RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
Hi Wendy: You still have a common ground in the test setup - it's the large metal plate under the system. See IEC 61000-4-4:1995, Figure 6. In this diagram they call it a 'Reference plane'. As far as what combinations of lines to test: - If the product standard specifies IEC 61000-4-4:1995, you are required to do L & N separately. - If the product standard specifies IEC 61000-4-4:2004, you are required to test them simultaneously. See Tom Sato's reply on the issue further done in this email. You are free to test additional combinations of L & N (I know, there aren't many choices in this case). If the system fails one of these nonstandard tests, you (or the customer) can decide whether to treat this as a failure that requires a solution. Pat Lawler EMC Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies, Inc. "wendy" wrote on 05/16/2006 05:52:04 PM: > What about 2 Lines supply (L and N only) - since there is no common ground > do we still test common mode testing - that is L+N? > Wendy Nya > -Original Message- > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of > cb...@ntcnet.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:12 AM > To: pat_law...@condordc.com > Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > Pat, > At my previous employer, we had an EFT test system. I used to test all > combnations; but I only "counted" the failures that happened during common > mode testing (at the time it was L1, then L2, then PE...) Now it's just > L1,L2,PE simultaneously. > I can remember a few instances where the product would pass the required > tests but fail the other coupling methods. > Chris Maxwell > > > For companies/test labs that perform all possible combinations of EFT > > coupling: have you had cases where the extra tests did cause the system to > > fail? Whether a system fails in the field after extensive testing is a > > different story, since the field waveform & conditions may be different > > from the IEC61000-4-4 test. > > > > Pat Lawler > > EMC Engineer > > Condor DC Power Supplies > > > > emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 05/16/2006 07:06:06 AM: > >> I believe Brian is correct here. If you follow the most recent spec > >> (IEC 61000-4-4:2004) then you only have to perform tests on all lines at > >> once common mode. BUT it would behoove each company to test the overall > >> hardiness of their design on all the possible couplings (differential > >> and common mode) to uncover any potential design issues. > >> Regards, > >> Rodger > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of > >> brian_ku...@leco.com > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:49 AM > >> To: emc-p...@ieee.org > >> Subject: Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > > > >> To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. > >> As a > >> corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose > >> of > >> possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, > >> passed the > >> common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to > >> know > >> about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the > >> field. Noise > >> on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test > >> everything > >> we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a > >> customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My > >> possition on > >> this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! > >> Brian > >> > >> Reply Separator > >> Subject:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > >> Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp > >> Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM > > > >> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, > >> wrote: > > > >> > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, > >> > that is L1,L2,PE. > > > >> It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 > >> of the standard now says: > >> The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between > >> a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... > >> and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance > >> are to be injected to all lines at once. > >> However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: > >> The test voltage shall be ap
RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
What about 2 Lines supply (L and N only) - since there is no common ground do we still test common mode testing - that is L+N? Wendy Nya From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of cb...@ntcnet.com Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:12 AM To: pat_law...@condordc.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EFT/Burst Immunity Question Pat, At my previous employer, we had an EFT test system. I used to test all combnations; but I only "counted" the failures that happened during common mode testing (at the time it was L1, then L2, then PE...) Now it's just L1,L2,PE simultaneously. I can remember a few instances where the product would pass the required tests but fail the other coupling methods. Chris Maxwell > For companies/test labs that perform all possible combinations of EFT > coupling: have you had cases where the extra tests did cause the system to > fail? Whether a system fails in the field after extensive testing is a > different story, since the field waveform & conditions may be different > from the IEC61000-4-4 test. > > Pat Lawler > EMC Engineer > Condor DC Power Supplies > > emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 05/16/2006 07:06:06 AM: >> I believe Brian is correct here. If you follow the most recent spec >> (IEC 61000-4-4:2004) then you only have to perform tests on all lines at >> once common mode. BUT it would behoove each company to test the overall >> hardiness of their design on all the possible couplings (differential >> and common mode) to uncover any potential design issues. >> Regards, >> Rodger > >> -Original Message- >> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of >> brian_ku...@leco.com >> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:49 AM >> To: emc-p...@ieee.org >> Subject: Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > >> To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. >> As a >> corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose >> of >> possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, >> passed the >> common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to >> know >> about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the >> field. Noise >> on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test >> everything >> we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a >> customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My >> possition on >> this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! >> Brian >> >> Reply Separator >> Subject:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question >> Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp >> Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM > >> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, >> wrote: > >> > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, > that >> > is L1,L2,PE. > >> It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 >> of the standard now says: >> The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between >> a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... >> and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance >> are to be injected to all lines at once. >> However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: >> The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference >> plane and each of the power supply terminals ... >> and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are >> to be injected to each of the lines one by one. > >> Regards, >> Tom >> Tomonori Sato >> URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ > > - > > 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.We
Re: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
Pat, At my previous employer, we had an EFT test system. I used to test all combnations; but I only "counted" the failures that happened during common mode testing (at the time it was L1, then L2, then PE...) Now it's just L1,L2,PE simultaneously. I can remember a few instances where the product would pass the required tests but fail the other coupling methods. Chris Maxwell > For companies/test labs that perform all possible combinations of EFT > coupling: have you had cases where the extra tests did cause the system to > fail? Whether a system fails in the field after extensive testing is a > different story, since the field waveform & conditions may be different > from the IEC61000-4-4 test. > > Pat Lawler > EMC Engineer > Condor DC Power Supplies > > emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 05/16/2006 07:06:06 AM: >> I believe Brian is correct here. If you follow the most recent spec >> (IEC 61000-4-4:2004) then you only have to perform tests on all lines at >> once common mode. BUT it would behoove each company to test the overall >> hardiness of their design on all the possible couplings (differential >> and common mode) to uncover any potential design issues. >> Regards, >> Rodger > >> -Original Message- >> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of >> brian_ku...@leco.com >> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:49 AM >> To: emc-p...@ieee.org >> Subject: Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > >> To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. >> As a >> corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose >> of >> possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, >> passed the >> common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to >> know >> about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the >> field. Noise >> on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test >> everything >> we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a >> customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My >> possition on >> this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! >> Brian >> >> Reply Separator >> Subject:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question >> Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp >> Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM > >> On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, >> wrote: > >> > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, > that >> > is L1,L2,PE. > >> It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 >> of the standard now says: >> The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between >> a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... >> and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance >> are to be injected to all lines at once. >> However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: >> The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference >> plane and each of the power supply terminals ... >> and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are >> to be injected to each of the lines one by one. > >> Regards, >> Tom >> Tomonori Sato >> URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ > > - > > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net > Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
For companies/test labs that perform all possible combinations of EFT coupling: have you had cases where the extra tests did cause the system to fail? Whether a system fails in the field after extensive testing is a different story, since the field waveform & conditions may be different from the IEC61000-4-4 test. Pat Lawler EMC Engineer Condor DC Power Supplies emc-p...@ieee.org wrote on 05/16/2006 07:06:06 AM: > I believe Brian is correct here. If you follow the most recent spec > (IEC 61000-4-4:2004) then you only have to perform tests on all lines at > once common mode. BUT it would behoove each company to test the overall > hardiness of their design on all the possible couplings (differential > and common mode) to uncover any potential design issues. > Regards, > Rodger > -Original Message- > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of > brian_ku...@leco.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:49 AM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. > As a > corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose > of > possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, > passed the > common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to > know > about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the > field. Noise > on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test > everything > we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a > customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My > possition on > this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! > Brian > > Reply Separator > Subject:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question > Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp > Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM > On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, > wrote: > > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, that > > is L1,L2,PE. > It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 > of the standard now says: > The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between > a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... > and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance > are to be injected to all lines at once. > However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: > The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference > plane and each of the power supply terminals ... > and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are > to be injected to each of the lines one by one. > Regards, > Tom > Tomonori Sato > URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ - 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: RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
I believe Brian is correct here. If you follow the most recent spec (IEC 61000-4-4:2004) then you only have to perform tests on all lines at once common mode. BUT it would behoove each company to test the overall hardiness of their design on all the possible couplings (differential and common mode) to uncover any potential design issues. Regards, Rodger From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brian_ku...@leco.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. As a corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose of possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, passed the common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to know about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the field. Noise on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test everything we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My possition on this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! Brian Reply Separator Subject: RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, wrote: > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, that > is L1,L2,PE. It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 of the standard now says: The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance are to be injected to all lines at once. However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference plane and each of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are to be injected to each of the lines one by one. Regards, Tom Tomonori Sato URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re:RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
To perform the test on all combinations doesn't take that much longer. As a corporate lab we have continued to test all combinations for the purpose of possibly finding a weakness in the design. If our product, by chance, passed the common mode test but failed when testing an individual line, we want to know about it. It is very likely that such a problem will show up in the field. Noise on the Power line is probably our biggest issue in the field. We test everything we can in as many modes as we can and we still, on occasion, will have a customer site where we struggle with some strange noise problem. My possition on this is, if you have the equipment, the means, and the time, test it! Brian Reply Separator Subject: RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question Author: vef00...@nifty.ne.jp List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/16/2006 9:26 AM On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, wrote: > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, that > is L1,L2,PE. It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 of the standard now says: The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance are to be injected to all lines at once. However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference plane and each of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are to be injected to each of the lines one by one. Regards, Tom Tomonori Sato URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:27:30 +0300, wrote: > If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, that > is L1,L2,PE. It is quite clear in IEC 61000-4-4:2004, as the clause 7.3.1.1 of the standard now says: The test voltage shall be applied ***simultaneously*** between a ground reference plane and all of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures also indicate that the disturbance are to be injected to all lines at once. However, IEC 61000-4-4:1995 clause 7.3.1 simply says: The test voltage shall be applied between a ground reference plane and each of the power supply terminals ... and the corresponding figures suggest that the disturbance are to be injected to each of the lines one by one. Regards, Tom Tomonori Sato URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/ - 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: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
If you follow the latest IEC 61000-4-4 it is only common mode test, that is L1,L2,PE. Regards, Ari Honkala _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ext owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org Sent: 16. toukokuuta 2006 4:02 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EFT/Burst Immunity Question Hello group, I have a question for EFT testing on power lines. I have a case of two different labs doing it different ways. I could not find anything in the standard to determine which one is right. Please include a reference to a part of the standard to back up your answer. 1. EFT on all coupling combinations, this is the way I have always known people to do it. L1 L2 L1, L2 L1, PE L2, PE L1,L2,PE PE 2. EFT on the following coupling combinations: L1 L2 PE Regards, Tim Pierce - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: EFT/Burst Immunity Question
In message <37e.2d758a2.319a7...@aol.com>, dated Mon, 15 May 2006, emcp...@aol.com writes >Please include a reference to a part of the standard to back up your >answer. WHICH standard are you using? Number and date or edition number, if possible. -- 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
EFT/Burst Immunity Question
Hello group, I have a question for EFT testing on power lines. I have a case of two different labs doing it different ways. I could not find anything in the standard to determine which one is right. Please include a reference to a part of the standard to back up your answer. 1. EFT on all coupling combinations, this is the way I have always known people to do it. L1 L2 L1, L2 L1, PE L2, PE L1,L2,PE PE 2. EFT on the following coupling combinations: L1 L2 PE Regards, Tim Pierce - 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: EFT/Burst
You are correct for purposes of COMPLIANCE to EN55024 and application of a CE Mark, you test each line with respect to a reference ground (PE), but as I'm sure you're aware, a customer can ask for whatever they think is relevant. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: Roncone Paolo [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:46 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: EFT/Burst Group, we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts to AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between each (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective earth), as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the same document seem to confirm this. Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and protective earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and also more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and failed in the second mode. Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. Paolo Roncone Compuprint s.p.a. Italy --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EFT/Burst
Hi Paolo now we get the truth. It a phenomenon We observe very often: In your case following happens: You apply the pulses on common mode to the whole system (printer), especially to the housing (if any) or to metal parts. Currents flow back to the EFT generator through the interface lines, in your case through the network cable. Thus the worse case should be: -apply the EFT pulses to ALL THREE lines -connect the other end of the (shielded) network cable to the ground reference plane. Thus you will have the highest currents through this line. Since the coupling capacity in the EFT generator is about 33nF, you will possibly observe more severe disturbances then when coupling the pulses into the network cable using the capacitive coupling clamp (about 200pF). You did not tell us what kind of network you use. A: Thin wire (coax, 50Ohm) If you use thin wire ethernet the shield of the RG58 cable is not connected to the chassis. If the BNC connector is not capacitively decoupled (e.g. 10nF, very short leads, between cable shield and chassis) it is not worth testing. I did not see any computer or peripheral of this kind that meets the requirements. B: UTP (unshielded twisted pair) Your EUT might have a chance, depending on the layout of the network PCB C: STP (shielded twisted pair) The only solution that really works. Check the RJ45 connector (should have connections for the shield and should be contacted to the housing of the EUT). Good luck George ** * Dr. Georg M. Dancau * HAUNI MASCHINENBAU AG * * g.m.dan...@ieee.org * Manager Technology Research* * TEL: +49 40 7250 2102 * K.A.Koerber Chaussee 8..32 * * FAX: +49 40 7250 3801 * 21033 Hamburg, Germany * ** * home: Tel: +49 4122 99451 * Hauptstr. 60a * * Fax: +49 4122 99454 * 25492 Heist, Germany * ** - Original Message - From: "Paolo Roncone" To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Re: EFT/Burst > > Thank you for your replies to my first inquiry. > In particular, George's observation that sec. 7.3.1 applies only to post-installation tests made me realize that I missed the right point in the standard, that is sec.7.2.2. I just don't understand why the guys who wrote the document were not specific in the more important (and used) case of tests performed in labs (those are mostly the ones used to verify compliance). So they leave the door open to any possible combination of phase/neutral/ground when applying the bursts to the AC line. > One important point that I didn't mention in my previous note was that the failure is not specifically related to the printer, but to a LAN/Ethernet box that is attached. Our OEM got 2 different printers to fail under the same conditions (bursts with positive polarity @ 1kV applied to Line and Protective Earth (PE) simultaneously) with the very same box attached. The printer stops printing and go to a Ready state. You are able to make the printer Not Ready and back to Ready, but it does not continue to print. the PC driving the printer says the data timed out sending to the device. > The same printers don't fail when tested without this LAN box. > Our feeling is they want to pull us into working on the problem because the vendor of the LAN box is not so willing or able to help. > > Of course any additional hints can be very helpful. > > > Paolo Roncone > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EFT/Burst
Georg, You were right on the money when you identified the requirement for post installations. Similar to the case in many standards, the area of interest is silent -- nothing is said about the application in 7.2.2. When I find this lack of information, I begin my search for guidance in the next best place. In this case, it was the instruction given in 7.3.1. Ultimately, a CB answers the question. Our tests include "true common mode" as well as individual lines. We have found some problems in burn-in where the power source was dirty similar to the effects caused by the EFT tests. We were able to observe the same type of failures in the lab when common mode EFT signals were applied. So this test does represent some real world possibilities. Don Umbdenstock > -- > From: Georg M. Dancau[SMTP:dan...@compuserve.com] > Reply To: Georg M. Dancau > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:28 AM > To: INTERNET:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com > Cc: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: RE: EFT/Burst > > > Paolo, > > I agree with Don on the interpretation of "each" as opposite to "all" > lines. > I also confirm, that we find most faults when testing in common mode: >-L AND N against "reference ground" >-L, N AND PE against "reference ground" >-(sometimes) PE against "reference ground" > > However, section 7.3.1 applies for tests made "at the installation place" > (sorry, this is the translation for "Pürfungen am Aufstellungsort"). For > test performed > in a lab, you should apply section 7.2.2. There is no specification > conerning "each" and > "all". > > We always perform test including L+N, L+N+PE, PE only. > > Hope this helps. > > Best regards > > George > > > Nachricht geschrieben von INTERNET:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com > > > > Paolo, > > EN55024 does not directly address the issue, rather it refers you to EN > 61000-4-4. Clause 7.3.1 states " . . . applied between a reference ground > plane and each of the power supply terminals . . .". The key is "each" > instead of "all". From a purely regulatory perspective, it appears you > have > a valid point the way I read the standard. Other standards do indicate > "true common mode" as a requirement. By the way, the "reference ground" > may > be at a different potential than "protective earth". That's why a number > of > test sets have a test mode to test EFT between PE and ground reference. > Check out the bonding and set up requirements carefully. > > However, a weakness in the design has been detected in "true common mode" > test mode. Are you confident that your customer will not be bothered by > the > design weakness, whatever those manifestations are? Of course that is a > quality issue, not a regulatory issue. > > Good luck, > > Don Umbdenstock > > > > > -- > > From: Roncone Paolo[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] > > Reply To: Roncone Paolo > > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM > > To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > > Subject: EFT/Burst > > > > > > Group, > > > > we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst > > test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. > > Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts > > to > > AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between > > each > > (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective > > earth), > > as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the > > same > > document seem to confirm this. > > Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and > > protective > > earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and > > also > > more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and > > failed in the second mode. > > > > Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. > > > > Paolo Roncone > > Compuprint s.p.a. > > Italy > < > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher:
Re: EFT/Burst
Thank you for your replies to my first inquiry. In particular, George's observation that sec. 7.3.1 applies only to post-installation tests made me realize that I missed the right point in the standard, that is sec.7.2.2. I just don't understand why the guys who wrote the document were not specific in the more important (and used) case of tests performed in labs (those are mostly the ones used to verify compliance). So they leave the door open to any possible combination of phase/neutral/ground when applying the bursts to the AC line. One important point that I didn't mention in my previous note was that the failure is not specifically related to the printer, but to a LAN/Ethernet box that is attached. Our OEM got 2 different printers to fail under the same conditions (bursts with positive polarity @ 1kV applied to Line and Protective Earth (PE) simultaneously) with the very same box attached. The printer stops printing and go to a Ready state. You are able to make the printer Not Ready and back to Ready, but it does not continue to print. the PC driving the printer says the data timed out sending to the device. The same printers don't fail when tested without this LAN box. Our feeling is they want to pull us into working on the problem because the vendor of the LAN box is not so willing or able to help. Of course any additional hints can be very helpful. Paolo Roncone --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EFT/Burst
Paolo, I agree with Don on the interpretation of "each" as opposite to "all" lines. I also confirm, that we find most faults when testing in common mode: -L AND N against "reference ground" -L, N AND PE against "reference ground" -(sometimes) PE against "reference ground" However, section 7.3.1 applies for tests made "at the installation place" (sorry, this is the translation for "Pürfungen am Aufstellungsort"). For test performed in a lab, you should apply section 7.2.2. There is no specification conerning "each" and "all". We always perform test including L+N, L+N+PE, PE only. Hope this helps. Best regards George Nachricht geschrieben von INTERNET:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com > Paolo, EN55024 does not directly address the issue, rather it refers you to EN 61000-4-4. Clause 7.3.1 states " . . . applied between a reference ground plane and each of the power supply terminals . . .". The key is "each" instead of "all". From a purely regulatory perspective, it appears you have a valid point the way I read the standard. Other standards do indicate "true common mode" as a requirement. By the way, the "reference ground" may be at a different potential than "protective earth". That's why a number of test sets have a test mode to test EFT between PE and ground reference. Check out the bonding and set up requirements carefully. However, a weakness in the design has been detected in "true common mode" test mode. Are you confident that your customer will not be bothered by the design weakness, whatever those manifestations are? Of course that is a quality issue, not a regulatory issue. Good luck, Don Umbdenstock > -- > From: Roncone Paolo[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] > Reply To: Roncone Paolo > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM > To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > Subject: EFT/Burst > > > Group, > > we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst > test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. > Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts > to > AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between > each > (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective > earth), > as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the > same > document seem to confirm this. > Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and > protective > earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and > also > more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and > failed in the second mode. > > Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. > > Paolo Roncone > Compuprint s.p.a. > Italy < --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EFT/Burst
HELLO PAOLO AND DON +GROUP I agree with Don about this topic, but want to add that a printer that fails on true common mode (2 or all 3 wires to REF) and passes in a single wire configuration is on the edge of failing. I suggest, whatever the outcome of the discussion with your customer, to evaluate what happens in a larger batch then one. Possibly over 50% fails in single wire too, or better the full batch passes in true common mode. In short, this type of pass/failure dilemma asks for statistical evaluation, to make sure your decision is based on proper grounds. In addition, what happens if in the near furure an ECO changes the brand of f.a. mains filter, or even worse, the filter manufacturer changes details without announcing them. Other components may have equal impact Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf >>Of umbdenst...@sensormatic.com >>Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 8:44 PM >>To: emc-p...@ieee.org; paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it >>Subject: RE: EFT/Burst >> >> >> >>Paolo, >> >>EN55024 does not directly address the issue, rather it refers you to EN >>61000-4-4. Clause 7.3.1 states " . . . applied between a reference ground >>plane and each of the power supply terminals . . .". The key is "each" >>instead of "all". From a purely regulatory perspective, it >>appears you have >>a valid point the way I read the standard. Other standards do indicate >>"true common mode" as a requirement. By the way, the "reference >>ground" may >>be at a different potential than "protective earth". That's why >>a number of >>test sets have a test mode to test EFT between PE and ground reference. >>Check out the bonding and set up requirements carefully. >> >>However, a weakness in the design has been detected in "true common mode" >>test mode. Are you confident that your customer will not be >>bothered by the >>design weakness, whatever those manifestations are? Of course that is a >>quality issue, not a regulatory issue. >> >>Good luck, >> >>Don Umbdenstock >> >> >> >>> ------ >>> From: Roncone Paolo[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] >>> Reply To: Roncone Paolo >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM >>> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' >>> Subject:EFT/Burst >>> >>> >>> Group, >>> >>> we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst >>> test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. >>> Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts >>> to >>> AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between >>> each >>> (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective >>> earth), >>> as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the >>> same >>> document seem to confirm this. >>> Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and >>> protective >>> earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and >>> also >>> more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and >>> failed in the second mode. >>> >>> Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. >>> >>> Paolo Roncone >>> Compuprint s.p.a. >>> Italy >>> >>> --- >>> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >>> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >>> >>> To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >>> majord...@ieee.org >>> with the single line: >>> unsubscribe emc-pstc >>> >>> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >>> Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com >>> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org >>> >>> For policy questions, send mail to: >>> Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org >>> >>> >> >>--- >>This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety >>Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. >> >>To cancel your subscription, send mail to: >> majord...@ieee.org >>with the single line: >> unsubscribe emc-pstc >> >>For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com >> Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org >> >>For policy questions, send mail to: >> Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org >> >> <>
RE: EFT/Burst
Paolo, EN55024 does not directly address the issue, rather it refers you to EN 61000-4-4. Clause 7.3.1 states " . . . applied between a reference ground plane and each of the power supply terminals . . .". The key is "each" instead of "all". From a purely regulatory perspective, it appears you have a valid point the way I read the standard. Other standards do indicate "true common mode" as a requirement. By the way, the "reference ground" may be at a different potential than "protective earth". That's why a number of test sets have a test mode to test EFT between PE and ground reference. Check out the bonding and set up requirements carefully. However, a weakness in the design has been detected in "true common mode" test mode. Are you confident that your customer will not be bothered by the design weakness, whatever those manifestations are? Of course that is a quality issue, not a regulatory issue. Good luck, Don Umbdenstock > -- > From: Roncone Paolo[SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] > Reply To: Roncone Paolo > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:45 AM > To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' > Subject: EFT/Burst > > > Group, > > we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst > test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. > Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts > to > AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between > each > (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective > earth), > as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the > same > document seem to confirm this. > Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and > protective > earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and > also > more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and > failed in the second mode. > > Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. > > Paolo Roncone > Compuprint s.p.a. > Italy > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EFT/Burst
Group, we are currently discussing with one OEM the interpretation of EFT/Burst test requirements per EN55024 and EN61000-4-4 to a printer. Specifically we are discussing the requirements of application of bursts to AC power lines. Our understanding is that they must be applied between each (single) power supply conductor and reference ground (or protective earth), as specified in EN61000-4-4 section 7.3.1. Also fig.4 and fig.11 in the same document seem to confirm this. Our OEM customer says that all combinations of phase, neutral and protective earth should be tested. They actually tested both singular AC lines and also more than one AC line. The printer passed the test in the first mode and failed in the second mode. Any comments / interpretations would be highly appreciated. Paolo Roncone Compuprint s.p.a. Italy --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
