Re: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Amund,

This might help

https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/what-is-a-dc-power-port-emc-explained/

All the best
James

James Pawson
Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

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

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

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




-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin  
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 9:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

I have been told that surge test must be conducted to a DC-port.
Is that correct if the DC-port is supplied with 12VDC from a
standby-batteri, which is installed close by the product and with maximum 1
meter cable?

BR
Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
EMC-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&A=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&A=1

[PSES] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

[Amund Westin]

I have been told that surge test must be conducted to a DC-port.
Is that correct if the DC-port is supplied with 12VDC from a 
standby-batteri, which is installed close by the product and with 
maximum 1 meter cable?


BR
Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-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&A=1

Re: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello Bernd,

 

Thank you for the explanation, that helps me understand a little better  :-)

 

All the best

James

 

 

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance /
Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration

 

 <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> www.unit3compliance.co.uk // 07811
139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

From: Dürrer Bernd  
Sent: 18 January 2021 07:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

 

Hello James,

 

CENELEC’s TC 210 decided to publish EN IEC 61000-6-1 and EN IEC 61000-6-2 as
unharmonised, i.e. without Annex ZZ, and to add it later as amendment. The
reasons are explained in CENELEC document BT161/DG11099/DV: “The projects
were both ratified on 2016-09-14 but the finalization has been suspended. BT
asked CLC/TC 210 to explain the preferred way forward (D156/C084). The TC
needs to confirm that if the Annex ZZ is still valid before sending it to
assessment, taking into account they will need to integrate a proposal for
RED and a way forward to deal with ‘Manufacturer Performance Criteria’. The
latter is a new issue identified by EC in EMC Immunity standards. In the
meantime it is important the standards are made available as ‘unharmonized’.
CLC/TC 210 will in due time prepare amendments to allow the harmonization of
the projects under the EMC and RED.”

 

The main obstacle is the definition of performance criteria: In the current
definition in the IEC standards, performance criteria are specified by the
manufacturer, which is not accepted by the HAS consultants of the European
Commission. As it will probably take considerable time until a new
definition has been agreed upon, TC 210 decided to publish the standards
without Annex ZZ to make them available.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bernd

 

Von: James Pawson (U3C) < <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> 
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Januar 2021 17:37
An:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

 

Hello EMC-ers, happy new year to everyone.

 

I’ve just been looking at the redline version of EN IEC 61000-6-2
(Industrial Immunity) from 2006 to 2019 versions.

 

It appears that the Annex ZZ (that links the standard to the Essential
Requirements of the EMC Directive) is missing on the new version. This is
despite the foreword stating

 

“For the relationship with EU Directive(s) see informative Annex ZZ, which
is an integral part of this document”

 

Any ideas what’s going on? Have I missed something?

 

All the best

James

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance /
Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration

 

 
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3c
ompliance.co.uk%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C3928
8a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192062310%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1
000&sdata=b6NE%2Fp0oottjj6gfJsAhFho%2FFIDjH34qgv85N1whWmg%3D&reserved=0>
www.unit3compliance.co.uk // 07811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

-


This message 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> emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-p
ses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7
C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CT
WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
D%7C1000&sdata=EHFXUx%2FslafAlCmonsf3jkDlMcDbku96xzaQi0nzoTw%3D&reserved=0>
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-co
mpliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7
C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CT
WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
D%7C1000&sdata=P%2F5oXKQ9zVwOSoSIrnStGqa%2BzFqnTljjr2UZdCsojrA%3D&reserved=0
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-p
ses.

Re: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

[Charlie Blackham]

Great explanation Bernd

I have my doubts that satisfactory performance criteria will be able to be 
written for generic standards to allow them to give a legal presumption of 
conformity given the inevitable lack of specificity in their scope

The "base" radio EMC standard EN 301 489-1 will not be published as a HS for 
this reason, but the other subparts will be, all of which have technology  
specific performance monitoring and acceptance criteria

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Dürrer Bernd 
Sent: 18 January 2021 07:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AW: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

Hello James,

CENELEC's TC 210 decided to publish EN IEC 61000-6-1 and EN IEC 61000-6-2 as 
unharmonised, i.e. without Annex ZZ, and to add it later as amendment. The 
reasons are explained in CENELEC document BT161/DG11099/DV: "The projects were 
both ratified on 2016-09-14 but the finalization has been suspended. BT asked 
CLC/TC 210 to explain the preferred way forward (D156/C084). The TC needs to 
confirm that if the Annex ZZ is still valid before sending it to assessment, 
taking into account they will need to integrate a proposal for RED and a way 
forward to deal with 'Manufacturer Performance Criteria'. The latter is a new 
issue identified by EC in EMC Immunity standards. In the meantime it is 
important the standards are made available as 'unharmonized'. CLC/TC 210 will 
in due time prepare amendments to allow the harmonization of the projects under 
the EMC and RED."

The main obstacle is the definition of performance criteria: In the current 
definition in the IEC standards, performance criteria are specified by the 
manufacturer, which is not accepted by the HAS consultants of the European 
Commission. As it will probably take considerable time until a new definition 
has been agreed upon, TC 210 decided to publish the standards without Annex ZZ 
to make them available.

Kind regards,

Bernd

Von: James Pawson (U3C) 
mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>>
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Januar 2021 17:37
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Betreff: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

Hello EMC-ers, happy new year to everyone.

I've just been looking at the redline version of EN IEC 61000-6-2 (Industrial 
Immunity) from 2006 to 2019 versions.

It appears that the Annex ZZ (that links the standard to the Essential 
Requirements of the EMC Directive) is missing on the new version. This is 
despite the foreword stating

"For the relationship with EU Directive(s) see informative Annex ZZ, which is 
an integral part of this document"

Any ideas what's going on? Have I missed something?

All the best
James



James Pawson
The EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance / Consultancy / 
Environmental & Vibration

www.unit3compliance.co.uk<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3compliance.co.uk%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192062310%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=b6NE%2Fp0oottjj6gfJsAhFho%2FFIDjH34qgv85N1whWmg%3D&reserved=0>
 // 07811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

-


This message 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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EHFXUx%2FslafAlCmonsf3jkDlMcDbku96xzaQi0nzoTw%3D&reserved=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P%2F5oXKQ9zVwOSoSIrnStGqa%2BzFqnTljjr2UZdCsojrA%3D&reserved=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, et

[PSES] AW: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

[Dürrer Bernd]

Hello James,

CENELEC's TC 210 decided to publish EN IEC 61000-6-1 and EN IEC 61000-6-2 as 
unharmonised, i.e. without Annex ZZ, and to add it later as amendment. The 
reasons are explained in CENELEC document BT161/DG11099/DV: "The projects were 
both ratified on 2016-09-14 but the finalization has been suspended. BT asked 
CLC/TC 210 to explain the preferred way forward (D156/C084). The TC needs to 
confirm that if the Annex ZZ is still valid before sending it to assessment, 
taking into account they will need to integrate a proposal for RED and a way 
forward to deal with 'Manufacturer Performance Criteria'. The latter is a new 
issue identified by EC in EMC Immunity standards. In the meantime it is 
important the standards are made available as 'unharmonized'. CLC/TC 210 will 
in due time prepare amendments to allow the harmonization of the projects under 
the EMC and RED."

The main obstacle is the definition of performance criteria: In the current 
definition in the IEC standards, performance criteria are specified by the 
manufacturer, which is not accepted by the HAS consultants of the European 
Commission. As it will probably take considerable time until a new definition 
has been agreed upon, TC 210 decided to publish the standards without Annex ZZ 
to make them available.

Kind regards,

Bernd

Von: James Pawson (U3C) 
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Januar 2021 17:37
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

Hello EMC-ers, happy new year to everyone.

I've just been looking at the redline version of EN IEC 61000-6-2 (Industrial 
Immunity) from 2006 to 2019 versions.

It appears that the Annex ZZ (that links the standard to the Essential 
Requirements of the EMC Directive) is missing on the new version. This is 
despite the foreword stating

"For the relationship with EU Directive(s) see informative Annex ZZ, which is 
an integral part of this document"

Any ideas what's going on? Have I missed something?

All the best
James



James Pawson
The EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd
EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance / Consultancy / 
Environmental & Vibration

www.unit3compliance.co.uk<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3compliance.co.uk%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192062310%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=b6NE%2Fp0oottjj6gfJsAhFho%2FFIDjH34qgv85N1whWmg%3D&reserved=0>
 // 07811 139957
2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

-


This message 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<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EHFXUx%2FslafAlCmonsf3jkDlMcDbku96xzaQi0nzoTw%3D&reserved=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192072260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P%2F5oXKQ9zVwOSoSIrnStGqa%2BzFqnTljjr2UZdCsojrA%3D&reserved=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192082205%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FFFqOf%2Fnaivb35axCBTYh%2FtwqVrJsobRPy4RqbE8Jes%3D&reserved=0>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9b3300bf2a344c96b8708d8b973c602%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637463254192082205%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yFLDo5kZIg8PcRmOFP0gFvkTBk8w%2BLXzawKzi%2BZcEJc%3D&reserved=0&g

[PSES] EN 61000-6-2:2019 - Missing Annex ZZ?

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello EMC-ers, happy new year to everyone.

 

I've just been looking at the redline version of EN IEC 61000-6-2
(Industrial Immunity) from 2006 to 2019 versions.

 

It appears that the Annex ZZ (that links the standard to the Essential
Requirements of the EMC Directive) is missing on the new version. This is
despite the foreword stating

 

"For the relationship with EU Directive(s) see informative Annex ZZ, which
is an integral part of this document"

 

Any ideas what's going on? Have I missed something?

 

All the best

James

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC Testing / Design for EMC / Problem Solving / Pre Compliance /
Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk // 07811
139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 


-

This message 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: 

Differences in latest edition EN 61000-6-2

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

Group,
 
What are the significant changes in the latest edition of EN 61000-6-2?  
(2005 vs. the 2001edition)
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Carl

__
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 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999

[KC CHAN [PDD]]

The major change is :

In the 1999 version, "In some non-European countries, the transition frequency
between conducted and radiated radio-frequency test is optional within the
range 26 MHZ and 80 MHZ.  In these countries, the test may be carried out at a
start frequency lower than 80 MHZ, but not less than 26 MHZ."

In the 2001 version, no such requirement, meaning that the start frequency of
radiated immunity is 80MHz.

>>> "Terry Meck"  02/07/03 12:45am >>>
Hi again!
Are there any major changes between EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999
which has a Date of cessation of 01.07.2004.
I am in the process of ordering it but am too impatient to wait on the
delivery :-)
Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance Engineer
tjm...@accusort.com



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

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

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

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

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

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999

[Terry Meck]

Hi again!

Are there any major changes between EN 61000-6-2:2001 vs EN 61000-6-2:1999
which has a Date of cessation of 01.07.2004.

I am in the process of ordering it but am too impatient to wait on the
delivery :-)

Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance Engineer
tjm...@accusort.com

 

EN 61000-6-2:1999 Immunity DC power Port Table 3 Note 3

[Terry Meck]

Group:

Check my interpretation of EN 61000-6-2:1999 Immunity DC power Port Table 3 
Note 3.  This is with reference to an industrial application with a DC power 
input.
Intended to be either supplied with an AC-DC power supply (`power adapter') or 
a distributed DC power from a distant AC-DC source located in the building.

The way I read the chart is you test through the AC-DC power supply (`power 
adapter') +/- 500 volts surge and +/- 2000 EFT and only if you connect to 
cables =>10 meters between the AC-DC supply and the DC input.

IF I AM READING THIS RIGHT:
1.  When <10 meters, are they expecting the surge and EFT tests defined for the 
 AC port will be imposed in the course of EMC testing anyway ?  I would be 
doing this test.  Although, you could be using a supply with all the testing 
and CE mark certs available encouraging some to conclude this is already 
covered so no need to retest.

2. Are they expecting you to connect >10 meters of cable for the test?  This 
would not be real.

3.  The remaining question, IF I AM INTERPRETING IT CORRECTLY, why only +/- 500 
volts surge on the AC input ?  On the AC Power: ±2-kV line-to-earth;  ±1-kV 
line-to-line surge is required.


Your input will be appreciated!

Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
tjm...@accusort.com
Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
511 School House Rd.
Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA



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

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

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

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

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"

EN 61000-6-2

[Steve Austin]

Shaike,

My thoughts on Immunity standards.

I feel that considering why the exemptions are given is useful.
For DC powered units we are worried about pick up of disturbance on the DC 
cables or injection of disturbances from the AC supply.

Radio Frequency disturbances are considered most likely to be due to pick up on 
cables - you have short cables (less than 3 metres) so pick up is unlikely - 
the test is not required.

Fast Transient Burst disturbances are considered to be  most likely to be 
generated on the AC supply (passing through the AC /DC supply) so the test is 
applicable.
Voltage surge disturbances are considered to be  most likely to be generated on 
the AC supply (passing through the AC /DC supply) so the test is applicable.
If the DC cables were very long (greater than 10 metres) then there would be a 
possibility of pick up on the cables so the test would be applicable even if 
there were no connections to the mains via an AC/Dc supply.

I hope this helps.

Steve Austin

austin@cassindustries .com

RE: Interpretation of EN 61000-6-2/EN 61000-4-6 Requirements

[Dan Kinney (A)]

Shaike,
I would interpret Note 3 of Table 3 of EN 61000-6-2 to have three separate
parts.  The first part pertains to battery powered devices (not applicable
for your product).  The second part applies to devices such as yours that
has an a.c - d.c power adaptor. And the third part applies to d.c. powered
devices that have permanent connectors and a d.c. power source within 3
meters (doesn't sound like your product applies here either).  The test is
not applicable if your product falls under parts one or three.  However,
based on what you have told us, the test is applicable to your product since
it has an a.c. - d.c. power adaptor and, I assume, a non-permanent, consumer
removable, d.c power plug.  Part two tells you to apply the stimulus to the
a.c. side of the adaptor.

If I were writing this document, I would make three separate bullets under
Note 3 and I would re-arrange the bullets so that the first two discuss what
products are excluded from the test and the third bullet would be the one
about the a.c. - d.c. adaptor.

I may be way out on a limb here but this is the way I'd interpret the
standard.  Hope you hear more from the remainder of the group.  Its always
good to receive multiple views and reassuring when several tend to tell you
the same thing. 

Dan Kinney
Horner APG

> -Original Message-
> From: S Raz [SMTP:ieee-...@itl.co.il]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:00 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Cc:   jim_bac...@monarch.com
> Subject:  Interpretation of EN 61000-6-2/EN 61000-4-6 Requirements
> 
> Hello Group,
> Your response to my following question will be greatly appreciated.
> 1. A product has a 2.5 m long cable including signal leads and DC power
> leads. The DC power leads are connected to the DC output of AC 230 VAC
> AC/DC adaptor.
> 2.  Question:
> Are the DC leads exempt from EN 61000-6-2/EN61000-4-6 test (cable
> shorter than 3 m)? Or should they be tested as table 3 of EN 61000-6-2
> requires for input and output DC power ports?
>  
> Thanks
> Shaike Raz

---
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

Interpretation of EN 61000-6-2/EN 61000-4-6 Requirements

[S Raz]

Hello Group,
Your response to my following question will be greatly appreciated.
1. A product has a 2.5 m long cable including signal leads and DC power leads. 
The DC power leads are connected to the DC output of AC 230 VAC AC/DC adaptor.
2.  Question:
Are the DC leads exempt from EN 61000-6-2/EN61000-4-6 test (cable 
shorter than 3 m)? Or should they be tested as table 3 of EN 61000-6-2 requires 
for input and output DC power ports?

Thanks
Shaike Raz

Re: IEC and EN 61000-6-2

[reheller]

-- Forwarded by Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US on
02/12/2001 05:37 AM ---


Robert E. Heller
02/12/2001 05:27 AM

  3M Product Safety, St. Paul, MN 55107 
  76-1-01   

  EMC Laboratory Fax:  651-778-6252 





To:   Benoit Nadeau 
cc:
Subject:  Re: IEC and EN 61000-6-2  (Document link: Robert E. Heller)

I have a copy of BS EN 61000-6-2:1999. It does not reference ENV 50204 nor
does it reference any digital radio telephone frequencies for testing. The
normative reference is EN 61000-4-3:1996 (see Annex ZA).

The test specifications indicate:

* 80 to 1000 MHz
* 10 volts per meter
* 80% AM modulation at 1kHz
* Performance criteria A

One note applies to Europe:

Note 3 - Except for ITU broadcast frequency bands 87 MHz to 108 MHz, 174
MHz to 230 MHz, and 470 MHz to 790 MHz, where the level shall be 3 V/m.

The DOW is 1.4.2002







Benoit Nadeau  on 02/09/2001 09:36:47 AM

Please respond to Benoit Nadeau 


To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
Subject:  IEC and EN 61000-6-2



Bonjour de Montréal,

I just bought the new generic Immunity Standard for industrial environment
but, unfortunately, I ordered the IEC version of it, not the EN version.

Obviously, an IEC standard would not reference an ENV standard and I know
that EN500082-2 referenced ENV50204.

Is it still the case for EN61000-6-2 ? Did they change the level?

Your help will be appreciated,

Regards,


--
Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.)
Conformity Group Manager
Matrox
1055, boul. St-Regis
Dorval (Québec)
Canada H9P 2T4
Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475)
Fax: (514) 822-6275
<http://www.matrox.com>

Chairman
2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001
<http://www.2001emcmtl.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










---
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:RE: IEC and EN 61000-6-2

[Jim Bacher]

forwarding for niels.houga...@barconet.com

Reply Separator
Subject:RE: IEC and EN 61000-6-2
Author: "Hougaard; Niels" 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   2/9/01 5:56 PM

Hi Benoît,

the EN 61000-6-2:1999 has the text ("Endorsement notice"): "The text of the
International Standard IEC 61000-6-2:1999 was approved by CENELEC as a
European Standard without any modification."

So they must be identical except for the reference to basic standards where
the EN standard refers to the EN versions whereas the IEC standard refers to
the IEC versions.

For Radiated Susceptibility the basic standard in EN 61000-6-2 is EN
61000-4-3 which is a modified version of IEC 61000-4-3.

Hope this can be of some help,

Regards,

Niels Hougaard
BarcoNet

> -Original Message-
> From: Benoit Nadeau [SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com]
> Sent: 9. februar 2001 16:37
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  IEC and EN 61000-6-2
> 
> 
> Bonjour de Montréal,
> 
> I just bought the new generic Immunity Standard for industrial environment
> 
> but, unfortunately, I ordered the IEC version of it, not the EN version.
> 
> Obviously, an IEC standard would not reference an ENV standard and I know 
> that EN500082-2 referenced ENV50204.
> 
> Is it still the case for EN61000-6-2 ? Did they change the level?
> 
> Your help will be appreciated,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> --
> Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.)
> Conformity Group Manager
> Matrox
> 1055, boul. St-Regis
> Dorval (Québec)
> Canada H9P 2T4
> Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475)
> Fax: (514) 822-6275
> <http://www.matrox.com>
> 
> Chairman
> 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on
> Electromagnetic Compatibility
> Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001
> <http://www.2001emcmtl.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

IEC and EN 61000-6-2

[Benoit Nadeau]

Bonjour de Montréal,

I just bought the new generic Immunity Standard for industrial environment 
but, unfortunately, I ordered the IEC version of it, not the EN version.


Obviously, an IEC standard would not reference an ENV standard and I know 
that EN500082-2 referenced ENV50204.


Is it still the case for EN61000-6-2 ? Did they change the level?

Your help will be appreciated,

Regards,


--
Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.)
Conformity Group Manager
Matrox
1055, boul. St-Regis
Dorval (Québec)
Canada H9P 2T4
Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475)
Fax: (514) 822-6275


Chairman
2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001

-- 



---
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: EN 61000-6-2 Table 2.3 inticates signal ports => 30 M +/- 1kv?

[Lfresearch]

Hi all,

let me bring a different perspective. In the aircraft world we have a 
lightning tests that stress interface wiring travelling some distance WRT 
local wiring.

The reason we do this is because when lighting strikes the plane, the 
fuselarge(?) carries MANY amps, and there is a voltage drop between any two 
points. If a piece of equipment is connected to a another some distance away, 
the interface lines can see many hundreds, even thousands of volts Even 
the capacitive coupling between the equipment case and the surroundings is 
enough to see this effect.

If this situation is on the ground, and lightnig strikes a part of the 
building that causes PE current to flow in the buiding ground. The wires 
connecting to other equipment will ride the shift in ground potential. the 
greater the distance, the larger the shift. It does not have to be in a 
seperate building.

Since only data/com lines travel some distances, thay are most likely to 
encounter this threat. I suspect that this is where the requirement comes 
from. Now as for what levels to apply

Have a great weekend,

Derek Walton

---
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: EN 61000-6-2 Table 2.3 inticates signal ports => 30 M +/- 1k v?

[jrbarnes]

Terry,
I don't have a copy of EN 61000-6-2, but it sounds similar to the IBM Lightning
Surge Susceptibility (LSS) test that we do on our network adapters during
development/qualification.  We LSS test all products that have:
*  Cables going outdoors through surge protectors,
  OR
*  Indoor cables longer than 120 meters (and for our own peace of mind, ones
with shorter network cables too),
just for the reasons that Michael Hopkins gave.

In our test procedure we:
1.  Make sure that the network adapter is working with the network.
2.  Disconnect the network adapter from the network, and connect it to the
Keytek surge generator.
3.  Hit the product with 1 to 10 simulated lightning surges, between a specified
set of signals/shields at a given
 voltage and polarity.
4.  Disconnect the network adapter from the surge generator, and reconnect it to
the network.
5.  Verify that the network adapter still works with the network.  This may
require resetting/powering-down &
 powering-up the network adapter and its associated equipment in some cases.
Our concern is that we don't
 damage the network adapter.  Upsetting it, or locking it up in a way that
require manual intervention, are okay.
6.  Repeat the process until we have hit every specified signal/signal or
signal/shield pair with 10 positive zaps
 and 10 negative zaps at the maximum specified voltage.

The test only calls for us to zap the cable interface at the maximum voltages.
But, having blown up a number of cards with this test since 1990, I like to test
at 25%, 50%, 75%, and then 100% of the maximum specified voltage, at least for
the first time I am testing a brand new design.  I've also seen failures where I
had to zap a card several times before I destroyed it, and other times that the
very first zap at a voltage/polarity destroyed a part.  Depending on my
confidence level, I may:
*  Zap the card 10 times at a voltage/polarity before I check to see if it still
works.
 OR
*  Change the voltage/polarity/test-point, zap the card once and check it, then
zap it another 9 times and recheck it
before going to a new voltage/polarity/test-point.

  John Barnes  Advisory Engineer
  Lexmark International



---
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: EN 61000-6-2 Table 2.3 inticates signal ports => 30 M +/- 1k v?

[Mike Hopkins]

You read the table correctly, and it seems to be confusing a lot of people.
To go through it logically (I think)

The longer the line, the more likely surge energy would be coupled into a
cable -- certainly the case for induced lightning transients.

Terminated lines shorter than a few meters are not likely to pick up much
energy from lightning but keep in mind the old lineman's rule of thumb that
says "1kV across 1 meter or unterminated wire, 1 mile from the flash"! 

Hence, protecting inputs connected to long lines against surges makes sense,
whether they go outside a building or not. If you wrap a mile of wire (data
cable) around a high rise building, I would argue you have just constructed
a lightning antenna. In residential structures, there is no building steel
to help with shielding or grounding, so you might as well be outside for
purposes of coupling a transient into your system.

It follows that the IEC or EU would require surge testing long I/O lines.

Problem is: IEC wants to insure no upset or loss of operation, which means
testing the product live, with data flowing. This requires some kind of
coupler/decoupler in series with the line to the equipment being tested.
Works okay for slower data rates (<~100kHz), but no one has yet designed a
coupler/decoupler that works at the higher data rates that exist today.
Using existing coupler/decoupler designs will insure loss of data; hence,
the "unless normal functioning cannot be maintained because of the impact of
the CDN on the EUT" clause applies. Not sure I understand the reasoning, but
if you get a real live surge from the real world, data will certainly be
interrupted as well.

Reality is: if you want to insure minimum loss of function on a long I/O
line, you really want to know if the inputs are protected adequately, and
you can do this without a coupler/decoupler. Bellcore, CCITT, FCC and others
all surge test inputs directly without any data (knowing full well that
during the surge event, data will be interrupted anyway) then connect the
line and see if the input circuitry is still functioning.

In the course of revising IEC 61000-4-5 for surge, it's this last paragraph
that I'm pushing for. That gets rid of the coupler/decoupler design problem
and provides a way of establishing a basic level of immunity for any kind of
I/O or telecom line.

Hope this helps,


Michael Hopkins
KeyTek
(also, convenor SC77B WG11 responsible for the revision of 61000-4-5, so if
you have anything to contribute, let me know)

 




-Original Message-
From: Terry Meck [mailto:tjm...@accusort.com]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:23 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: EN 61000-6-2 Table 2.3 inticates signal ports => 30 M +/- 1kv?




If I read the EN 61000-6-2 correctly Table 2.3 indicates signal ports => 30
M must be tested +/- 1000 surge " unless normal functioning cannot be
maintained because of the impact of the CDN on the EUT"  

This surprises and confuses me since I thought this would be imposed only on
cables leaving a building.  

Any insight on this will be appreciated?



Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
Phone:215-721-5280
Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
tjm...@accusort.com
Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
511 School House Rd.
Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA



---
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

EN 61000-6-2 Table 2.3 inticates signal ports => 30 M +/- 1kv?

[Terry Meck]

If I read the EN 61000-6-2 correctly Table 2.3 indicates signal ports => 30 M 
must be tested +/- 1000 surge " unless normal functioning cannot be maintained 
because of the impact of the CDN on the EUT"  

This surprises and confuses me since I thought this would be imposed only on 
cables leaving a building.  

Any insight on this will be appreciated?



Best regards,
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
Phone:215-721-5280
Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
tjm...@accusort.com
Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
511 School House Rd.
Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA



---
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