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=icon>
 

Virus-free.  
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=link>
 www.avast.com 

-


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

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 
<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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society e

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Bill Owsley]

 radiated emissions go a bit lower.

§15.209   Radiated emission limits; general requirements.

(a) Except as provided elsewhere in this subpart, the emissions from an 
intentional radiator shall not exceed the field strength levels specified in 
the following table:

| Frequency (MHz) | Field strength (microvolts/meter) | Measurement distance 
(meters) |
| 0.009-0.490 | 2400/F(kHz) | 300 |
| 0.490-1.705 | 24000/F(kHz) | 30 |
| 1.705-30.0 | 30 | 30 |
| 30-88 | 100** | 3 |
| 88-216 | 150** | 3 |
| 216-960 | 200** | 3 |
| Above 960 | 500 | 3 |



On Monday, August 12, 2019, 6:04:43 PM EDT, John Woodgate 
 wrote:  
 
  
A small point; the lowest carrier frequency is 153 kHz. Sidebands extend down 
to 148 kHz. All the European LF and MF broadcasting carrier frequencies are 
multiples of 9 kHz.
 
 Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK On 2019-08-12 22:21, Brent DeWitt wrote:
  
 

For the upper end; conducted measurements end where radiated emissions start.  
Back in the mists of time someone decided that a ten meter wavelength was 
something that could radiated fairly efficiently from cables, so radiated 
emissions sounded like more of a risk to telecommunications.
 
The 150 kHz number is more directly related to licensed services.  The limit 
was 450 kHz in the US until harmonization with the European measurements.  The 
US limit was based on protection of the AM broadcast band.  The European 
Longwave AM band extends down to 148kHz, so I assume they simply rounded up to 
150 kHz.
 
>From a practical standpoint, if you stick with a 50 uH LISN, it starts to 
>deviate from 50 ohms quite a bit as you go lower.
 
Hope that helps.
 
Respectfully,
 
Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
 
 On 8/12/2019 4:36 PM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:
  
 
  Hello group, 
  Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at 
150KHz and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz  or 190KHz. Why finish at 30 
and not 40MHz?
 
  Thank you Peter  -
 
 
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  
 
 
|  | Virus-free. www.avast.com  |

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

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


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


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

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

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

For help, send mail to the 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://p

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Andrew Perry]

I'd like to thank all who chimed in with their thoughts.  And yes, I am
well aware of how standards get put together and appreciate the hard work
of those who give them life.  In no way I wanted to criticize their work, I
was just seeking confirmation that I'm not (that) crazy.

I particularly liked the suggestion of using an intermediate plate, into
which I could drill as many holes as I want.  I will explore that idea for
sure.

AP

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:19 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> I endorse paragraph 2 below. We in GB are lucky that participation in
> standards work in BSI is free. (But it doesn't stop us complaining about
> the cost of BSI standards - a doozy I found yesterday is £200 for six
> pages, of which three are the actual text.)
>
> Standards work is to a significant extent supported by people who, for
> whatever reason, have more than normal time to devote to it. Quite a large
> proportion are formally retired, and for them, continued participation is
> not only 'making a difference' but also essential intellectual exercise.
>
> Makers of AMNs and the like might address this issue by devising other
> ways of attaching the boxes to the ground plane without using holes.  For
> example, if there is a sheet of steel under the ground plane. magnets on
> the boxes would work.
>
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2019-08-10 10:37, Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
> Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new cars
> roof for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there is (as
> long as the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing against it. If
> it allows you to reliably position your AMN devices you  need, a swiss
> cheese will be the best solution.
>
> Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and me.
> Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their knowledge
> (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and many of them
> will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need to pay to transfer
> their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack motivation (or are not
> allowed ) to really spend time in correcting, drafting and searching for
> problems in standards texts. Participating in standards work is a kind of
> charity, but for those who are nominated to defend their employers
> interests. So small errors are easily overlooked, and it seems that you
> found a few of them.
>
> Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, experiment
> and verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. EMC testing is
> not an exact science and standards are should be read as a generic
> guideline. No-one will notice the differences in set-up and no-one will
> challenge them as their own experience will be similar. If your are to be
> audited, referring to the open issues in the standard might help.
>
> Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and small
> difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where the
> equipment set up and the room calibration will give you a measurement
> uncertainty (MU) of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT setup will
> easily add 15-20 dB to that.
>
> Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32
> (former 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om
> measurement volumes.
>
>
> Gert Gremmen
>
> -
> 
>
> 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:  

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Woodgate]

A small point; the lowest carrier frequency is 153 kHz. Sidebands extend 
down to 148 kHz. All the European LF and MF broadcasting carrier 
frequencies are multiples of 9 kHz.


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

On 2019-08-12 22:21, Brent DeWitt wrote:


For the upper end; conducted measurements end where radiated emissions 
start.  Back in the mists of time someone decided that a ten meter 
wavelength was something that could radiated fairly efficiently from 
cables, so radiated emissions sounded like more of a risk to 
telecommunications.


The 150 kHz number is more directly related to licensed services.  The 
limit was 450 kHz in the US until harmonization with the European 
measurements.  The US limit was based on protection of the AM 
broadcast band.  The European Longwave AM band extends down to 148kHz, 
so I assume they simply rounded up to 150 kHz.


From a practical standpoint, if you stick with a 50 uH LISN, it starts 
to deviate from 50 ohms quite a bit as you go lower.


Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

On 8/12/2019 4:36 PM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:

Hello group,

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts 
at 150KHz and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why 
finish at 30 and not 40MHz?


Thank you
Peter
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=icon> 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=link> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Woodgate]

I don't need to, because Brent DeWitt has answered fully.

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

On 2019-08-12 22:09, John Allen wrote:


An “easy one” for us “oldies” but I’m sure that John Woodgate will 
quickly reply “in detail” – the frequency limit relates directly to 
the “old” Long Wave” frequency band, which starts at 150kHz! J


John E Allen

W. London, UK

*From:*06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org 
[mailto:06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]

*Sent:* 12 August 2019 21:37
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

Hello group,

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts 
at 150KHz and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why 
finish at 30 and not 40MHz?


Thank you

Peter

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ken Javor]

Interestingly, as I somewhat alluded to in my post on this topic, the
development work that went into the CE limit was based on the original LISN
design, which was a 5 uH model, whose impedance was specified from 150 kHz
to 30 MHz, and based on impedance measurements on a DC-3 aircraft back in
the 1940s.  While that power type and distribution is entirely different
than the power grid, that was available and that was what they used. It was
only when they wrote the official limit and test procedure that they
switched to the 50 uH LISN, so the LISN could be roughly 50 ‡ over the
entire limit frequency range. The 5 uH LISN is 5 ‡ at 150 kHz, and doesn¹t
get close to 50 ‡ until above 2 MHz.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Brent DeWitt 
Reply-To: Brent DeWitt 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:21:45 -0400
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

   

For the upper end; conducted measurements end where radiated emissions
start.  Back in the mists of time someone decided that a ten meter
wavelength was something that could radiated fairly efficiently from cables,
so radiated emissions sounded like more of a risk to telecommunications.
 

The 150 kHz number is more directly related to licensed services.  The limit
was 450 kHz in the US until harmonization with the European measurements. 
The US limit was based on protection of the AM broadcast band.  The European
Longwave AM band extends down to 148kHz, so I assume they simply rounded up
to 150 kHz.
 

>From a practical standpoint, if you stick with a 50 uH LISN, it starts to
deviate from 50 ohms quite a bit as you go lower.
 

Hope that helps.
 

Respectfully,
 

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF
 
 
On 8/12/2019 4:36 PM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:
 
 
>   
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Hello group,
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at 150KHz
> and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why finish at 30 and not
> 40MHz?
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Thank you
>  
> Peter
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  -
>  
>  
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> 
>  
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>  
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
> formats), large files, etc.
>  
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>  Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>  List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>  
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Scott Douglas 
>  Mike Cantwell 
>  
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Jim Bacher 
>  David Heald 
>  
 

  
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campai
gn=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=icon> Virus-free.
www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campai
gn=sig-email_content=emailclient_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ken Javor]

Agree about start frequency. The AM BCB in Europe includes frequencies from
150 kHz to just shy of 300 kHz, as well as the 530 ­ 1710 kHz range
available in North America.

I know why 150 kHz to 30 MHz was used for military and aerospace CE, and I
think the commercial world just sort of copied the stop point, but in the
CBEMA report on the basis of FCC EMI limits of digital equipment published
around 1978, they said that 30 MHz was the lowest they could go with good
measurement practice for RE, and that CE control would cover them up to 30
MHz. As Henry Ott says, ³A CE limit is an RE limit in disguise.²

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: John Allen 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:09:55 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

An ³easy one² for us ³oldies² but I¹m sure that John Woodgate will quickly
reply ³in detail² ­ the frequency limit relates directly to the ³old² Long
Wave² frequency band, which starts at 150kHz! J
 
John E Allen
W. London, UK
 
From: 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org
[mailto:06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: 12 August 2019 21:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions
 

Hello group,

 

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at
150KHz and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why finish at 30
and not 40MHz?

 

Thank you

Peter
-

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Brent DeWitt]

For the upper end; conducted measurements end where radiated emissions 
start.  Back in the mists of time someone decided that a ten meter 
wavelength was something that could radiated fairly efficiently from 
cables, so radiated emissions sounded like more of a risk to 
telecommunications.


The 150 kHz number is more directly related to licensed services.  The 
limit was 450 kHz in the US until harmonization with the European 
measurements.  The US limit was based on protection of the AM broadcast 
band.  The European Longwave AM band extends down to 148kHz, so I assume 
they simply rounded up to 150 kHz.


From a practical standpoint, if you stick with a 50 uH LISN, it starts 
to deviate from 50 ohms quite a bit as you go lower.


Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

On 8/12/2019 4:36 PM, 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:

Hello group,

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts 
at 150KHz and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why 
finish at 30 and not 40MHz?


Thank you
Peter
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-

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] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Allen]

An “easy one” for us “oldies” but I’m sure that John Woodgate will quickly 
reply “in detail” – the frequency limit relates directly to the “old” Long 
Wave” frequency band, which starts at 150kHz! J

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: 06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org 
[mailto:06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 12 August 2019 21:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

 

Hello group,

 

Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at 150KHz 
and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why finish at 30 and not 
40MHz?

 

Thank you

Peter

-


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


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

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[000006cee064502d-dmarc-request]

Hello group,
Does anyone know why the conducted emissions for ITE products starts at 150KHz 
and end at 30MHz? Why not start at 120KHz or 190KHz. Why finish at 30 and not 
40MHz?

Thank youPeter#yiv9843054295 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 
4;}#yiv9843054295 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 
4;}#yiv9843054295 p.yiv9843054295MsoNormal, #yiv9843054295 
li.yiv9843054295MsoNormal, #yiv9843054295 div.yiv9843054295MsoNormal 
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv9843054295
 a:link, #yiv9843054295 span.yiv9843054295MsoHyperlink 
{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9843054295 a:visited, 
#yiv9843054295 span.yiv9843054295MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9843054295 
span.yiv9843054295EpostStil17 
{font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv9843054295 
.yiv9843054295MsoChpDefault  {font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv9843054295 filtered 
{margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv9843054295 
div.yiv9843054295WordSection1 {}#yiv9843054295 

-

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 emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Ken Javor]

I have only peripherally been aware of this thread, but reading these last
two posts makes me wonder why you don¹t have some sheet metal you can punch
to your heart¹s content, but the sheet metal always connects to the floor
beneath it the exact same away. Same concept as a bulkhead plate that can be
punched out uniquely for each individual test set of connectors, but the
bulkhead plate connection to the chamber is the same set of holes and
fasteners.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Woodgate 
Reply-To: John Woodgate 
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:18:51 +0100
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

   

I endorse paragraph 2 below. We in GB are lucky that participation in
standards work in BSI is free. (But it doesn't stop us complaining about the
cost of BSI standards - a doozy I found yesterday is £200 for six pages, of
which three are the actual text.)
 

Standards work is to a significant extent supported by people who, for
whatever reason, have more than normal time to devote to it. Quite a large
proportion are formally retired, and for them, continued participation is
not only 'making a difference' but also essential intellectual exercise.
 

Makers of AMNs and the like might address this issue by devising other ways
of attaching the boxes to the ground plane without using holes.  For
example, if there is a sheet of steel under the ground plane. magnets on the
boxes would work.
 
 
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2019-08-10 10:37, Gert Gremmen wrote:
 
 
>   
> 
> Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new cars roof
> for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there is (as long as
> the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing against it. If it allows
> you to reliably position your AMN devices you  need, a swiss cheese will be
> the best solution.
>  
> 
> Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and me.
> Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their knowledge
> (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and many of them will
> confirm that they (or their employer) actually need to pay to transfer their
> expertise to IEC. Many members will lack motivation (or are not allowed ) to
> really spend time in correcting, drafting and searching for problems in
> standards texts. Participating in standards work is a kind of charity, but for
> those who are nominated to defend their employers interests. So small errors
> are easily overlooked, and it seems that you found a few of them.
>  
> 
> Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, experiment and
> verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. EMC testing is not an
> exact science and standards are should be read as a generic guideline. No-one
> will notice the differences in set-up and no-one will challenge them as their
> own experience will be similar. If your are to be audited, referring to the
> open issues in the standard might help.
>  
>  
> 
> Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and small
> difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where the equipment
> set up and the room calibration will give you a measurement uncertainty (MU)
> of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT setup will easily add 15-20 dB to
> that. 
>  
>  
> 
> Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32 (former
> 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om measurement
> volumes.
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> Gert Gremmen
>  
>  
>  
 -


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.iee

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[John Woodgate]

I endorse paragraph 2 below. We in GB are lucky that participation in 
standards work in BSI is free. (But it doesn't stop us complaining about 
the cost of BSI standards - a doozy I found yesterday is £200 for six 
pages, of which three are the actual text.)


Standards work is to a significant extent supported by people who, for 
whatever reason, have more than normal time to devote to it. Quite a 
large proportion are formally retired, and for them, continued 
participation is not only 'making a difference' but also essential 
intellectual exercise.


Makers of AMNs and the like might address this issue by devising other 
ways of attaching the boxes to the ground plane without using holes.  
For example, if there is a sheet of steel under the ground plane. 
magnets on the boxes would work.


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

On 2019-08-10 10:37, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new 
cars roof for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there 
is (as long as the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing 
against it. If it allows you to reliably position your AMN devices 
you  need, a swiss cheese will be the best solution.


Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and 
me. Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their 
knowledge (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and 
many of them will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need 
to pay to transfer their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack 
motivation (or are not allowed ) to really spend time in correcting, 
drafting and searching for problems in standards texts. Participating 
in standards work is a kind of charity, but for those who are 
nominated to defend their employers interests. So small errors are 
easily overlooked, and it seems that you found a few of them.


Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, 
experiment and verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. 
EMC testing is not an exact science and standards are should be read 
as a generic guideline. No-one will notice the differences in set-up 
and no-one will challenge them as their own experience will be 
similar. If your are to be audited, referring to the open issues in 
the standard might help.


Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and 
small difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where 
the equipment set up and the room calibration will give you a 
measurement uncertainty (MU) of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT 
setup will easily add 15-20 dB to that.


Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32 
(former 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om 
measurement volumes.



Gert Gremmen




-

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 emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Gert Gremmen]

Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new cars 
roof for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there is (as 
long as the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing against it. 
If it allows you to reliably position your AMN devices you  need, a 
swiss cheese will be the best solution.


Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and 
me. Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their 
knowledge (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and 
many of them will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need to 
pay to transfer their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack 
motivation (or are not allowed ) to really spend time in correcting, 
drafting and searching for problems in standards texts. Participating in 
standards work is a kind of charity, but for those who are nominated to 
defend their employers interests. So small errors are easily overlooked, 
and it seems that you found a few of them.


Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, experiment 
and verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. EMC testing 
is not an exact science and standards are should be read as a generic 
guideline. No-one will notice the differences in set-up and no-one will 
challenge them as their own experience will be similar. If your are to 
be audited, referring to the open issues in the standard might help.


Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and small 
difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where the 
equipment set up and the room calibration will give you a measurement 
uncertainty (MU) of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT setup will 
easily add 15-20 dB to that.


Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32 
(former 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om 
measurement volumes.



Gert Gremmen


On 9-8-2019 21:17, Andrew Perry wrote:

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where 
we will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking 
at Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place 
our two AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length 
requirements.


Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number 
of AE will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have 
fixed positions for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber 
floor into Swiss cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the 
test table when switching from AC port measurement to let's say, 
network port measurement. Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout 
permits exactly what I'm looking for.  However, reading the note of 
the figure (no longer a note in version 2015, by the way) and looking 
at the distance requirements in table D.1, I don't understand how 
figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without rearrangement.


For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, 
then how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The 
note says that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m 
distance.  So this PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 
m from the AAN?  Is the figure misleading in indicating that each 
device can be EUT or AE at its current position?  Keep in mind that 
Table D.1 also states that all cables must be kept at 0.4 m from the 
vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that showed AMNs all over the 
place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32 now shows all 
AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN to be 
bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm 
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few 
centimeters from the plane?


Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the 
table.  There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this 
insulation, but no minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a 
coat of enamel paint on a metal turntable enough?  I understand that 
bare wires shouldn't make contact with ground if they're not supposed 
to, but is an insulation pad really necessary when cables are not bare?


Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm 
not seeing here.


AP
-


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


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


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


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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[John Woodgate]

I'm afraid that this is what happens when people (mostly in National 
Committees) accept circulated documents 'because the WG members are 
bound to have done a good job', without actually assuming the opposite 
and go looking for problems. It's all to easy to do.


I /hope I'm wrong in this case/ and someone on CISPR/I WG1 will soon 
explain all, but is certainly seems that, even if the standard is in 
fact totally correct and practicable, it needs clarification.


You say CISPR 32:2012, but the current edition is 2015: 
https://webstore.iec.ch/searchform=CISPR%2032 There were a lot of 
proposals for change when the 2012 edition was published.



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

On 2019-08-09 20:17, Andrew Perry wrote:

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where 
we will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking 
at Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place 
our two AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length 
requirements.


Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number 
of AE will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have 
fixed positions for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber 
floor into Swiss cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the 
test table when switching from AC port measurement to let's say, 
network port measurement. Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout 
permits exactly what I'm looking for.  However, reading the note of 
the figure (no longer a note in version 2015, by the way) and looking 
at the distance requirements in table D.1, I don't understand how 
figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without rearrangement.


For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, 
then how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The 
note says that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m 
distance.  So this PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 
m from the AAN?  Is the figure misleading in indicating that each 
device can be EUT or AE at its current position?  Keep in mind that 
Table D.1 also states that all cables must be kept at 0.4 m from the 
vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that showed AMNs all over the 
place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32 now shows all 
AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN to be 
bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm 
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few 
centimeters from the plane?


Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the 
table.  There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this 
insulation, but no minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a 
coat of enamel paint on a metal turntable enough?  I understand that 
bare wires shouldn't make contact with ground if they're not supposed 
to, but is an insulation pad really necessary when cables are not bare?


Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm 
not seeing here.


AP
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Andrew Perry]

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where we
will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking at
Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place our two
AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length requirements.

Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number of AE
will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have fixed positions
for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber floor into Swiss
cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the test table when
switching from AC port measurement to let's say, network port measurement.
Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout permits exactly what I'm
looking for.  However, reading the note of the figure (no longer a note in
version 2015, by the way) and looking at the distance requirements in table
D.1, I don't understand how figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without
rearrangement.

For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, then
how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The note says
that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m distance.  So this
PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 m from the AAN?  Is the
figure misleading in indicating that each device can be EUT or AE at its
current position?  Keep in mind that Table D.1 also states that all cables
must be kept at 0.4 m from the vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that
showed AMNs all over the place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32
now shows all AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN
to be bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few
centimeters from the plane?

Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the table.
There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this insulation, but no
minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a coat of enamel paint on
a metal turntable enough?  I understand that bare wires shouldn't make
contact with ground if they're not supposed to, but is an insulation pad
really necessary when cables are not bare?

Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm not
seeing here.

AP

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] EN 55032 conducted emissions for network ports.

[McBurney, Ian]

Dear colleagues.

In EN 55032:2015 the definition of a wired network port (3.1.32) is for the 
connection of voice, data and signalling transfers intended to interconnect 
widely dispersed systems by direct connection to a single user or multi-user 
communication network e.g. CATV, PSTN, ISDN, xDSL, LAN.

We have a communication system that uses RJ45 network connectors for audio, 
data & signalling using a modified version of the Ethernet protocol. It is 
mostly direct connection between two units over distances of up to 150m but can 
also be multi-connection using a customised Ethernet switch.

Would these types of ports required conducted emissions measurements as 
detailed in annex A tables A.11 & A.12?

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.

-

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

[PSES] VCP for AC Mains Conducted Emissions Measurement

[Grace Lin]

Dear Members,



Does anyone know a good vendor/shop (or a good design) for a 2m x 2m
vertical conducting plane for AC Mains conducted emissions measurement in
the west coast of the US?



Is any preferred material for the VCP (steel, aluminum, etc.)?



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



Best regards,

Grace Lin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<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] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all who provide feedback!
Paolo

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of ele

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

[Ari Honkala]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all who provide feedback!
Paolo

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

Web:www.cetest.nl<http://www.cetest.nl> (English)
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26<tel:%2B31%2010%20415%2024%2026>
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and
delete the material from any computer.
Thank you for your co-operation.

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

Hi all,

the new 2016 edition of CISPR11 requires DC power ports conducted emissions to 
be done with a "150 Ohm CISPR Delta-network (DC-AN) – see C

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

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all who provide feedback!
Paolo

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:32 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen <g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote:

> EN 61326-1:2013 makes a date reference to CISPR11:2009+A12010 in its Annex
> ZA
> as well as in article 2.
> Par 7.2 also refers to CISPR11:2009 .
> The limit references for Class A and B do not refer to a dated CISPR11
>
> While I am convinced this is the kind of carefulness that is common in
> standards
> published by IEC and CENELEC, the normative consequences are that the
> latest
> versions apply.
>
> So yes, since the publication date of  June, 26th 2016 this new
> version :
>
> Allows for FAR room measurements
> Prescribes limits for DC in/output ports and defines the delta LISN type
> to be used:
>
> "For   measurements   at   LV   d.c.   power   ports   of   power
>  electronic   equipment,   a   modern
> implementation  of  the  150 Ω  Delta-network  specified  in  CISPR
> 16-1-2  has  been  made available"
>
> Regards,
>
> Ing. Gert Gremmen
> Approvals manager
> 
> 
>
>
> + ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
> + Independent Consultancy Services
> + Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
>  according to EC-directives:
> - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
> - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
> - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
> - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
> + Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
> + Education
>
> Web:www.cetest.nl (English)
> Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
> ---
> This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information
> that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights
> and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above.
> Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not
> limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or
> distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and
> delete the material from any computer.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday 28 November 2016 10:25
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016
>
> Hi all,
>
> the new 2016 edition of CISPR11 requires DC power ports conducted
> emissions to be done with a "150 Ohm CISPR Delta-network (DC-AN) – see
> CISPR11 ed.6.1 (2016) sec. 6.2.1.3, 7.3.2.3 and Annex I) instead of a
> "standard" 50uH/50ohm V-LISN, used for AC-power conducted emissions and
> also for AC power conducted emissions according to IEC/EN 61000-6-3,
> CISPR22 and other standards.
>
> That means - to my understandiing - that DC-powered Laboratory equipment
> (tested per IEC/EN 61326-1, sec. 7.2) and Medical devices (tested according
> to IEC 60601-1-2 (sec.7.1.1) must be tested with the Delta-LISN for
> DC-power conducted emissions.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>
> Best regards,
> Paolo
> -
> ---

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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


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

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

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:57 AM
To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

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

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


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

[John Woodgate]

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

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 10:57 AM
To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

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

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


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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


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

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

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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


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

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

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

[Ari Honkala]

Please have a look on CISPR 11 Clause 6.2.1.1, quote:

“The limits for the LV d.c. power port specified hereafter apply only to grid 
connected power convertors…”

The 61326-1 and 60601-1-2 refer to CISPR 11 as whole (“limits, measuring 
methods and provisions given in CISPR 11 apply” and “shall comply with CISPR 
11”) so you use the same classification.

I hope this helps,

with best regards,

Ari Honkala

From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
Sent: maanantai 28. marraskuuta 2016 11:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

Hi all,

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

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

Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Paolo
-


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

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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<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<mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<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] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

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

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

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

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

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

This may give you a few months


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

[John Woodgate]

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

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

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Paolo
-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Paolo 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<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 
<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] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016

[John Woodgate]

This can be a bit complicated. Factors include whether 61326-1 and/or 60601-1-2 
(or the Part from which that is derived) makes a dated or undated reference to 
CISPR 11.  If it's dated, the dated edition applies, even if a newer one 
exists.  If the dated reference is withdrawn (passed beyond docopocoss) from 
the OJ before the dated reference is updated, the system has failed and an 
explanation in the EMC assessment is justified.
 
If it's undated, then, at least for regulatory purposes in Europe, the 
publication of a new edition of a reference standard such as EN 55011 cannot 
result in an 'overnight' change (unless it's trivial) in the requirements set 
by product standards such as 61326 and/or 61010. The previous edition applies 
until the product standard is amended. 
 
Unfortunately, because the reference is undated, the situation is far from 
clear to everyone. This general issue ought to be properly addressed. The 
uniform use of dated references would help a lot. I am not even sure that the 
above explanation is documented anywhere except in the Minutes of CENELEC TC210 
many years ago.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 9:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DC-power conducted emissions per CISPR11: 2016
 
Hi all,
 
the new 2016 edition of CISPR11 requires DC power ports conducted emissions to 
be done with a "150 Ohm CISPR Delta-network (DC-AN) – see CISPR11 ed.6.1 (2016) 
sec. 6.2.1.3, 7.3.2.3 and Annex I) instead of a "standard" 50uH/50ohm V-LISN, 
used for AC-power conducted emissions and also for AC power conducted 
emissions according to IEC/EN 61000-6-3, CISPR22 and other standards.
 
That means - to my understandiing - that DC-powered Laboratory equipment 
(tested per IEC/EN 61326-1, sec. 7.2) and Medical devices (tested according to 
IEC 60601-1-2 (sec.7.1.1) must be tested with the Delta-LISN for DC-power 
conducted emissions.
 
Is my understanding correct?
 
Best regards,
Paolo 
-

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

-

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

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

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi all,

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

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

Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Paolo

-

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

[PSES] Call for help on MCSC and VSD low-frequency conducted emissions

[John Woodgate]

IEC SC77A, responsible for IEC 61000-3-2- and -12 and IEC 61000-4-7, is 
reviewing the method of measuring the low-frequency (100 Hz to 2 kHz or 
120 Hz to 2.4 kHz) conducted emissions into the mains supply.


It wasn't actually intended to review the method of measurement, but to 
resolve certain issues with specific types of product that do not meet 
emission limits but are not known to cause EMI incidents. But it has 
been found that the method of measurement may in some cases report 
emissions, at significant levels, that do not in fact exist.


I would like to discuss these issues in more detail with people who work 
with Multi Cycle Synchronous Control for energy regulation and Variable 
(or Adjustable) Speed Drives. While we have experts on the latter in the 
specialist group doing the work, we do not have an MCSC expert.


I suggest you contact me off-list if you can help. But any exciting news 
can be reported on this list.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Why is the stapler always empty just when you want it?

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

Effects of conducted emissions in the 2 -9 kHz range on capacitors

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

The IEC (SC77AWG1) is investigating whether any ill-effects are being 
observed due to conducted emissions on the mains supply between the 
frequencies of 2 kHz (2.4 kHz in 60 Hz systems) and 9 kHz. The voltage 
levels at these frequencies are known to be rising as more switching 
circuits are connected to the public mains supply.

In order to simplify the investigation, enquiries are being focused on 
individual phenomena, at least initially, and are designed to minimise 
the effort required to respond.

The first enquiry addresses capacitors, and it is obvious that 
capacitors in EMI filters at the mains inputs of products are exposed to 
these higher-frequency voltages. But other capacitors are also exposed, 
such as those in voltage multiplier circuits. So the enquiry asks 
whether there is any potential problem with the exposure of any of these 
capacitors to narrow-band or single-frequency signals in the range 2 to 
9 kHz, and to wider-band signals in that range. Suggested RMS voltages 
to consider are 2 V and 10 V, but write-ins are allowed, indeed 
encouraged.

In the interests of minimising effort, it is expected that many 
capacitor data sheets can indicate whether the capacitors involved are 
likely to suffer any ill effects with those voltages applied at those 
frequencies.

Unfortunately, the response from national standards committees has been 
'less than comprehensive', so this is an attempt to try another way of 
collecting data. Of course, the most encouraging result would be 'No ill 
effect even with 10 V, single-frequency or broadband', but MAYBE that's 
optimistic.

One underlying problem is that EMI filter capacitors may fail 
open-circuit in service without anyone knowing.

Please respond, probably off-list if you see the thread becoming long or 
OT.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

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...@socal.rr.com
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions with floating neutral

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Perhaps when the neutral wire is grounded, part of the power supply's input 
filter is bypassed.   I assume this would not be an issue if the neutral is 
grounded on the mains side of the LISN.
_
 

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Renewable Energies Business  |   
CANADA  |   Compliance Engineer




From:   Fred Townsend ftowns...@sbcglobal.net 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   03/12/2010 12:49 AM 
Subject:Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions with floating neutral






John:

I see several considerations here. First when you 'float' the neutral are you 
running on batteries or do you have a ground fault that continues to supply to 
the power supply? Second, it sounds like the neutral is acting like an antenna 
for the harmonics. remove the antenna and the harmonics are reduced. Switching 
harmonics should be reduced by a properly designed decoupling network. Sounds 
like there could be two problems. 1) a fault condition in the power supply and 
2) a design fault in the application. The EMI is not the problem, it is the 
symptom. 

Unfortunately with the limited information here it is difficult to tell you 
where to look first.

Fred townsend
DC to Light


Interpro Consulting Engineering wrote: 
I currently have an issue where we have a 100 – 240 VAC power supply designed 
by a third-party where we see harmonics of the switching frequencies (~ 200 
kHz) exceed Part 15 Class A limits by about 10 dB. However, when we float the 
power by  “un-grounding” the neutral, the emissions drop approximately 15 – 20 
dB into passing territory. This happens at 110 and 220 V. 
  
Using a discrete inlet filter has little to no effect. What am I not 
understanding here in order to provide guidance to the power supply vendor? 
  
Any help from this wonderful community is greatly appreciated. 
  
Regards, 
  
John R. Kretsch, P.E., NCE 
Principal 
Interpro Consulting Engineering, LLC 
  
  
  
  
  

-

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
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/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html  

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com mailto:emcp...@socal.rr.com 
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org  

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




This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageL
abs Email Security System.
 
-

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
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/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html  

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com mailto:emcp...@socal.rr.com 
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org  

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

Re: Conducted emissions with floating neutral

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

John:

I see several considerations here. First when you 'float' the neutral are you
running on batteries or do you have a ground fault that continues to supply to
the power supply? Second, it sounds like the neutral is acting like an antenna
for the harmonics. remove the antenna and the harmonics are reduced. Switching
harmonics should be reduced by a properly designed decoupling network. Sounds
like there could be two problems. 1) a fault condition in the power supply and
2) a design fault in the application. The EMI is not the problem, it is the
symptom. 

Unfortunately with the limited information here it is difficult to tell you
where to look first.

Fred townsend
DC to Light


Interpro Consulting Engineering wrote: 

I currently have an issue where we have a 100 – 240 VAC power supply
designed by a third-party where we see harmonics of the switching frequencies
(~ 200 kHz) exceed Part 15 Class A limits by about 10 dB. However, when we
float the power by  “un-grounding” the neutral, the emissions drop
approximately 15 – 20 dB into passing territory. This happens at 110 and 220
V. 

 

Using a discrete inlet filter has little to no effect. What am I not
understanding here in order to provide guidance to the power supply vendor?

 

Any help from this wonderful community is greatly appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

John R. Kretsch, P.E., NCE

Principal

Interpro Consulting Engineering, LLC

 

 

 

 

 

-

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...@socal.rr.com
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...@socal.rr.com
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

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

Conducted emissions with floating neutral

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

I currently have an issue where we have a 100 – 240 VAC power supply
designed by a third-party where we see harmonics of the switching frequencies
(~ 200 kHz) exceed Part 15 Class A limits by about 10 dB. However, when we
float the power by  “un-grounding” the neutral, the emissions drop
approximately 15 – 20 dB into passing territory. This happens at 110 and 220
V. 

 

Using a discrete inlet filter has little to no effect. What am I not
understanding here in order to provide guidance to the power supply vendor?

 

Any help from this wonderful community is greatly appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

John R. Kretsch, P.E., NCE

Principal

Interpro Consulting Engineering, LLC

 

 

 

 

 

-

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...@socal.rr.com
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

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

Re: Conducted emissions on DC power ports under EN61000-6-3

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d04438...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated 
Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes:

Am I missing something?

I don't think so. I've noted this matter previously, but no definitive, 
or unexpected, solution was offered, and I did not pursue the point.

Which AMN do we use?

The AMNs are not really alternatives; they cover different frequency 
ranges. For most ITE, the 50 ohm, 50 μH AMN is commonly used, and I see 
no reason why it should not be used for DC power ports.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Things can always get better. But that's not the only option.
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.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

Conducted emissions on DC power ports under EN61000-6-3

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

When referencing a Basic standard, it is often the case that product
standards under-specify based on an incorrect assumption that the Basic
standard says exactly what you need to do.  I think I've found an
example, but I'd welcome it if someone can show me where I missed
something.  I'd also like to know what the answer is.

In EN61000-6-3 table 1 item 3) for DC power ports, we're told that
(under certain circumstances) we need to comply with conducted emissions
limits and that the test details are to be found in CISPR 16-2-1 and
CISPR 16-1-2.  

Off we go to those two standards (actually EN 55016-etc now) and in the
test apparatus standard (EN55016-1-2) , we find something like 5 or 6
different AMN's offerred up for use, and in the test method standard
(EN55016-1-2) we find no information regarding which AMN to use.  I
think the EN55016 standards are ok, but the EN61000-6-3 authors failed
to fully specify the method and means for their DC power port conducted
emissions requirement.

Am I missing something?  Which AMN do we use?  Is anybody out there on
the EN61000-6-3 committee?

Thanks,

Jim Eichner, P.Eng.
Compliance Engineering Manager
Xantrex Technology Inc.
e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com
web: www.xantrex.com  

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.

-

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

conducted emissions measurement of Power over Ethernet devices

[Summers, Chet]

Hello list members, 
 
I'm trying to determine how commercial EMC labs are performing conducted
emissions testing on PoE edge-type devices.  In what cases should the PoE
injector be a part of the measurement path?  If the measurement is negatively
impacted by the injector's presence in circuit, what options does a
manufacturer have?  A reasonable alternative seems to be taking a T-LISN
measurement of an edge device's emissions, while the device is energized by
PoE.  
 
Any shared experiences or comments are welcome, and appreciated!  
 
 
Chet Summers
Pelco, Inc. 
csumm...@pelco.com

- -

Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission is
legally privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the
individual(s) or entities named above. This email and any files transmitted
with it are the property of Pelco. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone
call to +1-559-292-1981 or forward the e-mail to administra...@pelco.com and
then permanently delete the e-mail and destroy all soft and hard copies of the
message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation. 
- -


-  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: dhe...@gmail.com All emc-pstc postings are
archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[John Woodgate]

In message 155841.46166...@web39608.mail.mud.yahoo.com, dated Tue, 3 
Jun 2008, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com writes:


Oh wait, news flash, the military uses low frequencies?? who ever heard 
of such a thing?  Why in the world would they want to talk to a 
submarine?  It's underwater!

This isn't an issue, because any interference would have to be due to 
radiated emissions, and that only happens to a significant extent if the 
cables are very long (kilometres for 9 kHz), which they hardly ever are.

The band between 9 kHz and 148.5 kHz (or 525 kHz) certainly isn't empty 
of intentional radiators.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Pettit, Ghery]

Richard,

You are entirely correct.  If a single cord comes out of a cabinet that
is what gets tested.  I apologize if my reply made you think my point
was different from that.  Indeed, the Canadian national committee has
asked for clarification in CISPR 22 making it even clearer that this is
the case, and I expect that such clarification will be included in
Amendment 1 to CISPR 22 Edition 6.0 when it is adopted.

The original question was about a system with multiple cords leaving the
cabinet.  A different situation.

Ghery



From: Stone, Richard [mailto:richard.st...@dialogic.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:41 AM
To: Pettit, Ghery; Ken Javor; Untitled
Subject: RE: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15

Hello Ghery,

I fully see your points below,
But if there are multiple ITE components in a system, 
Then there is usually a PDU, either AC or DC, or in other terms 
an internal power strip linking all the power cables to it.
Then only the PDU power cable gets connected to the LISN
For conducted EMI testing.
It makes no sense to test all components separatly
When only one component (the PDU / Power Strip)connects to the
AC Wall Power or DC power supply in a central office. 

Was this not noted in the standard? Or maybe worded a little ambigously?

Thank you
Richard,


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pettit,
Ghery
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:22 PM
To: Ken Javor; Untitled
Subject: RE: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15

One LISN per power cord is acceptable.  One power cord per LISN is
required for the power cord being measured.  That way you know that the
emissions being measured are from that cord, and not another one.  

 

This was simpler with the old design - two cords comes out of the
cabinet, each to its own LISN.  Now John has to contend with a bunch of
cords.  This is addressed in CISPR 22, article 9.5.1, which states:

 

The mains cable of the unit being measured shall be connected to one
artificial mains network (AMN).  Where the EUT is a system, which is a
collection of ITE with one or more host units, and each item has its own
power cable, the point of connection for the AMN is determined by the
following rules:

 

a)  Each power cable that is terminated in a power supply plug of a
standard design (IEC 60083 for example) shall be tested separately.

 

There is no question that the power cords are tested one at a time.  A
later paragraph in 9.5.1 calls for one or more additional AMNs for the
additional power cables.

 

Article 7.2.1 of ANSI C63.4:2003 has different text that conveys the
same message.

 

So, if your thought is to be accepted, both ANSI C63.4 and CISPR 22 (and
probably other standards, as well) will have to be changed.  Given the
success in reducing or largely eliminating interference from ITE that
the current standards have demonstrated over the past 20+ years, I doubt
that will gain much traction.  At least, I certainly hope not.  :-)

 

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE

Convener, CISPR SC I WG3

Member, C63 SC 1

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Javor
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Untitled
Subject: Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15

 

First a direct response to the question posed, then a challenge to the
premise upon which it is based. The second comment, if legitimate, is
more important than the first.

You could use one dual LISN, or one LISN per current-carrying power
conductor, if you had eighteen different make-before-break switches that
would allow each power cord to draw current either from the LISN power
output port, or the LISN input power side.  If you want to go with
eighteen LISNs, I think it is technically acceptable to stack them, but
you want the ground strap to maintain a lower than 5:1 length-to-width
ratio, so that likely means stacking no more than three high.

But here's an interesting and likely unwelcome thought, which I invite
other forum members to comment upon. The point of meeting a conducted
emissions requirement is to protect radios operating below 30 MHz that
might be powered from the same branch circuit, or in the case of class A
which likely applies here, operated within some distance of the
equipment, but plugged into a different branch.  If the equipment in
your two racks operates simultaneously, it isn't obvious to me that you
are even allowed different LISNs - presumably all your rack equipment
plugs into the same branch circuit, which should be represented by a
single pair of LISNs.  Immediate problem solved, but potentially more
noise to filter, especially if power supplies operating off each cord
operate at same switching frequencies.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Flavin, John john.fla...@teradata.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post

Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Flavin, John]

Our company sells ITE systems that are housed in commerial 19 racks. The
system is designed to be fault tolerant and redundant, so each rack has two AC
mains cords. 

We do our own EMI certification testing (we're an accreditted lab), and our
typical EUT consists of two of these rack, so there are 4 AC Mains cords to
test, which we connect to 4 LISNs.

A modified version of this system is now in the works, where the dual AC mains
cords are replaced by multiple cords (with lower current per cord). The design
now would have 10 AC mains cords out of one rack, and 8 from the other. This
means the two rack EUT would have 18 AC Mains cords to test. 

In a perfect world, where cost were no object, we would have 18 LISNs, since
this is the most efficient for testing -- set it up once, and test everything.

Our question is how to place a relatively large number of LISNs and satisfy
the standards' requirement of the 80cm spacing of the EUT and LISN.
Specifically:

1) Are we allowed to place LISNs around all sides of the EUT, maintaining the
80cm spacing (i.e. have LISNs at the front face of the EUT, and run the mains
cord from the back to the LISN)?

2) Are we allowed to stack LISNs on top of each other, as long as the LISN is
bonded to the ground plane? 

Since we have to test each cord in turn, we could reduce the number of LISNs
by combining a number of the cords not currently being tested through a second
(or third) LISN. The downside of this is having to re-plug the cords after
each cord is tested, which requires shutting the system down and restarting,
which is a non-trivial task (and takes longer than it does to test one cord).


John D. Flavin 
Teradata TCP Engineering 
17095 Via del Campo 
San Diego, CA 92127 
john.fla...@teradata.com 
V: (858) 485-3874 
F: (213) 337-5432 

-  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: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[John Woodgate]

In message 
809376ab0310a746b991380cb827f8e6017d1...@susday7659.td.teradata.com, 
dated Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Flavin, John john.fla...@teradata.com writes:


Our question is how to place a relatively large number of LISNs and 
satisfy the standards' requirement of the 80cm spacing of the EUT and 
LISN. Specifically:

1) Are we allowed to place LISNs around all sides of the EUT, 
maintaining the 80cm spacing (i.e. have LISNs at the front face of the 
EUT, and run the mains cord from the back to the LISN)?

I don't see why not. While you can't assume that you can do anything 
that isn't specifically prohibited, I think your proposal doesn't have a 
fatal technical defect.

2) Are we allowed to stack LISNs on top of each other, as long as the 
LISN is bonded to the ground plane?

I think that is less proof against criticism.  The inductances of the 
ground straps of the upper LISNs might affect the results.

I think CISPR/I experts (there are some who lurk here) will bear in mind 
for the future that they have to allow for products with 18 mains leads. 
At least.(;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it,
or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose!
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Ken Javor]

First a direct response to the question posed, then a challenge to the premise
upon which it is based. The second comment, if legitimate, is more important
than the first.

You could use one dual LISN, or one LISN per current-carrying power conductor,
if you had eighteen different make-before-break switches that would allow each
power cord to draw current either from the LISN power output port, or the LISN
input power side.  If you want to go with eighteen LISNs, I think it is
technically acceptable to stack them, but you want the ground strap to
maintain a lower than 5:1 length-to-width ratio, so that likely means stacking
no more than three high.

But here’s an interesting and likely unwelcome thought, which I invite other
forum members to comment upon. The point of meeting a conducted emissions
requirement is to protect radios operating below 30 MHz that might be powered
from the same branch circuit, or in the case of class A which likely applies
here, operated within some distance of the equipment, but plugged into a
different branch.  If the equipment in your two racks operates simultaneously,
it isn’t obvious to me that you are even allowed different LISNs –
presumably all your rack equipment plugs into the same branch circuit, which
should be represented by a single pair of LISNs.  Immediate problem solved,
but potentially more noise to filter, especially if power supplies operating
off each cord operate at same switching frequencies.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Flavin, John john.fla...@teradata.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:40:10 -0400
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Conversation: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15
Subject: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC
part 15



Our company sells ITE systems that are housed in commerial 19 racks. The
system is designed to be fault tolerant and redundant, so each rack has two AC
mains cords. 

We do our own EMI certification testing (we're an accreditted lab), and our
typical EUT consists of two of these rack, so there are 4 AC Mains cords to
test, which we connect to 4 LISNs.

A modified version of this system is now in the works, where the dual AC mains
cords are replaced by multiple cords (with lower current per cord). The design
now would have 10 AC mains cords out of one rack, and 8 from the other. This
means the two rack EUT would have 18 AC Mains cords to test. 

In a perfect world, where cost were no object, we would have 18 LISNs, since
this is the most efficient for testing -- set it up once, and test everything.

Our question is how to place a relatively large number of LISNs and satisfy
the standards' requirement of the 80cm spacing of the EUT and LISN.
Specifically:

1) Are we allowed to place LISNs around all sides of the EUT, maintaining the
80cm spacing (i.e. have LISNs at the front face of the EUT, and run the mains
cord from the back to the LISN)?

2) Are we allowed to stack LISNs on top of each other, as long as the LISN is
bonded to the ground plane? 

Since we have to test each cord in turn, we could reduce the number of LISNs
by combining a number of the cords not currently being tested through a second
(or third) LISN. The downside of this is having to re-plug the cords after
each cord is tested, which requires shutting the system down and restarting,
which is a non-trivial task (and takes longer than it does to test one cord).


John D. Flavin 
Teradata TCP Engineering 
17095 Via del Campo 
San Diego, CA 92127 
john.fla...@teradata.com 
V: (858) 485-3874 
F: (213) 337-5432 
-  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

RE: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Pettit, Ghery]

One LISN per power cord is acceptable.  One power cord per LISN is required
for the power cord being measured.  That way you know that the emissions being
measured are from that cord, and not another one.  

 

This was simpler with the old design – two cords comes out of the cabinet,
each to its own LISN.  Now John has to contend with a bunch of cords.  This is
addressed in CISPR 22, article 9.5.1, which states:

 

“The mains cable of the unit being measured shall be connected to one
artificial mains network (AMN).  Where the EUT is a system, which is a
collection of ITE with one or more host units, and each item has its own power
cable, the point of connection for the AMN is determined by the following
rules:

 

a)  Each power cable that is terminated in a power supply plug of a standard
design (IEC 60083 for example) shall be tested separately.”

 

There is no question that the power cords are tested one at a time.  A later
paragraph in 9.5.1 calls for one or more additional AMNs for the additional
power cables.

 

Article 7.2.1 of ANSI C63.4:2003 has different text that conveys the same
message.

 

So, if your thought is to be accepted, both ANSI C63.4 and CISPR 22 (and
probably other standards, as well) will have to be changed.  Given the success
in reducing or largely eliminating interference from ITE that the current
standards have demonstrated over the past 20+ years, I doubt that will gain
much traction.  At least, I certainly hope not.  :-)

 

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE

Convener, CISPR SC I WG3

Member, C63 SC 1

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Untitled
Subject: Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC
part 15

 

First a direct response to the question posed, then a challenge to the premise
upon which it is based. The second comment, if legitimate, is more important
than the first.

You could use one dual LISN, or one LISN per current-carrying power conductor,
if you had eighteen different make-before-break switches that would allow each
power cord to draw current either from the LISN power output port, or the LISN
input power side.  If you want to go with eighteen LISNs, I think it is
technically acceptable to stack them, but you want the ground strap to
maintain a lower than 5:1 length-to-width ratio, so that likely means stacking
no more than three high.

But here’s an interesting and likely unwelcome thought, which I invite other
forum members to comment upon. The point of meeting a conducted emissions
requirement is to protect radios operating below 30 MHz that might be powered
from the same branch circuit, or in the case of class A which likely applies
here, operated within some distance of the equipment, but plugged into a
different branch.  If the equipment in your two racks operates simultaneously,
it isn’t obvious to me that you are even allowed different LISNs –
presumably all your rack equipment plugs into the same branch circuit, which
should be represented by a single pair of LISNs.  Immediate problem solved,
but potentially more noise to filter, especially if power supplies operating
off each cord operate at same switching frequencies.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Flavin, John john.fla...@teradata.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:40:10 -0400
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Conversation: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15
Subject: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC
part 15



Our company sells ITE systems that are housed in commerial 19 racks. The
system is designed to be fault tolerant and redundant, so each rack has two AC
mains cords. 

We do our own EMI certification testing (we're an accreditted lab), and our
typical EUT consists of two of these rack, so there are 4 AC Mains cords to
test, which we connect to 4 LISNs.

A modified version of this system is now in the works, where the dual AC mains
cords are replaced by multiple cords (with lower current per cord). The design
now would have 10 AC mains cords out of one rack, and 8 from the other. This
means the two rack EUT would have 18 AC Mains cords to test. 

In a perfect world, where cost were no object, we would have 18 LISNs, since
this is the most efficient for testing -- set it up once, and test everything.

Our question is how to place a relatively large number of LISNs and satisfy
the standards' requirement of the 80cm spacing of the EUT and LISN.
Specifically:

1) Are we allowed to place LISNs around all sides of the EUT, maintaining the
80cm spacing (i.e. have LISNs at the front face of the EUT, and run the mains
cord from the back to the LISN)?

2) Are we allowed to stack LISNs on top of each other, as long as the LISN is
bonded to the ground plane

Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Bill Owsley]

John,
Way back when, I worked on something similar.  One power cord of sufficient
size could run the whole thing but the cleanup crew had a tendency unplug it
to run the vacuum cleaner.  So redundant cords were put into place, which if
plugged into the same branch circuit, all stopped when the floor buffer over
powered that branch.  Now the cords had to plugged into different branches...
and so on...
 
Fault tolerant and redundant? I took that to mean that any one of the power
cords could be pulled and the system would still run. If so, then a little
musical chairs with the power cords should get them rearranged so the system
never shuts down.
 
If a number of these power cords are meant as parallel connections to reduce
the current per cord then I would say that they are indeed just one cord and
plug all of one parallel set into one LISN.  Quickly you'll see that presents
a challenge in that now there needs to be plug strip to accept these cords. 
The solution is left to the creative lab tech.
Is the 80cm length for the power cord under test only, leaving the other cords
as long as necessary, or it the 80cm for all the power cords. I thought it was
just the one cord (or set of cords) under test.
 
All this just to keep the building wiring from broadcasting the conducted
noise from a system. 


Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote:

First a direct response to the question posed, then a challenge to the
premise upon which it is based. The second comment, if legitimate, is more
important than the first.

You could use one dual LISN, or one LISN per current-carrying power
conductor, if you had eighteen different make-before-break switches that would
allow each power cord to draw current either from the LISN power output port,
or the LISN input power side.  If you want to go with eighteen LISNs, I think
it is technically acceptable to stack them, but you want the ground strap to
maintain a lower than 5:1 length-to-width ratio, so that likely means stacking
no more than three high.

But here’s an interesting and likely unwelcome thought, which I invite
other forum members to comment upon. The point of meeting a conducted
emissions requirement is to protect radios operating below 30 MHz that might
be powered from the same branch circuit, or in the case of class A which
likely applies here, operated within some distance of the equipment, but
plugged into a different branch.  If the equipment in your two racks operates
simultaneously, it isn’t obvious to me that you are even allowed different
LISNs – presumably all your rack equipment plugs into the same branch
circuit, which should be represented by a single pair of LISNs.  Immediate
problem solved, but potentially more noise to filter, especially if power
supplies operating off each cord operate at same switching frequencies.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Flavin, John john.fla...@teradata.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:40:10 -0400
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Conversation: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15
Subject: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to 
CISPR22/FCC
part 15



Our company sells ITE systems that are housed in commerial 19 racks. 
The
system is designed to be fault tolerant and redundant, so each rack has two AC
mains cords. 

We do our own EMI certification testing (we're an accreditted lab), and 
our
typical EUT consists of two of these rack, so there are 4 AC Mains cords to
test, which we connect to 4 LISNs.

A modified version of this system is now in the works, where the dual AC
mains cords are replaced by multiple cords (with lower current per cord). The
design now would have 10 AC mains cords out of one rack, and 8 from the other.
This means the two rack EUT would have 18 AC Mains cords to test. 

In a perfect world, where cost were no object, we would have 18 LISNs, 
since
this is the most efficient for testing -- set it up once, and test everything.

Our question is how to place a relatively large number of LISNs and 
satisfy
the standards' requirement of the 80cm spacing of the EUT and LISN.
Specifically:

1) Are we allowed to place LISNs around all sides of the EUT, 
maintaining the
80cm spacing (i.e. have LISNs at the front face of the EUT, and run the mains
cord from the back to the LISN)?

2) Are we allowed to stack LISNs on top of each other, as long as the 
LISN is
bonded to the ground plane? 

Since we have to test each cord in turn, we could reduce the number of 
LISNs
by combining a number of the cords not currently being tested through a second
(or third) LISN. The downside of this is having to re-plug the cords after
each cord is tested, which requires

Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Ken Javor]

Not going to argue chapter and verse of the standards, nor make a case they
should be changed – been there, done that, waste of time. However, they have
departed significantly from the original intent and that leaves one asking:
“Why are we even doing this?”

The original intent of conducted emission requirements was two-fold. One was
protecting against ripple on the bus that could affect radio reception by
direct conduction through the power supply from the mains. That (FCC) limit
was originally 48 dBuV for class B.  Secondarily, that limit protected against
electromagnetic radiation from the mains due to rf currents, and that
protected against radiated interference in a frequency range where it would be
quite difficult to make radiated measurements.  If you have a single device
that plugs into a single branch circuit, albeit through multiple power
supplies and multiple power cords, then all those cords should indeed plug
into a single pair of LISNs. Now if the power supply connected to each one of
those cords is totally different from each and every other power supply, there
is likely no harm done, because in any single 9 kHz channel, you likely
won’t get any superposition. But if the design were such that all p ower
supplies were identical, then their emissions would add in quadrature
(assuming they are not phase-locked) and 18 of them would yield 12.5 dB more
signal in each 9 kHz bandwidth occupied by a clock harmonic than for a single
power supply running off a single LISN.

Another issue, prevalent at and around 150 kHz, is rectification harmonics.
These will be directly proportional to total current draw, so that splitting
the total current amongst many LISNs makes it much easier to meet the limit,
and this isn’t justified if the equipment plugs into a single branch
circuit.  This isn’t a problem in the USA, because we have no BCB receivers
below 530 kHz, but it affects European BCB reception in the LW band from 150
– 300 kHz.

My opinion, FWIW, is that if the standards ignore the original intent, then
the standards are an end in themselves with degraded contribution to the
original intent to foster controlled levels of rfi.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:21:31 -0700
To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, Untitled emc-p...@ieee.org
Conversation: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to
CISPR22/FCC part 15
Subject: RE: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC
part 15

One LISN per power cord is acceptable.  One power cord per LISN is required
for the power cord being measured.  That way you know that the emissions being
measured are from that cord, and not another one.  
 
This was simpler with the old design – two cords comes out of the cabinet,
each to its own LISN.  Now John has to contend with a bunch of cords.  This is
addressed in CISPR 22, article 9.5.1, which states:
 
“The mains cable of the unit being measured shall be connected to one
artificial mains network (AMN).  Where the EUT is a system, which is a
collection of ITE with one or more host units, and each item has its own power
cable, the point of connection for the AMN is determined by the following
rules:
 
a)  Each power cable that is terminated in a power supply plug of a standard
design (IEC 60083 for example) shall be tested separately.”
 
There is no question that the power cords are tested one at a time.  A later
paragraph in 9.5.1 calls for one or more additional AMNs for the additional
power cables.
 
Article 7.2.1 of ANSI C63.4:2003 has different text that conveys the same
message.
 
So, if your thought is to be accepted, both ANSI C63.4 and CISPR 22 (and
probably other standards, as well) will have to be changed.  Given the success
in reducing or largely eliminating interference from ITE that the current
standards have demonstrated over the past 20+ years, I doubt that will gain
much traction.  At least, I certainly hope not.  :-)

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
Convener, CISPR SC I WG3
Member, C63 SC 1
 
 




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Untitled
Subject: Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC
part 15

First a direct response to the question posed, then a challenge to the premise
upon which it is based. The second comment, if legitimate, is more important
than the first.

You could use one dual LISN, or one LISN per current-carrying power conductor,
if you had eighteen different make-before-break switches that would allow each
power cord to draw current either from the LISN power output port, or the LISN
input power side.  If you want to go with eighteen LISNs, I think it is
technically acceptable to stack them, but you want

Re: Placement of LISNs for Conducted Emissions Testing to CISPR22/FCC part 15

[Bill Owsley]

tongue in cheek mode ON
Are we not as EMC engineers supposed to interpret the
standards to our economic advantage so we can ship
products without delays for redesign and still have
some rational for explaining why we did what we did? 
After all, if there is no foul, there is no fault,
because I haven't heard any complaints.  That is, the
FCC has not yet written me that letter, again.  If the
license holder have a problem, I'll hear about it.  If
not, keep shipping.  HAMS be damned.  Oh wait, news
flash, the military uses low frequencies?? who ever
heard of such a thing?  Why in the world would they
want to talk to a submarine?  It's underwater!

tongue in cheek mode OFF,
and time for another beer.
c ya,


--- Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote:

 Not going to argue chapter and verse of the
 standards, nor make a case they
 should be changed ­ been there, done that, waste of
 time. However, they have
 departed significantly from the original intent and
 that leaves one asking:
 ³Why are we even doing this?²
 
 The original intent of conducted emission
 requirements was two-fold. One was
 protecting against ripple on the bus that could
 affect radio reception by
 direct conduction through the power supply from the
 mains. That (FCC) limit
 was originally 48 dBuV for class B.  Secondarily,
 that limit protected
 against electromagnetic radiation from the mains due
 to rf currents, and
 that protected against radiated interference in a
 frequency range where it
 would be quite difficult to make radiated
 measurements.  If you have a
 single device that plugs into a single branch
 circuit, albeit through
 multiple power supplies and multiple power cords,
 then all those cords
 should indeed plug into a single pair of LISNs. Now
 if the power supply
 connected to each one of those cords is totally
 different from each and
 every other power supply, there is likely no harm
 done, because in any
 single 9 kHz channel, you likely won¹t get any
 superposition. But if the
 design were such that all power supplies were
 identical, then their
 emissions would add in quadrature (assuming they are
 not phase-locked) and
 18 of them would yield 12.5 dB more signal in each 9
 kHz bandwidth occupied
 by a clock harmonic than for a single power supply
 running off a single
 LISN.
 
 Another issue, prevalent at and around 150 kHz, is
 rectification harmonics.
 These will be directly proportional to total current
 draw, so that splitting
 the total current amongst many LISNs makes it much
 easier to meet the limit,
 and this isn¹t justified if the equipment plugs into
 a single branch
 circuit.  This isn¹t a problem in the USA, because
 we have no BCB receivers
 below 530 kHz, but it affects European BCB reception
 in the LW band from 150
 ­ 300 kHz.
 
 My opinion, FWIW, is that if the standards ignore
 the original intent, then
 the standards are an end in themselves with degraded
 contribution to the
 original intent to foster controlled levels of rfi.
  
 Ken Javor
 
 Phone: (256) 650-5261
 
 
 
 From: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com
 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:21:31 -0700
 To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com,
 Untitled emc-p...@ieee.org
 Conversation: Placement of LISNs for Conducted
 Emissions Testing to
 CISPR22/FCC part 15
 Subject: RE: Placement of LISNs for Conducted
 Emissions Testing to
 CISPR22/FCC part 15
 
 One LISN per power cord is acceptable.  One power
 cord per LISN is required
 for the power cord being measured.  That way you
 know that the emissions
 being measured are from that cord, and not another
 one.
  
 This was simpler with the old design ­ two cords
 comes out of the cabinet,
 each to its own LISN.  Now John has to contend with
 a bunch of cords.  This
 is addressed in CISPR 22, article 9.5.1, which
 states:
  
 ³The mains cable of the unit being measured shall be
 connected to one
 artificial mains network (AMN).  Where the EUT is a
 system, which is a
 collection of ITE with one or more host units, and
 each item has its own
 power cable, the point of connection for the AMN is
 determined by the
 following rules:
  
 a)  Each power cable that is terminated in a power
 supply plug of a standard
 design (IEC 60083 for example) shall be tested
 separately.²
  
 There is no question that the power cords are tested
 one at a time.  A later
 paragraph in 9.5.1 calls for one or more additional
 AMNs for the additional
 power cables.
  
 Article 7.2.1 of ANSI C63.4:2003 has different text
 that conveys the same
 message.
  
 So, if your thought is to be accepted, both ANSI
 C63.4 and CISPR 22 (and
 probably other standards, as well) will have to be
 changed.  Given the
 success in reducing or largely eliminating
 interference from ITE that the
 current standards have demonstrated over the past
 20+ years, I doubt that
 will gain much traction.  At least, I certainly hope
 not.  J
  
 Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
 Convener, CISPR SC I WG3
 Member, C63 SC 1
  
  
 
 
 From: emc-p...@ieee.org

RE: Conducted Emissions for poewr over Ethernet device

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Derek,
 
The EMC directive will almost certainly apply, and you should consider whether
the RTTE directive might be applicable, in which case it takes precedence
over the EMC directive and also applies all the requirements of the LVD
without limitation of voltage.
Best regards 

Neil R. Barker CEng MIET FSEE MIEEE 
Manager 
Quality Engineering 
e2v technologies (uk) ltd 
106 Waterhouse Lane 
Chelmsford 
Essex CM1 2QU 
UK 

Tel: (+44) 1245 453616 
Fax: (+44) 1245 453571 
Mob: (+44) 7801 723735 


From: Derek Walton [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: 07 February 2007 03:51
To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group
Subject: Conducted Emissions for poewr over Ethernet device


Good morning folks,

I've been asked about runining a test on a PD device that draws about 7 watts.
Is there a CE test on such a device? Or is it scott free being powered by the
Ethernet interface?

Thanks for the insight,

Derek Walton
L F Research
-  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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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: Conducted Emissions for poewr over Ethernet device

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Derek,

 

PoE powered devices follow all the same requirements as would a product
powered from any other source (straight from AC inlet, DC input from an AC/DC
converter, etc.). The LVD and EMC Directives all still apply as would the
RTTE Directive if it falls under that category.

 

Maybe I’m missing something in your question. If this does not answer your
question, please supply more information.

 

…Marko

 

  _  

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Derek Walton
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:51 PM
To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group
Subject: Conducted Emissions for poewr over Ethernet device

 

Good morning folks,

I've been asked about runining a test on a PD device that draws about 7 watts.
Is there a CE test on such a device? Or is it scott free being powered by the
Ethernet interface?

Thanks for the insight,

Derek Walton
L F Research


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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

Conducted Emissions for poewr over Ethernet device

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Good morning folks,

I've been asked about runining a test on a PD device that draws about 7 watts.
Is there a CE test on such a device? Or is it scott free being powered by the
Ethernet interface?

Thanks for the insight,

Derek Walton
L F Research

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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: EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Many thanks to Jon / Chris et. al for the responses. 
 
This advice was directly on target. 
 
For compliance with the Motor Vehicle EMC Directive, Informative Annex B
Section B.2.4 of 301 489-1 v1.6.1 :2005  points out the applicable section of
the Directive that requires testing for conformance to that Directive [and the
special conditions of exclusions]. Testing is done per ISO 7637-2. 
 
It appears that Section 8.3 of the 301 489-1 v1.6.1 also has requirements for
use of the AMN in CISPR 25:2002 in any case [no exclusions] to the limits in
Section 8.3. 
 
Since the 2005 version of 301 489-1 is not yet listed on the OJ, I wasn't
familiar with it. 
 
Best regards, 
 
Mac


  _  

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Jon Larkin
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:06 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Fw: EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger


Hi Mac,
 
All of your questions are answered in Annex B of EN 301 489-1 : 2005, Section
B.2.4
 
Regards,
 
Jon Larkin
Cranage EMC  Safety
 
- Original Message - 
From: Elliott  mailto:fme...@motorola.com Mac-FME001 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:30 PM
Subject: EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger

Hello Colleagues, 
 
I was recently approached regarding the testing of DC conducted emissions on a
car charger for a 2 Way Portable radio and if it is required. 
 
The applicable EMC standard per the RTTE Directive would be 301 489-5, which
basically falls back on 301 489-1 without any special conditions. 
 
The way I read 301 489-1 is that DC conducted emissions are to be tested per
EN 55022 for AC/DC power adapters at the AC mains for equipment with DC cables
 or = 3m or at the DC power port if the manufacturer declares the length of
the cord to be over 3m. 
 
Neither of these are true in this case, so I don't believe that DC conducted
emissions are applicable. 
 
However, I have never researched this before and am open to the fact that I am
missing something. The engineer has gotten information from another source
stating that the charger must be tested to EN 55022 for DC conducted
emissions. 
 
Does anyone out there know if this is accurate? If so, what kind of AMN would
you recommend to measure DC conducted emissions? 
 
If this is the case, can you also direct me to the applicable standard that
calls out EN 55022 or help me understand why it is applicable if my
understanding of 301 489 is incorrect? 
 
Always learning
 
Best regards, 
 
Mac Elliott
-  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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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: EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Mac,
 
All of your questions are answered in Annex B of EN 301 489-1 : 2005, Section
B.2.4
 
Regards,
 
Jon Larkin
Cranage EMC  Safety
 
- Original Message - 
From: Elliott  mailto:fme...@motorola.com Mac-FME001 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:30 PM
Subject: EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger

Hello Colleagues, 
 
I was recently approached regarding the testing of DC conducted emissions on a
car charger for a 2 Way Portable radio and if it is required. 
 
The applicable EMC standard per the RTTE Directive would be 301 489-5, which
basically falls back on 301 489-1 without any special conditions. 
 
The way I read 301 489-1 is that DC conducted emissions are to be tested per
EN 55022 for AC/DC power adapters at the AC mains for equipment with DC cables
 or = 3m or at the DC power port if the manufacturer declares the length of
the cord to be over 3m. 
 
Neither of these are true in this case, so I don't believe that DC conducted
emissions are applicable. 
 
However, I have never researched this before and am open to the fact that I am
missing something. The engineer has gotten information from another source
stating that the charger must be tested to EN 55022 for DC conducted
emissions. 
 
Does anyone out there know if this is accurate? If so, what kind of AMN would
you recommend to measure DC conducted emissions? 
 
If this is the case, can you also direct me to the applicable standard that
calls out EN 55022 or help me understand why it is applicable if my
understanding of 301 489 is incorrect? 
 
Always learning
 
Best regards, 
 
Mac Elliott
-  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 email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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 

EN 55022 DC Conducted Emissions on Car Charger

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hello Colleagues, 
 
I was recently approached regarding the testing of DC conducted emissions on a
car charger for a 2 Way Portable radio and if it is required. 
 
The applicable EMC standard per the RTTE Directive would be 301 489-5, which
basically falls back on 301 489-1 without any special conditions. 
 
The way I read 301 489-1 is that DC conducted emissions are to be tested per
EN 55022 for AC/DC power adapters at the AC mains for equipment with DC cables
 or = 3m or at the DC power port if the manufacturer declares the length of
the cord to be over 3m. 
 
Neither of these are true in this case, so I don't believe that DC conducted
emissions are applicable. 
 
However, I have never researched this before and am open to the fact that I am
missing something. The engineer has gotten information from another source
stating that the charger must be tested to EN 55022 for DC conducted
emissions. 
 
Does anyone out there know if this is accurate? If so, what kind of AMN would
you recommend to measure DC conducted emissions? 
 
If this is the case, can you also direct me to the applicable standard that
calls out EN 55022 or help me understand why it is applicable if my
understanding of 301 489 is incorrect? 
 
Always learning
 
Best regards, 
 
Mac Elliott

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-  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: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
041420061600.25253.443FC718000D513562A52206824693CECE020A900A02@comc
ast.net, dated Fri, 14 Apr 2006, neve...@comcast.net writes
A relatively simple resistive network can be designed for measuring 
common-mode voltage on Ethernet and many other high-speed interfaces 
that utilize differential-pair lines, which - with minor modifications 
- would be perfectly suitable for this application. I have used it for 
about 10 years, had a paper about it at the Seattle IEEE EMC Symposium 
(about 8 years ago - coincidently about as long as the standard has 
been chewed on). Meanwhile it has evolved into a more versatile device 
than what was described then. But I gues it may be of no interest to 
people who write standards grin

Why don't you tell us more about it, and see? I have problems at present 
with the revision of EN 55103-1 in respect of conducted emissions: the 
methods in EN 55022 don't suit every type of port.

What interest me most about ports is the conducted emission of a good 
Late Bottled Vintage into my glass. (;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely.

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

-

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: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

A relatively simple resistive network can be designed for measuring
common-mode voltage on Ethernet and many other high-speed interfaces that
utilize differential-pair lines, which - with minor modifications - would be
perfectly suitable for this application. I have used it for about 10 years,
had a paper about it at the Seattle IEEE EMC Symposium (about 8 years ago -
coincidently about as long as the standard has been chewed on). Meanwhile it
has evolved into a more versatile device than what was described then. But I
gues it may be of no interest to people who write standards grin
 
Neven
 

-- Original message -- 
From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk 

 In message 
 , 
 dated Thu, 13 Apr 2006, jim.hulb...@pb.com writes 
 We have an ethernet port to which is connected a CAT5 cable. When this 
 cable is routed through an ISN per EN 55022 for conducted emissions 
 measurements, the port is unable to function. What experience have 
 people had with ISNs in this application, or what experience do people 
 have with the alternate test methods (current probe and/or voltage 
 probe measurements)? 
 
 Since it's taken about 8 years to get even a fragile agreement on 
 conducted emissions in CISPR 22/EN 55022, you'd think that everything 
 would be crystal-clear by ! now.  
 I don't know which edition of EN 55022 you are using by the 1998 
 edition, with corrigenda 1 and 2 and amendments 1 and 2 says in 9.5.3.1: 
 'Where normal functioning cannot be achieved because of the impact of 
 the ISN on the EUT, the measurement shall be carried out using the 
 method given in 9.5.3.5.' This in turn refers you to Annex C, C.1.3 or 
 C.1.4. 
 
 C.1.3 uses a current probe and a voltage probe. C.1.4 uses two current 
 probes and a moveable ferrite 'adjuster'. It takes a long time. 
 -- 
 OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 
 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. 
 
 John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK 
 
 - 
  
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
 emc-pst! c discu ssion 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: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
of83d77521.a76d1666-on8525714f.004fc2d9-8525714f.00506...@pb.com, 
dated Thu, 13 Apr 2006, jim.hulb...@pb.com writes
We have an ethernet port to which is connected a CAT5 cable. When this 
cable is routed through an ISN per EN 55022 for conducted emissions 
measurements, the port is unable to function. What experience have 
people had with ISNs in this application, or what experience do people 
have with the alternate test methods (current probe and/or voltage 
probe measurements)?

Since it's taken about 8 years to get even a fragile agreement on 
conducted emissions in CISPR 22/EN 55022, you'd think that everything 
would be crystal-clear by now.

I don't know which edition of EN 55022 you are using by the 1998 
edition, with corrigenda 1 and 2 and amendments 1 and 2 says in 9.5.3.1:
'Where normal functioning cannot be achieved because of the impact of 
the ISN on the EUT, the measurement shall be carried out using the 
method given in 9.5.3.5.' This in turn refers you to Annex C, C.1.3 or 
C.1.4.

C.1.3 uses a current probe and a voltage probe. C.1.4 uses two current 
probes and a moveable ferrite 'adjuster'. It takes a long time.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely.

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

-

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: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

  


 

From: jim.hulb...@pb.com [ mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:38 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Subject: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet 



We have an ethernet port to which is connected a CAT5 cable. When this
cable is routed through an ISN per EN 55022 for conducted emissions
measurements, the port is unable to function. What experience have people had
with ISNs in this application, or what experience do people have with the
alternate test methods (current probe and/or voltage probe measurements)?


We are trying to establish a test procedure that yields repeatable
measurements and hopefully measurements that are correlatable to what other
labs may measure.


Thank you. 

Jim Hulbert, Principal Engineer 
GMSE/TSO/Compliance Engineering 
Pitney Bowes 

 

  

Jim: 
  
A few weeks ago, I almost had to face trying to filter an Ethernet cable. My
first attempt was to use an Quell EESeal connector insert filter, with a
capacitance of 5000 pF from each pin to ground. This produced too much loading
(desired signal reduction), and the Ethernet link would not function. So, the
only little fact I can add is that 5000 pF (to ground) is too capacitance for
the Ethernet interface.

  
Ed Price 
ed.pr...@cubic.com   WB6WSN 
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer  Technician 
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab 
Cubic Defense Applications 
San Diego, CA USA 
858-505-2780 (Voice) 
858-505-1583 (Fax) 
Military  Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty 
  

  

-  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: Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Jim,

 

I am not a test-house, so I don't have experience with various ISNs. However,
I have done a considerable amount of work in common-mode voltage and current
measurements, as well as investigating imbalance (i.e. mode conversion)  in
differential-signaling, especially in the hi-speed signaling including
Ethernet arena. So maybe I can give a little advice here.

 

I don't know what's wrong with your ISN, but for measuring conducted emission
(either CM currents or CM voltages) on high-speed differential signal lines I
would never use anything that has RJ45 or similar connectors on it. Just
conversion in the connectors and the un-twists of the cable in the area around
the connectors can considerably affect common-mode voltages and currents on
the signal line, so the measurement results are uncertain. If the un-twists of
the twisted pairs at the connector are bad, that can cause considerable
crosstalk between the pairs as well.

 

Whatever the test method, the level of balance on the differential pairs must
be preserved and not affected, or the results can be anything. For that reason
I strongly prefer the clamp method over ISN. Clamp preserves the integrity of
the signal line, and ISN is not well-defined in that respect. Some EMC test
houses seem not to be aware of that, and I believe that even the ISN
manufacturers are not paying attention to it.

 

If I had to use ISN, for whatever reason - maybe for ease and speed of
measurement compared with the clamp-test, I'd cut-off the RJ45 receptacles
(and maybe some associated segments in the box) from the ISN. I would also cut
off the RJ45 plugs from the ends of the cables that connect to it, design a
better transition (with better balance, less mode conversion and crosstalk)
between the cable that connects the ISN to DUT and from ISN to AUX, and then
I'd verify the balance on a 4-port network analyzer.

 

Hard-wiring the ISN into the signal line might do it, keeping extreme care to
preserve the balance on the diff pairs. No time or space to elaborate more,
but that is essentially keeping the twists of each pair tight and together,
and at the same time separating each pair from its neighbor.

 

 

Regards, Neven

-- Original message -- 
From: jim.hulb...@pb.com 


We have an ethernet port to which is connected a CAT5 cable. When this cable
is routed through an ISN per EN 55022 for conducted emissions measurements,
the port is unable to function. What experience have people had with ISNs in
this application, or what experience do people have with the alternate test
methods (current probe and/or voltage probe measurements)?

We are trying to establish a test procedure that yields repeatable
measurements and hopefully measurements that are correlatable to what other
labs may measure.

Thank you.

Jim Hulbert, Principal Engineer
GMSE/TSO/Compliance Engineering
Pitney Bowes- 
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 

Conducted Emissions on Ethernet

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

We have an ethernet port to which is connected a CAT5 cable. When this cable
is routed through an ISN per EN 55022 for conducted emissions measurements,
the port is unable to function. What experience have people had with ISNs in
this application, or what experience do people have with the alternate test
methods (current probe and/or voltage probe measurements)?

We are trying to establish a test procedure that yields repeatable
measurements and hopefully measurements that are correlatable to what other
labs may measure.

Thank you.

Jim Hulbert, Principal Engineer
GMSE/TSO/Compliance Engineering
Pitney Bowes

-  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: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

A note about MIL-STD-461.  Obsolete versions (basic release through -461C)
controlled conducted emissions to 50 MHz.  But they did this by limiting the
power cord length to a maximum of one meter from test sample to 10 uF
feedthrough capacitor, the latter used instead of an inductive LISN.   At 50
MHz, the power cord would be one-sixth wavelength, and there were instructions
in MIL-STD-462 to physically scan the current probe looking for a current
maximum.  For radiated tests, the power cord length was increased to two
meters.  Unfortunately a lot of lazy people used one length or the other for
all tests, to the point that when MIL-STD-461D/-462D came along, they scrapped
the two different power cord lengths for a single length of 2.5 meters.  The
upper frequency limit was lowered to 10 MHz because of the longer leads. 
There is wording in the appendix to the effect that if control is desired to
higher frequencies, the power cord length needs to be shortened.

RTCA/DO-160 controls conducted emissions over exactly the same frequency range
as CISPR, namely 150 kHz to 30 MHz, although they used to mandate a 5 uH LISN
and nowadays it seems like you could use any LISN impedance from 5 to 50 uH. 
Is that a correct interpretation?  It doesn't seem right, but that's how I
interpreted the latest curves.



From: Kurt Fischer kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com
Reply-To: kurt.fisc...@hyperinterop.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:03:49 -0700
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz




Hi all,

A few standards come to mind depending on product application:

MIL - STD 461/462 has conducted power line emissions measurements to higher
frequencies (do not remember how high?). Also RTCA DO-160 for aircraft
products / environments.

Also consider CISPR 14 (absorption clamp method) for Household Products (or
motors). This test method covers at least 300 MHz.

Good Luck.

Kurt Fischer




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:21 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz

If you are going to make repeatable measurements two things have to hold true.
 The LISN has to continue to provide its function, and the LISN has to be
close enough to the EUT that the mismatch between EUT, power cord and LISN
doesn't cause vswr errors.  At 30 MHz, the power cord should be l/10, or one
meter.  Of course that isn't the case, so there is already some question as to
the accuracy of the present measurement stopping at 30 MHz.  It is pretty easy
to design a 50 uH LISN to 100 MHz, but you should check.  Also, there are 5 uH
LISNs that have been designed to 400 MHz.  Above about 2 MHz, it doesn't
matter whether you use a 5 or 50 uH LISN, so you have that possible
alternative.

If it were me, and I wanted to make accurate and repeatable CE measurements, I
would either shorten the power cord to one-tenth wavelength, or I would go to
a current probe measurement and slide the current probe up and down the power
cord looking for peaks (spectrum analyzer in max hold while scanning
frequencies and scanning the probe).

I also think it would be very important to discriminate between different
conduction modes, dm or cm or super-cm (current flowing same sense in phase,
neutral and safety ground). 



From: Garnier, David S (GE Healthcare) david.garn...@med.ge.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:55:58 -0500
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz




Hello EMC Guru's,

I am looking for some guidance...

Is there an established Standard  Test Method for measuring 
AC Power Conducted Emissions above 30 MHz (say to 150 MHz?)

((Obviously, CE limits for CISPR11 only go to 30 Mhz.))


Thanks for your time,

Dave Garnier



David Garnier 
e GE Health Care 
___ 


  David S. Garnier 
  Senior Technician 
  Functional  CT Engineering 
  3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 
  Waukesha, Wi. 53188 
  Tel: 262.312.7246 
  Cel:  414.899.7580 


- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October   Schaumburg,
IL http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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

RE: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi all,
 
A few standards come to mind depending on product application:
 
MIL - STD 461/462 has conducted power line emissions measurements to higher
frequencies (do not remember how high?). Also RTCA DO-160 for aircraft
products / environments.
 
Also consider CISPR 14 (absorption clamp method) for Household Products (or
motors). This test method covers at least 300 MHz.
 
Good Luck.
 
Kurt Fischer
 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:21 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz


If you are going to make repeatable measurements two things have to hold true.
 The LISN has to continue to provide its function, and the LISN has to be
close enough to the EUT that the mismatch between EUT, power cord and LISN
doesn't cause vswr errors.  At 30 MHz, the power cord should be l/10, or one
meter.  Of course that isn't the case, so there is already some question as to
the accuracy of the present measurement stopping at 30 MHz.  It is pretty easy
to design a 50 uH LISN to 100 MHz, but you should check.  Also, there are 5 uH
LISNs that have been designed to 400 MHz.  Above about 2 MHz, it doesn't
matter whether you use a 5 or 50 uH LISN, so you have that possible
alternative.

If it were me, and I wanted to make accurate and repeatable CE measurements, I
would either shorten the power cord to one-tenth wavelength, or I would go to
a current probe measurement and slide the current probe up and down the power
cord looking for peaks (spectrum analyzer in max hold while scanning
frequencies and scanning the probe).

I also think it would be very important to discriminate between different
conduction modes, dm or cm or super-cm (current flowing same sense in phase,
neutral and safety ground). 



From: Garnier, David S (GE Healthcare) david.garn...@med.ge.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:55:58 -0500
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz




Hello EMC Guru's,

I am looking for some guidance...

Is there an established Standard  Test Method for measuring 
AC Power Conducted Emissions above 30 MHz (say to 150 MHz?)

((Obviously, CE limits for CISPR11 only go to 30 Mhz.))


Thanks for your time,

Dave Garnier



David Garnier 
e GE Health Care 
___ 


   David S. Garnier 
   Senior Technician 
   Functional  CT Engineering 
   3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 
   Waukesha, Wi. 53188 
   Tel: 262.312.7246 
   Cel:  414.899.7580 


- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October   Schaumburg,
IL http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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 



- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October Schaumburg, IL
http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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 

- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October Schaumburg, IL
http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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

Re: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

If you are going to make repeatable measurements two things have to hold true.
 The LISN has to continue to provide its function, and the LISN has to be
close enough to the EUT that the mismatch between EUT, power cord and LISN
doesn't cause vswr errors.  At 30 MHz, the power cord should be l/10, or one
meter.  Of course that isn't the case, so there is already some question as to
the accuracy of the present measurement stopping at 30 MHz.  It is pretty easy
to design a 50 uH LISN to 100 MHz, but you should check.  Also, there are 5 uH
LISNs that have been designed to 400 MHz.  Above about 2 MHz, it doesn't
matter whether you use a 5 or 50 uH LISN, so you have that possible
alternative.

If it were me, and I wanted to make accurate and repeatable CE measurements, I
would either shorten the power cord to one-tenth wavelength, or I would go to
a current probe measurement and slide the current probe up and down the power
cord looking for peaks (spectrum analyzer in max hold while scanning
frequencies and scanning the probe).

I also think it would be very important to discriminate between different
conduction modes, dm or cm or super-cm (current flowing same sense in phase,
neutral and safety ground). 



From: Garnier, David S (GE Healthcare) david.garn...@med.ge.com
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:55:58 -0500
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz




Hello EMC Guru's,

I am looking for some guidance...

Is there an established Standard  Test Method for measuring 
AC Power Conducted Emissions above 30 MHz (say to 150 MHz?)

((Obviously, CE limits for CISPR11 only go to 30 Mhz.))


Thanks for your time,

Dave Garnier



David Garnier 
e GE Health Care 
___ 


   David S. Garnier 
   Senior Technician 
   Functional  CT Engineering 
   3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 
   Waukesha, Wi. 53188 
   Tel: 262.312.7246 
   Cel:  414.899.7580 


- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October   Schaumburg,
IL http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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 



- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October Schaumburg, IL
http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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 

Measuring Conducted Emissions above 30 Mhz

[emc-pstc@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]

Hello EMC Guru's,
 
I am looking for some guidance...
 
Is there an established Standard  Test Method for measuring 
AC Power Conducted Emissions above 30 MHz (say to 150 MHz?)
 
((Obviously, CE limits for CISPR11 only go to 30 Mhz.))
 
 
Thanks for your time,
 
Dave Garnier
 

David Garnier 
e GE Health Care 
___ 

David S. Garnier 
Senior Technician 
Functional  CT Engineering 
3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 
Waukesha, Wi. 53188 
Tel: 262.312.7246 
Cel:  414.899.7580 


- 2005 IEEE Symposium on Product Safety Engineering 3-4 October Schaumburg, IL
http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium 

 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/listserv/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: Conducted Emissions PK vs AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

As I understand it, an AVG Detector is just a 1st order, low-pass RC
filter after the IF amp and detector.

The Video Averaging provided by the HP8568B and perhaps others, is a
weighted average of successive video trace data.

For a CW signal (a periodic waveform) the AVG and PK detectors should
show the same amplitude.  However, the AVG detector attenuates
incoherent or non-periodic signals and the attenuation depends on the
pulse rep rate.

Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.



From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: December 18, 2004 8:02 PM
To: Ken Javor; Ralph McDiarmid; ieee pstc list
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


Your point is well taken Ken, and this certainly is interesting.  My
approach to the concept of average does indeed run afoul of the
limitations of measurement devices and the potential for instrument
dependent results.  To the best of my knowledge, the FCC is the most
ill-defined with respect to the averaging time constant.  That is what
initially lead me to my stated empirical method.  Other thoughts are
welcomed!

Brent


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/listserv/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

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

I assume the time-constant of the AVG Detector is specific in CISPR 16
and that this standard is called out in FCC Part 15.

I think if the VBW was placed before the LOG amplifier in the signal
chain, it would yield the correct response.  If placed after the LOG
amp, the BW limit would not provide the desired effect.

The UL EMC software we use has tick-boxes for AVG detection, but they
have no noticeable affect on the receiver actions nor on the screen
plot.  Updated versions of this program from UL have also failed to
provide a AVG detection function.  It could be that this is not
available on our 8568B. So, in the rather rare instance where we need to
do an AVG conducted scan, we simply reduce the VBW in the test setup
file to 10Hz.

Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.


From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: December 18, 2004 8:02 PM
To: Ken Javor; Ralph McDiarmid; ieee pstc list
Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


Your point is well taken Ken, and this certainly is interesting.  My
approach to the concept of average does indeed run afoul of the
limitations of measurement devices and the potential for instrument
dependent results.  To the best of my knowledge, the FCC is the most
ill-defined with respect to the averaging time constant.  That is what
initially lead me to my stated empirical method.  Other thoughts are
welcomed!

Brent

 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On
 Behalf Of Ken Javor
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:14 PM
 To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com; Ralph McDiarmid; ieee pstc list
 Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 Now this is getting interesting.  If you arbitrarily reduce the VBW
 until you see no time dependent amplitude variation, I think that
 leads to non-repeatability.  That is, if my spectrum analyzer has a 1
 Hz VBW, and yours has a 10 Hz VBW, we could get different answers.  At

 least at one time, there was a specified time interval over which the
 averaging was to occur, which is another way of saying the the video
 bandwidth was specified.

 I think the idea of average detection is to be able to get an accurate

 assessment of the value of a cw or near cw (AM) signal, possibly in
 the presence of broadband noise.  Considering that pulsed cw was
 considered by the military to be a narrow-band signal, it would seem
 that the specific averaging time period would be very important.  On
 the other hand, MIL-STD-461 has for almost forty years required peak
 detection of all signals, whether NB or BB.  Go figure.


 I'm rambling on, but the point I am trying to make is that I believe
 average detection should have an associated time constant, somehow
 relating to the information content of the communication link
 protected by the radiated emission limit in question.


  From: Brent DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Reply-To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:39:11 -0800
  To: Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com, ieee pstc
  list emc-p...@ieee.org
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
  Hi Ralph,
 
  The HP 8568 and 8566 have a video averaging function, which
  averages multiple digital traces (up to 100 if I remember
  correctly).
 It can be used
  in conjunction with a narrow VBW to get very close to a true
  average measurement.  I've always been rather empirical about the
  averaging criterion.  On a spectrum analyzer in zero span and linear

  detection,  I simply reduce the VBW and possibly add video averaging

  until I
 don't see any
  more variation in the screen trace and call it done.
 
  Brent G DeWitt
  Laboratory Manager
  CKC Laboratories
  Redmond, WA
  email: brent.dew...@ckc.com
  phone: 425-883-4757
  cell: 425-417-8228
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On
  Behalf Of Ralph McDiarmid
  Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:51 AM
  To: ieee pstc list
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  I suggest there is an important distinction between video
  averaging and average detection using limited VBW.
 
  If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are
  unsure?
 
  Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
  Compliance Engineering Group
  Xantrex Technology Inc.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]
 On Behalf
  Of Cortland Richmond
  Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
  To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
  Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  Alex McNeil asked:
  Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz
  and this
  should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 
 
  Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions
  here
  -- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
  Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it
looks
  like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade
anyway.
  But are you sure it doesn't say

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Sorry to post a second response, but I hit send before I finished my
thoughts.

Ken's stated concept of the rational of averaging is a bit different from
mine.  This may be a MIL vs. FCC background related thing (me being the
latter).  I've always viewed the FCC's switch to average detection above
1GHz as more of a rough approximation to a spectral density measurement.  If
my approach is correct, the idea is that receivers of potential interference
above 1GHz have relatively wide resolution bandwidths, and that something
closer to the 1MHz RBW in combination with an average detector could measure
the annoyance factor.

Again, other thoughts are welcomed!

Brent

 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
 Of Ken Javor
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:14 PM
 To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com; Ralph McDiarmid; ieee pstc list
 Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 Now this is getting interesting.  If you arbitrarily reduce the VBW until
 you see no time dependent amplitude variation, I think that leads to
 non-repeatability.  That is, if my spectrum analyzer has a 1 Hz VBW, and
 yours has a 10 Hz VBW, we could get different answers.  At least at one
 time, there was a specified time interval over which the averaging was to
 occur, which is another way of saying the the video bandwidth was
 specified.

 I think the idea of average detection is to be able to get an accurate
 assessment of the value of a cw or near cw (AM) signal, possibly in the
 presence of broadband noise.  Considering that pulsed cw was
 considered by
 the military to be a narrow-band signal, it would seem that the specific
 averaging time period would be very important.  On the other hand,
 MIL-STD-461 has for almost forty years required peak detection of all
 signals, whether NB or BB.  Go figure.


 I'm rambling on, but the point I am trying to make is that I
 believe average
 detection should have an associated time constant, somehow relating to the
 information content of the communication link protected by the radiated
 emission limit in question.


  From: Brent DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Reply-To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:39:11 -0800
  To: Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com, ieee pstc list
  emc-p...@ieee.org
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
  Hi Ralph,
 
  The HP 8568 and 8566 have a video averaging function, which averages
  multiple digital traces (up to 100 if I remember correctly).
 It can be used
  in conjunction with a narrow VBW to get very close to a true average
  measurement.  I've always been rather empirical about the averaging
  criterion.  On a spectrum analyzer in zero span and linear detection,  I
  simply reduce the VBW and possibly add video averaging until I
 don't see any
  more variation in the screen trace and call it done.
 
  Brent G DeWitt
  Laboratory Manager
  CKC Laboratories
  Redmond, WA
  email: brent.dew...@ckc.com
  phone: 425-883-4757
  cell: 425-417-8228
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
  Of Ralph McDiarmid
  Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:51 AM
  To: ieee pstc list
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  I suggest there is an important distinction between video averaging
  and average detection using limited VBW.
 
  If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are unsure?
 
  Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
  Compliance Engineering Group
  Xantrex Technology Inc.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]
 On Behalf
  Of Cortland Richmond
  Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
  To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
  Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  Alex McNeil asked:
  Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and
  this
  should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 
 
  Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here
  -- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
  Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks
  like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway.
  But are you sure it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way
  down is a method used to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that
  someone might have learned to -- incorrectly -- use video
 averaging in
  dB mode then increase BW to compensate for the error that causes.)
 
  Cortland Richmond
 
  
  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/listserv/request/user-guide.html
 
  List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
 
  For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 
  Scott Douglas

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Your point is well taken Ken, and this certainly is interesting.  My
approach to the concept of average does indeed run afoul of the
limitations of measurement devices and the potential for instrument
dependent results.  To the best of my knowledge, the FCC is the most
ill-defined with respect to the averaging time constant.  That is what
initially lead me to my stated empirical method.  Other thoughts are
welcomed!

Brent

 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
 Of Ken Javor
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:14 PM
 To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com; Ralph McDiarmid; ieee pstc list
 Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 Now this is getting interesting.  If you arbitrarily reduce the VBW until
 you see no time dependent amplitude variation, I think that leads to
 non-repeatability.  That is, if my spectrum analyzer has a 1 Hz VBW, and
 yours has a 10 Hz VBW, we could get different answers.  At least at one
 time, there was a specified time interval over which the averaging was to
 occur, which is another way of saying the the video bandwidth was
 specified.

 I think the idea of average detection is to be able to get an accurate
 assessment of the value of a cw or near cw (AM) signal, possibly in the
 presence of broadband noise.  Considering that pulsed cw was
 considered by
 the military to be a narrow-band signal, it would seem that the specific
 averaging time period would be very important.  On the other hand,
 MIL-STD-461 has for almost forty years required peak detection of all
 signals, whether NB or BB.  Go figure.


 I'm rambling on, but the point I am trying to make is that I
 believe average
 detection should have an associated time constant, somehow relating to the
 information content of the communication link protected by the radiated
 emission limit in question.


  From: Brent DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Reply-To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com
  Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:39:11 -0800
  To: Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com, ieee pstc list
  emc-p...@ieee.org
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
  Hi Ralph,
 
  The HP 8568 and 8566 have a video averaging function, which averages
  multiple digital traces (up to 100 if I remember correctly).
 It can be used
  in conjunction with a narrow VBW to get very close to a true average
  measurement.  I've always been rather empirical about the averaging
  criterion.  On a spectrum analyzer in zero span and linear detection,  I
  simply reduce the VBW and possibly add video averaging until I
 don't see any
  more variation in the screen trace and call it done.
 
  Brent G DeWitt
  Laboratory Manager
  CKC Laboratories
  Redmond, WA
  email: brent.dew...@ckc.com
  phone: 425-883-4757
  cell: 425-417-8228
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
  Of Ralph McDiarmid
  Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:51 AM
  To: ieee pstc list
  Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  I suggest there is an important distinction between video averaging
  and average detection using limited VBW.
 
  If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are unsure?
 
  Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
  Compliance Engineering Group
  Xantrex Technology Inc.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]
 On Behalf
  Of Cortland Richmond
  Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
  To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
  Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG
 
 
  Alex McNeil asked:
  Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and
  this
  should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 
 
  Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here
  -- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
  Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks
  like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway.
  But are you sure it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way
  down is a method used to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that
  someone might have learned to -- incorrectly -- use video
 averaging in
  dB mode then increase BW to compensate for the error that causes.)
 
  Cortland Richmond
 
  
  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/listserv/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
 
  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

Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Now this is getting interesting.  If you arbitrarily reduce the VBW until
you see no time dependent amplitude variation, I think that leads to
non-repeatability.  That is, if my spectrum analyzer has a 1 Hz VBW, and
yours has a 10 Hz VBW, we could get different answers.  At least at one
time, there was a specified time interval over which the averaging was to
occur, which is another way of saying the the video bandwidth was specified.

I think the idea of average detection is to be able to get an accurate
assessment of the value of a cw or near cw (AM) signal, possibly in the
presence of broadband noise.  Considering that pulsed cw was considered by
the military to be a narrow-band signal, it would seem that the specific
averaging time period would be very important.  On the other hand,
MIL-STD-461 has for almost forty years required peak detection of all
signals, whether NB or BB.  Go figure.


I'm rambling on, but the point I am trying to make is that I believe average
detection should have an associated time constant, somehow relating to the
information content of the communication link protected by the radiated
emission limit in question.


 From: Brent DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com
 Reply-To: bdew...@ix.netcom.com
 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:39:11 -0800
 To: Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com, ieee pstc list
 emc-p...@ieee.org
 Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

 Hi Ralph,

 The HP 8568 and 8566 have a video averaging function, which averages
 multiple digital traces (up to 100 if I remember correctly).  It can be used
 in conjunction with a narrow VBW to get very close to a true average
 measurement.  I've always been rather empirical about the averaging
 criterion.  On a spectrum analyzer in zero span and linear detection,  I
 simply reduce the VBW and possibly add video averaging until I don't see any
 more variation in the screen trace and call it done.

 Brent G DeWitt
 Laboratory Manager
 CKC Laboratories
 Redmond, WA
 email: brent.dew...@ckc.com
 phone: 425-883-4757
 cell: 425-417-8228


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
 Of Ralph McDiarmid
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:51 AM
 To: ieee pstc list
 Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 I suggest there is an important distinction between video averaging
 and average detection using limited VBW.

 If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are unsure?

 Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
 Compliance Engineering Group
 Xantrex Technology Inc.


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
 Of Cortland Richmond
 Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
 To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
 Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 Alex McNeil asked:
 Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and
 this
 should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 

 Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here
 -- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
 Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks
 like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway.
 But are you sure it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way
 down is a method used to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that
 someone might have learned to -- incorrectly -- use video averaging in
 dB mode then increase BW to compensate for the error that causes.)

 Cortland Richmond

 
 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/listserv/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

 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.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/listserv/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

 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Ralph,

The HP 8568 and 8566 have a video averaging function, which averages
multiple digital traces (up to 100 if I remember correctly).  It can be used
in conjunction with a narrow VBW to get very close to a true average
measurement.  I've always been rather empirical about the averaging
criterion.  On a spectrum analyzer in zero span and linear detection,  I
simply reduce the VBW and possibly add video averaging until I don't see any
more variation in the screen trace and call it done.

Brent G DeWitt
Laboratory Manager
CKC Laboratories
Redmond, WA
email: brent.dew...@ckc.com
phone: 425-883-4757
cell: 425-417-8228


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
 Of Ralph McDiarmid
 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:51 AM
 To: ieee pstc list
 Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 I suggest there is an important distinction between video averaging
 and average detection using limited VBW.

 If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are unsure?

 Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
 Compliance Engineering Group
 Xantrex Technology Inc.


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
 Of Cortland Richmond
 Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
 To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
 Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


 Alex McNeil asked:
  Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and
  this
 should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 

 Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here
 -- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
 Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks
 like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway.
 But are you sure it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way
 down is a method used to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that
 someone might have learned to -- incorrectly -- use video averaging in
 dB mode then increase BW to compensate for the error that causes.)

 Cortland Richmond

 
 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/listserv/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

 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.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/listserv/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

 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.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/listserv/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

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

I suggest there is an important distinction between video averaging
and average detection using limited VBW.

If this is correct, can someone enlighten those of us who are unsure?

Ralph McDiarmid, ASc
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.



From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
Of Cortland Richmond
Sent: December 16, 2004 1:04 PM
To: Alex McNeil; ieee pstc list
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


Alex McNeil asked:
 Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and
 this
should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 

Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here
-- it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.
Without knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks
like you are close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway.
But are you sure it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way
down is a method used to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that
someone might have learned to -- incorrectly -- use video averaging in
dB mode then increase BW to compensate for the error that causes.)

Cortland Richmond


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/listserv/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

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.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/listserv/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

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Alex McNeil asked:
 Is the problem that the Test House may have used AVG BW 30KHz and this
should have been AVG BW 9KHz the problem 

Sure looks like it from what you posted. There've been discussions here --
it comes up every so often -- how to to do averaging on a SA.  Without
knowing how they did, it's hard to say for sure, but it looks like you are
close enough to hit the target with a hand grenade anyway. But are you sure
it doesn't say 30 *Hz*? Narrowing the bandwidth 'way down is a method used
to get averaging on a SA. (I will speculate that someone might have
learned to -- incorrectly -- use video averaging in dB mode then increase
BW to compensate for the error that causes.)

Cortland Richmond


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/listserv/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

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

scale set to LOG, 
 
OOPS, that should have been LINEAR  Sorry.


Bob Richards b...@toprudder.com wrote:

Alex,
 
It is very common that the emissions plots will be made with the RBW and VBW
that you mentioned. The actual QP and AV measurements should have the
instrument set with the appropriate detector and bandwidths. The RBW should
always be 9kHz, and for the average measurement the VBW should be
significantly lower than the pulse repetition frequency, the detector should
be SAMPLE, scale set to LOG, etc. Also, the frequency span should be set to
zero for a compliance measurement. I've seen commercial automated software
that does a very poor job of this.
 
Bob Richards, NCT
Square D.

Alex McNeil alex.mcn...@ingenico.co.uk wrote:

Hi Guys,

I had a product tested that failed the conducted emissions. The switch mode
power supply was the problem. It runs at approx. 200KHz. The failed readings
were in the 150KHz to 600KHz band. The peaks were over the Avg and below the
QPk, so the Avg test was done. This resulted in the failures. However, after
close examination of the Test lab results, the printout showed IF BW 9KHz AND
AVG BW 30KHz below the graphical and tabulated results. The tests were done on
a SA. I have a receiver here and my test results for PK are the same as the
Test Lab but for the Avg my test results are significantly lower than the Test
House.

 

Is the problem that the Test House may have used “AVG BW 30KHz” and this
should have been “AVG BW 9KHz” the problem or am I missing something here?

 

Thank you for your time, it is always appreciated.

 

Kind Regards

ALEX

 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/listserv/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 


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.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/listserv/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 


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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Alex,
 
It is very common that the emissions plots will be made with the RBW and VBW
that you mentioned. The actual QP and AV measurements should have the
instrument set with the appropriate detector and bandwidths. The RBW should
always be 9kHz, and for the average measurement the VBW should be
significantly lower than the pulse repetition frequency, the detector should
be SAMPLE, scale set to LOG, etc. Also, the frequency span should be set to
zero for a compliance measurement. I've seen commercial automated software
that does a very poor job of this.
 
Bob Richards, NCT
Square D.

Alex McNeil alex.mcn...@ingenico.co.uk wrote:

Hi Guys,

I had a product tested that failed the conducted emissions. The switch mode
power supply was the problem. It runs at approx. 200KHz. The failed readings
were in the 150KHz to 600KHz band. The peaks were over the Avg and below the
QPk, so the Avg test was done. This resulted in the failures. However, after
close examination of the Test lab results, the printout showed IF BW 9KHz AND
AVG BW 30KHz below the graphical and tabulated results. The tests were done on
a SA. I have a receiver here and my test results for PK are the same as the
Test Lab but for the Avg my test results are significantly lower than the Test
House.

 

Is the problem that the Test House may have used “AVG BW 30KHz” and this
should have been “AVG BW 9KHz” the problem or am I missing something here?

 

Thank you for your time, it is always appreciated.

 

Kind Regards

ALEX

 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/listserv/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 


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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Alex,
 
You are on the right track. However, even a VBW of 9 kHz will not yield a true
average measurement in this frequency range.
 
First of all, it is not likely that the spectrum analyzer meets CISPR
requirements as a test receiver. Second, using video averaging as a substitute
for an actual average detector requires a VBW that is significantly less than
the RBW, and the amplitude scale must be linear instead of log (the average of
the log is different than the average). This is a highlight of the most
important settings - CISPR 16 will have the detailed requirements from which
suitable and/or reasonable instrument settings can be determined.
 
It is not surprising to hear of these differences - the receiver measurement
definitely takes precedence over the spectrum analyzer.
 
Thanks,
Mike

From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Alex McNeil
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:19 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG


Hi Guys,
I had a product tested that failed the conducted emissions. The switch mode
power supply was the problem. It runs at approx. 200KHz. The failed readings
were in the 150KHz to 600KHz band. The peaks were over the Avg and below the
QPk, so the Avg test was done. This resulted in the failures. However, after
close examination of the Test lab results, the printout showed IF BW 9KHz AND
AVG BW 30KHz below the graphical and tabulated results. The tests were done on
a SA. I have a receiver here and my test results for PK are the same as the
Test Lab but for the Avg my test results are significantly lower than the Test
House.
 
Is the problem that the Test House may have used “AVG BW 30KHz” and this
should have been “AVG BW 9KHz” the problem or am I missing something here?
 
Thank you for your time, it is always appreciated.
 
Kind Regards
ALEX


This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.
 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/listserv/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 

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.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/listserv/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 

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Are you sure it says AVG BW 30kHz, and not AVG BW 30 Hz? Is this a typo?

Also, quasi-peak should always be at or below the peak measurement. This is
why a peak measurement can be made (quickly) and compared to the quasi-peak
limit line, and if all the peaks are below the quasi-peak limit, the
measurement is a pass.

If you have quasi-peak measurements higher than the peaks measurements,
then either something is wrong with the test equipment/software, or the
emissions of the EUT changed between the time the two measurements were
made.

Don Borowski
Schweitzer Engineering Labs
Pullman, WA, USA

Alex McNeil alex.mcn...@ingenico.co.uk wrote on 12/16/2004 08:19:08 AM:

 Hi Guys,
 I had a product tested that failed the conducted emissions. The
 switch mode power supply was the problem. It runs at approx. 200KHz.
 The failed readings were in the 150KHz to 600KHz band. The peaks
 were over the Avg and below the QPk, so the Avg test was done. This
 resulted in the failures. However, after close examination of the
 Test lab results, the printout showed IF BW 9KHz AND AVG BW 30KHz
 below the graphical and tabulated results. The tests were done on a
 SA. I have a receiver here and my test results for PK are the same
 as the Test Lab but for the Avg my test results are significantly
 lower than the Test House.

 Is the problem that the Test House may have used “AVG BW 30KHz” and
 this should have been “AVG BW 9KHz” the problem or am I missing
 something here?

 Thank you for your time, it is always appreciated.

 Kind Regards
 ALEX


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/listserv/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

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Conducted Emissions PK/AVG

[owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Guys,
I had a product tested that failed the conducted emissions. The switch mode
power supply was the problem. It runs at approx. 200KHz. The failed readings
were in the 150KHz to 600KHz band. The peaks were over the Avg and below the
QPk, so the Avg test was done. This resulted in the failures. However, after
close examination of the Test lab results, the printout showed IF BW 9KHz AND
AVG BW 30KHz below the graphical and tabulated results. The tests were done on
a SA. I have a receiver here and my test results for PK are the same as the
Test Lab but for the Avg my test results are significantly lower than the Test
House.
 
Is the problem that the Test House may have used “AVG BW 30KHz” and this
should have been “AVG BW 9KHz” the problem or am I missing something here?
 
Thank you for your time, it is always appreciated.
 
Kind Regards
ALEX


This email has been scanned for all known viruses and appropriate content by
the Messagelabs mail service.

 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/listserv/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 

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Conducted Emissions on DC Req?

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

I believe Doug is right and that the DC mains ports are required to be
tested. I would add that in some standards (for ITE, PLC, etc.), the term
mains refers to both, AC and DC mains.

John Radomski




  DOUG PARKER
  doug.parker@adtran.cTo:  
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
  om  cc:
  Sent by: Subject:  RE: Conducted
Emissions on DC Req?
  owner-emc-pstc@listse
  rv.ieee.org


  05/26/2004 09:57 AM






I disagree with your comments in regards to DC mains conducted emissions
for EN55022:1998 or CISPR 22 and believe that the DC mains input is
required to be tested.

Section 5 of EN55022 calls out limits for conducted emissions on the mains
input terminals. The standard does not specify AC or DC, voltage levels or
even a frequency 50/60/400Hz. As such, DC mains input products are not
excluded from testing.

One of the older versions of CISPR 22 had a statement about only testing
mains input terminals that connect to a public low voltage network (which
you could infer is the power grid), but that statement has been removed
from the current version.

Regards,
Doug Parker, NCE
Senior Compliance Engineer
 -Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Howard Ji (howardji)
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:16 PM
To: john.merr...@modicon.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on DC Req?

EN300386 requires conducted emission on dc power ports.

EN55022 doesn't require dc conducted emission on dc power ports.

Both standards are usual standards in my industry.




At 11:43 AM 5/25/2004 -0400, john.merr...@modicon.com wrote:

  Is there an exemption from testing Conducted Emissions on DC Power
  ports? If so can anyone point me to where the exemption is
  documented?

  My particular case is with Industrial Control equipment for use in
  fixed and mobil (shipboard) applications.

  Thanks in advance.

  John Merrill
  Product Safety Engineer
  Schneider Automation

RE: Conducted Emissions on DC Req?

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

I disagree with your comments in regards to DC mains conducted emissions for
EN55022:1998 or CISPR 22 and believe that the DC mains input is required to be
tested.
 
Section 5 of EN55022 calls out limits for conducted emissions on the mains
input terminals. The standard does not specify AC or DC, voltage levels or
even a frequency 50/60/400Hz. As such, DC mains input products are not
excluded from testing.
 
One of the older versions of CISPR 22 had a statement about only testing mains
input terminals that connect to a public low voltage network (which you could
infer is the power grid), but that statement has been removed from the current
version.
 
Regards,
Doug Parker, NCE
Senior Compliance Engineer

 -Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
mailto:owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Howard Ji (howardji)
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 12:16 PM
To: john.merr...@modicon.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on DC Req?


EN300386 requires conducted emission on dc power ports.

EN55022 doesn't require dc conducted emission on dc power ports. 

Both standards are usual standards in my industry.




At 11:43 AM 5/25/2004 -0400, john.merr...@modicon.com wrote:



Is there an exemption from testing Conducted Emissions on DC Power ports? If
so can anyone point me to where the exemption is documented? 

My particular case is with Industrial Control equipment for use in fixed and
mobil (shipboard) applications. 

Thanks in advance. 

John Merrill 
Product Safety Engineer 
Schneider Automation