[PSES] Conducted emissions test bench

[Brian Gregory]

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Fw: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brian Gregory]

  Just finished some testing at an accredited lab.  For an accredited report, 
they run QPs on all measurements whose peak are w/in 6 dB of the limit.  I 
don't know if that's their rule, or by the regulations.  FYI Colorado Brian
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:19:10 +


 It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by 
how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 
points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and graph 
shows that.
Now to get lab to show a continuous graph for radiated emissions might be a 
problem.
Easier to get a new lab !
Some cheap labs will fake a continuous plot by connecting the highest dots.  
Run from them !
Long details on the experience that I got.


 On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:33:01 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  Hello PSES brain 
trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Mark
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Bill Owsley]

 It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by 
how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 
points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and graph 
shows that.
Now to get lab to show a continuous graph for radiated emissions might be a 
problem.
Easier to get a new lab !
Some cheap labs will fake a continuous plot by connecting the highest dots.  
Run from them !
Long details on the experience that I got.



On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:33:01 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
  
Hello PSES brain trust,
 
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 
 
“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”
 
  
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
 
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
 
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Bill Owsley]

 generally, 2 limits, QP and P which is 20 db above QP.  Gotta meet both.  
Unless the P is so infrequent as to call it a Click.  Which I would not to want 
a challenge over.
On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:53:43 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 
Hi Larry,
 
  
 
I agree with you completely…I think the lab didn’t see that peak going over the 
limit line and therefore didn’t QP.  We only noticed now that they have sent 
the report several weeks later.  They’re arguing that there is no need to 
retest.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
  
 
  
 
From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
 
  
 
|  | 
You don't often get email fromla...@complianceworldwide.com.Learn why this is 
important
  |  |


  
 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.
 
  
 
Mark,
 
  
 
If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn’t you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.
 
  
 
I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn’t know by how much.
 
  
 
Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn’t support that? We’re old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).
 
  
 
Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
 
  
 
From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
 
  
 
Hello PSES brain trust,
 
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 
 
“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”
 
  
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
 
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
 
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
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 
toemc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
 
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-

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

[Bill Owsley]

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


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


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

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.  Current rating is 
whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers offering models 
designed for up to 16 A.   --   Ken JavorPh: (256) 650-5261     Hello and Happy 
Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 
3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 
50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but 
I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian From: Brian 
Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGAll emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on 
the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.htmlFor help, send mail to 
the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: Linford@ieee.orgFor policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bacher@ieee.orgTo unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click 
the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

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

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

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

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

[Bill Owsley]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom

-

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brent DeWitt]

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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


-

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


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

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

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brent DeWitt]

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


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

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


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

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

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

Regards,
Tom

-

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

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

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

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

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[T.Sato]

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lfresearch]

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

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

Take care listening to sales guys….

My 10 cents,

Derek.

> On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:
> 
> I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
> that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am 
> aware use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, 
> you just need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 
> 120 V and 240 simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.
>  
> Current rating is whatever you need. I believe there are several 
> manufacturers offering models designed for up to 16 A. 
>  
> -- 
>  
> Ken Javor
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  Hello and Happy Friday,
>  
> I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
> single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.
> That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky.
>  
> Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I 
> could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.
>  
> thanks, 
>  
> Colorado Brian 
> From: Brian Gregory  <mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net>>
> Reply-To: Brian Gregory  <mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net>>
> Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
> To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
> Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs 
> three-phase LISN?
>  
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/>
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>All emc-pstc 
> postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/>
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken Javor]

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

 

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

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

 Hello and Happy Friday,

 

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

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

 

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

 

thanks, 

 

Colorado Brian 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 


-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

This gets a bit more complicated for FCC regulations on emissions above 
1 GHz, where the prescribed detector is an average detector (at 1 MHz 
RBW) and the peak limit is defined as 20 dB above that.


On 4/5/2024 7:19 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing based on the 
original topic.  You are certainly correct with respect to conducted 
emissions!


On 4/5/2024 7:14 PM, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote:


I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

*From:*Brent DeWitt 
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
*To:* rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector 
for radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB),
where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance
levels and the frequencies of at least the six highest
disturbances shall be recorded.”/

//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record
the six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt
the *average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP
limit *when using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in
the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)

Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
<mailto:0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies
should be quasi-peaked?

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit
level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the
frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be
recorded.”/

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements
above the limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six,
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>





This message is from the IEEE Product Safe

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing based on the 
original topic.  You are certainly correct with respect to conducted 
emissions!


On 4/5/2024 7:14 PM, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote:


I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

*From:*Brent DeWitt 
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
*To:* rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for 
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB),
where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance
levels and the frequencies of at least the six highest
disturbances shall be recorded.”/

//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record
the six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt
the *average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP
limit *when using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in
the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)

Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
<mailto:0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies
should be quasi-peaked?

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level
in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies
of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”/

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above
the limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six,
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>



-

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

Websi

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

 

From: Brent DeWitt  
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for radiated 
emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?

On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with “Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the 
limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of 
at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”

 

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six 
highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the average limit 
when using an average detector and the QP limit when using a QP detector? 
Perhaps that is made clear in the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or 
CISPR 11, etc)

 

Comments?

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Stultz, Mark  <mailto:0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?  

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 

“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”

 

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Mark


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =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 Sh

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for 
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:


I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where 
L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and 
the frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be 
recorded.”/


//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the 
six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the 
*average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP limit *when 
using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in the 
product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)


Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies 
should be quasi-peaked?


CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at 
least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”/


We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the 
limit, even if that is more than six points.


I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, 
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.


Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I'm having trouble with "Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is
the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the
frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

 

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six
highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the average limit
when using an average detector and the QP limit when using a QP detector?
Perhaps that is made clear in the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or
CISPR 11, etc)

 

Comments?

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be
quasi-peaked?  

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 

"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least
the six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

 

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the
limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless
of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Mark

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>  

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1> =1 


-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Gregory]

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Stultz, Mark]

Hi Larry,

I agree with you completely...I think the lab didn't see that peak going over 
the limit line and therefore didn't QP.  We only noticed now that they have 
sent the report several weeks later.  They're arguing that there is no need to 
retest.

Thanks,
Mark


From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

You don't often get email from 
la...@complianceworldwide.com<mailto:la...@complianceworldwide.com>. Learn why 
this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>

 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Mark,

If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn't you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.

I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn't know by how much.

Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn't support that? We're old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).

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

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

From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
__

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Larry K. Stillings]

Mark,

If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn't you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.

I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn't know by how much.

Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn't support that? We're old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).

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

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

From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Jim Bacher]

Mark, for the most part I always had 6 of the highest measured in each 
polarization, for a total of 12.  Depending on what we saw, we may have 
measured more for curiosity's sake.

Jim Bacher, WB8VSU

From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Stultz, Mark]

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] ANSI 63.10 2020 Clause 7.6.3 Pulsed Emissions

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hi John,

Ok thanks. I’m mixing power (Watts) vs. voltage and/or current.

If I was dealing in units of Watts, then that is where the 10 * log would come 
into play because I’ve already “squared”

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

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

From: John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 11:29 AM
To: Larry K. Stillings ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ANSI 63.10 2020 Clause 7.6.3 Pulsed Emissions


Microvolts/m requires 20*log( ), like anything based on voltage or current. 
Your example of a transmitter is based on power.
On 2024-01-23 16:24, Larry K. Stillings wrote:
Hello All,

Maybe this is not the correct forum and I should put in an inquiry into the 
ANSI C63.10 committee directly, however before I did that I wanted to get some 
help here.

In the 2020 edition of the ANSI 63.10 standard they have added a calculation 
example page for pulsed emissions in Clause 7.6.3.

In a nutshell the example shows a duty cycle of ~36% (25 mS on time / 70 mS off 
time). The readings are taken in dBuV/m peak values and then a duty cycle 
correction of 20 * log (on time / total time) is applied or -8.9 dB to 
determine the average value of the emission.

Here is where it falls apart for me. If you are taking measurements in dBuV/m 
wouldn’t the duty cycle correction factor be determined with 10 * log (on time 
/ total time). Let’s take an example of a transmitter being on 10 % of the 
time, isn’t that a 10 dB reduction? If the device is on 1% of the time isn’t 
that a 20 dB reduction?

Or for some reason because it is a pulsed emission you are allowed to use 20 * 
log and have a 20 dB reduction for a 10% duty cycle or less because anything 
greater than 20 dB is the maximum allowable correction / reduction for a pulsed 
emission?



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

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



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> All emc-pstc 
postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only

John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK

Keep trying

-

This message is from the IEEE Product S

Re: [PSES] ANSI 63.10 2020 Clause 7.6.3 Pulsed Emissions

[John Woodgate]

Microvolts/m requires 20*log( ), like anything based on voltage or 
current. Your example of a transmitter is based on power.


On 2024-01-23 16:24, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


Hello All,

Maybe this is not the correct forum and I should put in an inquiry 
into the ANSI C63.10 committee directly, however before I did that I 
wanted to get some help here.


In the 2020 edition of the ANSI 63.10 standard they have added a 
calculation example page for pulsed emissions in Clause 7.6.3.


In a nutshell the example shows a duty cycle of ~36% (25 mS on time / 
70 mS off time). The readings are taken in dBuV/m peak values and then 
a duty cycle correction of 20 * log (on time / total time) is applied 
or -8.9 dB to determine the average value of the emission.


Here is where it falls apart for me. If you are taking measurements in 
dBuV/m wouldn’t the duty cycle correction factor be determined with 10 
* log (on time / total time). Let’s take an example of a transmitter 
being on 10 % of the time, isn’t that a 10 dB reduction? If the device 
is on 1% of the time isn’t that a 20 dB reduction?


Or for some reason because it is a pulsed emission you are allowed to 
use 20 * log and have a 20 dB reduction for a 10% duty cycle or less 
because anything greater than 20 dB is the maximum allowable 
correction / reduction for a pulsed emission?


Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
*/Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the 
World!/*
*/FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - 
Product Safety/*

357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com <https://complianceworldwide.com>
<https://complianceworldwide.com>

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




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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

-

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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] ANSI 63.10 2020 Clause 7.6.3 Pulsed Emissions

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hello All,

Maybe this is not the correct forum and I should put in an inquiry into the 
ANSI C63.10 committee directly, however before I did that I wanted to get some 
help here.

In the 2020 edition of the ANSI 63.10 standard they have added a calculation 
example page for pulsed emissions in Clause 7.6.3.

In a nutshell the example shows a duty cycle of ~36% (25 mS on time / 70 mS off 
time). The readings are taken in dBuV/m peak values and then a duty cycle 
correction of 20 * log (on time / total time) is applied or -8.9 dB to 
determine the average value of the emission.

Here is where it falls apart for me. If you are taking measurements in dBuV/m 
wouldn't the duty cycle correction factor be determined with 10 * log (on time 
/ total time). Let's take an example of a transmitter being on 10 % of the 
time, isn't that a 10 dB reduction? If the device is on 1% of the time isn't 
that a 20 dB reduction?

Or for some reason because it is a pulsed emission you are allowed to use 20 * 
log and have a 20 dB reduction for a 10% duty cycle or less because anything 
greater than 20 dB is the maximum allowable correction / reduction for a pulsed 
emission?



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

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


-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Ken Javor]

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

 

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

 

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

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

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

 

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

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

Ken et al,

 

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

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

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

 

Hi Brian,

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers, Ken


___

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


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

Contact Me!New Books!

 


  

 

 

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




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

 

 Hello fellow experts,

 

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

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

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

 

thanks all and Happy New Year,

 

Colorado Brian 

 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All 
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 

 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All 
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[John Woodgate]

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


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


Ken et al,

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


--

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

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

Hi Brian,

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


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


Cheers, Ken


___

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

 Hello fellow experts,

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

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

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

thanks all and Happy New Year,

Colorado Brian



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

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

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

---

Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Ken Javor]

Ken et al,

 

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

 

-- 

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

 

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

 

Hi Brian,

 

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

 

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

 

Cheers, Ken


___

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


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

Contact Me!New Books!

 


  

 

 

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



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

 

 Hello fellow experts,

 

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

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

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

 

thanks all and Happy New Year,

 

Colorado Brian 

 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All 
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 

 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All 
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

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

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

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

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 


-

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


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

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

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

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

[PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[Brian Gregory]

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Antenna tilting or bore sighting for radiated emissions

[Paolo Roncone]

nce so it is within its ½
> power beamwidth at all times as it travels up and down the antenna mast.
>
>
>
> Larry K. Stillings
> Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
> *Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!*
> *FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product
> Safety*
> 357 Main Street
> Sandown, NH 03873
> (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
> complianceworldwide.com
>
> *Follow us on social media*
>
>linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc
> twitter.com/complianceww
>
> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
> you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
> delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
> message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
> notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your
> employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
>
> *From:* Paolo Roncone
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:06 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Is there an FCC / ANSI requirement, or  maybe just recommendation, for
> antenna tilting or boresighting wrt radiated emissions in a semi-anechoic
> chamber ?
>
>
>
> If yes, can you please get me the reference section in FCC Part15 or ANSI
> std or somewhere else?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
>
> Paolo
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions

[Ken Javor]

Previous comments restrict the issue to microwave frequencies and a
double-ridge guide horn.

I believe this issue first came up when transitioning from dipoles to higher
gain antennas below 1 GHz, such as log-periodic arrays. The same concept
applies to LPAs.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Paolo Roncone 
Reply-To: Paolo Roncone 
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:05:41 +0100
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions

Hi all,

Is there an FCC / ANSI requirement, or  maybe just recommendation, for
antenna tilting or boresighting wrt radiated emissions in a semi-anechoic
chamber ?

If yes, can you please get me the reference section in FCC Part15 or ANSI
std or somewhere else? 


Thanks a lot in advance!
Paolo 
-


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


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

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

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

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


 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions

[David Schaefer]

It is in both C63.4 and C63.10 for above 1 GHz (so not a semi anechoic chamber 
due to the absorber on the ground plane).

C63.4 Clause 8.3.2.2


The final measurements are performed on a site meeting the requirements of 5.5. 
For measurements above
1 GHz, use the cable, EUT arrangement, and mode of operation determined in the 
exploratory testing to
produce the emission that has the highest amplitude relative to the limit. 
Place the measurement antenna
away from each area of the EUT determined to be a source of emissions at the 
specified measurement
distance, while keeping the measurement antenna aimed at the source of 
emissions at each frequency of
significant emissions, with polarization oriented for maximum response. The 
measurement antenna may
have to be higher or lower than the EUT, depending on the radiation pattern of 
the emission and staying
aimed at the emission source for receiving the maximum signal. The final 
measurement antenna elevation
shall be that which maximizes the emissions. The measurement antenna elevation 
for maximum emissions
shall be restricted to a range of heights of from 1 m to 4 m above the ground 
or reference ground plane. The
data collected shall satisfy the report requirements of Clause 10.


C63.10

The emission signal shall be kept within the illumination area of the 3 dB 
beamwidth of the antenna so that
the maximum emission from the EUT is measured. This may be achieved by either 
pointing the antenna at
an angle toward the source of the emission or by testing the EUT as described 
in 6.6.3.3.

6.6.3.3 covers testing an EUT in 3 orientations.

Thanks,
[ElementSignature]

[cid:image400053.jpg@7881725B.5CD2D394]
David Schaefer​
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com<mailto:david.schae...@element.com>
www.element.com<https://www.element.com/>
[cid:image484815.png@F1FA93C6.BB8CF5D6]<https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
[cid:image249388.png@B4D7A038.7F6E9859]<https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
[cid:image745206.png@D368BC8A.ECE2E452]<https://www.instagram.com/elementtesting/>
[cid:image353197.png@9D68F2B1.0115AE3B]<https://www.youtube.com/c/ElementTesting>
[cid:image954489.jpg@88AE9812.8813BAF5]<https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
Hi all,

Is there an FCC / ANSI requirement, or  maybe just recommendation, for antenna 
tilting or boresighting wrt radiated emissions in a semi-anechoic chamber ?

If yes, can you please get me the reference section in FCC Part15 or ANSI std 
or somewhere else?


Thanks a lot in advance!
Paolo
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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<http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html>

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1<https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1>

Disclaimer

This email is sent on behalf of Element Materials Technology Group Limited or 
the relevant group company with which you are dealing (together, Element). 
Element Materials Technology Group Limited is a limited company registered in 
England and Wales with registered number 09915743. Its registered office and 
its principal place of business is at 3rd Floor, Davidson Building, 5 
Southampton Street, London, United Kingdom, WC2E 7HA.

Element cannot accept responsibility for any loss or 

Re: [PSES] Antenna tilting or bore sighting for radiated emissions

[Larry K. Stillings]

Paolo,

I’m going to go on some assumptions here that you are familiar with the 
measurement setup and process in Part 15 and ANSI C63.4:2014. If you look in 
section 8.2.4 there is a discussion on antenna beamwidth

You need to keep the antennas within their 3 dB of radiation or reception also 
known as its half power beamwidth. This typically does not come into play from 
30 MHz to 1 GHz since most if not all standard EMC antennas are very wideband 
receivers in multiple directions. Although you should look at the datasheets of 
your measurement antennas to be sure.

Where this does come into play (mainly) is above 1 GHz. You will find when you 
study the datasheets of various antennas used above 1 GHz, that their reception 
gets narrow.

Let’s take for example the EMCO / ETS Lindgren 3115 antenna and there are many 
other similar antennas from ARA, Com-Power, etc. that follow this design which 
ironically was only designed for usage from 1 to 12 GHz. Here is a copy of the 
3115’s ½ power beamwidth, you will observe that it has good E plane reception 
until about 14 GHz, and then drops of significantly from 15.5 to 17.5 GHz to 15 
degrees or so.

By doing some math you can figure out at a given measurement distance (say 3 
meters) that a 15 degree half power beamwidth will only stay in the antennas 
reception area at some given height above the floor. You have a product on an 
80 cm table, and then you are raising and lowering the antenna from 1 to 4 
meters. At some point up the mast you are going to get out of the receiving 
beamwidth of the antenna and technically won’t be measuring any signals from 
the product at a given distance.

[cid:image003.jpg@01D96240.E2F5D150]

This is really what became termed as bore-sighting although I believe that 
language has been removed from the standards at this point, as staying within 
the cone of reception or ½ power beamwidth is a much more accurate description 
of what needs to be done. An antenna mast that supports bore-sighting will 
fulfill the requirements as it will “point” the antenna towards an 80 cm high 
turntable at a 3 meter distance so it is within its ½ power beamwidth at all 
times as it travels up and down the antenna mast.

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com<https://complianceworldwide.com/>
Follow us on social media
 [cid:image001.png@01D96240.0B15FE40]   
linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc   
[cid:image002.png@01D96240.0B15FE40]  twitter.com/complianceww
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Paolo Roncone
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions

Hi all,

Is there an FCC / ANSI requirement, or  maybe just recommendation, for antenna 
tilting or boresighting wrt radiated emissions in a semi-anechoic chamber ?

If yes, can you please get me the reference section in FCC Part15 or ANSI std 
or somewhere else?


Thanks a lot in advance!
Paolo
-


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

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

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archive

[PSES] Antenna tilting or boresigjting for radiated emissions

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi all,

Is there an FCC / ANSI requirement, or  maybe just recommendation, for
antenna tilting or boresighting wrt radiated emissions in a semi-anechoic
chamber ?

If yes, can you please get me the reference section in FCC Part15 or ANSI
std or somewhere else?


Thanks a lot in advance!
Paolo

-

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


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

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

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

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

[PSES] AW: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

[Dürrer Bernd]

Hi James,

you may have a look at CISPR TR 16-4-4 (CISPR TR 
16-4-4:2007+AMD1:2017+AMD2:2020 CSV | IEC 
Webstore<https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/66963>) that describes several 
methods for the derivation of limits.

Kind regards,

Bernd

Von: James Pawson (U3C) 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Mai 2022 11:42
An: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

Hello all,

A question I get asked by our customers, and that I've not found a satisfactory 
answer to, is why are there steps in the limit lines for radiated emissions?

This kind of leads to the question of how do limit lines get specified in the 
first place? For emissions and immunity.

I know that it relates to protection of radio receivers - the limits in CISPR 
25 or EN 60945 are good examples - but how are the limits set?

Apologies for the vague expression of the question!

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<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3compliance.co.uk%2F=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660108774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=9oygJ2q0Mo1g05%2B8TfgkLWk6y%2BVA0lluOXX3mLa192M%3D=0>
  |  ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk<mailto: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





[AVG 
logo]<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2Finternet-security=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660108774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=7nDYzZRoBdLSFB6cg5FjYDvB0BGFmE%2BWVeOvqDh1ZQ4%3D=0>

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2Finternet-security=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660108774%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=7nDYzZRoBdLSFB6cg5FjYDvB0BGFmE%2BWVeOvqDh1ZQ4%3D=0>


-


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://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660265570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=zdAdqDMAX1SrrWaZXom0P%2BDwYK%2Bs1AJPciWSg8slJ7M%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660265570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=CzHCnJqg84yVQLViXok45M1UxIsErV6FA5WHirb6o5Q%3D=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660265570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=pgYlNxaPJmSRcgN11b1CfzPnd801AGa%2B53e4qtuy%2BmY%3D=0>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660265570%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=m%2Fn%2FV4UI3haQTEkw%2FGVOfIBdb%2BuM3k7YW2O46MCseOI%3D=0>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=05%7C01%7C%7C97f47b764f0a40c7db9e08da2ce94585%7C39288a38ff19432c80111cd9d0dff445%7C0%7C0%7C637871677660265570%7CUnknown%7CTWF

Re: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:42:23 +0100,
  "James Pawson (U3C)"  wrote:

> A question I get asked by our customers, and that I've not found a
> satisfactory answer to, is why are there steps in the limit lines for
> radiated emissions?
>
> This kind of leads to the question of how do limit lines get specified in
> the first place? For emissions and immunity.

For emission, maybe worth to read the following articles:

"A Historical Look Back: The 1977 CBEMA Paper on Electromagnetic Emanations"
(Daniel D. Hoolihan, published in In Compliance Magagine) 

https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations/
https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations-2/
https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations-part-3/

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

[Michael Viau]

I don't know much about the commercial side, but there is a really
well-written document for the US military standard (MIL-STD-461) called SAE
EIA EMCB 1-1 - Historical Rationale for Military EMI Limits (behind a
damned paywall, unfortunately, but I can try to send it to you if you'd
like). (https://standards.globalspec.com/std/10021073/EIA%20EMCB%201-1)
Every test has it's own unique origin story, but I think the answer often
tends to be starting with a known problem, doing the analysis work to say
what it would take to solve it, throwing on an extra x dB of margin and
making minor course corrections based on the feedback you get from the
community along the way.   Sprinkle in some marketing, bias, and
in-fighting and you've got yourself a standard!
To be clear, I say this from a perspective of having never served on a
standards committee (despite desperately wanting to fill a former
colleagues position on the tri-service working group).
I'm sure Ken and others in the group will have a much more valuable input
here, but I just so happen to be fascinated with the history and finding
any old rationale document I can.

I'm always telling newer folks that it really doesn't matter if the limit
or test methodology (as written in the standard) is "wrong", so long as
it's predictive and everyone does it the same wrong way.
And the tests are really good at predicting that you won't have a problem
down the road when you pass... and not so great at predicting anything when
you fail.  Even some of the easiest tests to translate to installation
(CE106 and CS104) don't do a great job at predicting actual problems when
they've failed the test.  I've seen things fail CS104 for broad swathes of
frequencies at -40 dBm and surrounded by emitters in that frequency range,
and it performs just fine on the aircraft... until one day when it
won't...  but now I've strayed too far from your original question.


On Tue, 3 May 2022 at 04:42, James Pawson (U3C) 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> A question I get asked by our customers, and that I’ve not found a
> satisfactory answer to, is why are there steps in the limit lines for
> radiated emissions?
>
>
>
> This kind of leads to the question of how do limit lines get specified in
> the first place? For emissions and immunity.
>
>
>
> I know that it relates to protection of radio receivers – the limits in
> CISPR 25 or EN 60945 are good examples – but how are the limits set?
>
>
>
> Apologies for the vague expression of the question!
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: AVG logo] <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com <https://www.avg.com/internet-security>
>
> <#m_8956265982425463356_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

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


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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graph

[PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello all,

 

A question I get asked by our customers, and that I've not found a
satisfactory answer to, is why are there steps in the limit lines for
radiated emissions?

 

This kind of leads to the question of how do limit lines get specified in
the first place? For emissions and immunity.

 

I know that it relates to protection of radio receivers - the limits in
CISPR 25 or EN 60945 are good examples - but how are the limits set? 

 

Apologies for the vague expression of the question!

 

All the best

James

 

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

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

 

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

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

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

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

 

 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions

[Paolo Roncone]

Hello Charlie

Thanks a lot!  Now it's much clearer to me.

Best regards
Paolo

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 9:01 PM Charlie Blackham <
char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:

> Paolo
>
>
>
> I would recommend FCC KDB 996369 D04 Module Integration Guide V02
>
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=44637=P
>
>
>
> § 15.33(a) gives you an upper frequency of 12.5 GHz for part 15B “emc”
> emissions
>
> § 15.33(b) gives you an upper frequency of 25 GHz for part 15C “radio
> spurious” emissions
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Paolo Roncone 
> *Sent:* 21 December 2021 12:24
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions
>
>
>
> Hi David
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
> You mean both EMI and Radio must cover up to 10× BT module frequency?
>
>
>
> Thanks again
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 13:05 David Schaefer 
> wrote:
>
> Paolo,
>
>
>
> You are correct. Part 15.33 requires 10x the highest frequency, including
> the radio.
>
>
>
> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15
>
> *§ 15.33 Frequency range of radiated measurements.*
>
> (a) For an intentional radiator, the spectrum shall be investigated from
> the lowest radio frequency signal generated in the device, without going
> below 9 kHz, up to at least the frequency shown in this paragraph:
>
> (1) If the intentional radiator operates below 10 GHz: to the tenth
> harmonic of the highest fundamental frequency or to 40 GHz, whichever is
> lower.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> *David Schaefer**​*
>
> Technical Manager
>
> Element Materials Technology
>
> 9349 W Broadway Ave
>
> Brooklyn Park
>
> ,
>
> MN
>
> 55445
>
> ,
>
> United States
>
> O *+1 612 638 5136* <+1%20612%20638%205136>
>
> ext. 10461
>
> *david.schae...@element.com* 
>
> www.element.com
>
>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
>
> <https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
>
> <https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
>
> *From:* Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:32 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of Element Materials
> Technology. *DO NOT* click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if
> you are in any doubt about this email.
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> an EUT with built-in Bluetooth 2.4 GHz module must be tested - as any
> electrical/electronic equipment sold in the USAm to FCC requirements for
> EMI.
>
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. What is the frequency range of EMI radiated emissions for the EUT in
> question?
>
> According to § 15.33 of Part 15:
>
> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15#15.33
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> My understanding is that the above mentioned EUT must be tested up to at
> least  10 x 2.4 GHz = 24 GHz for radiated emissions, with the limits
> specified in § 15.109 (Field strength in uVolts/m).
>
>
>
> 2. Does it make any difference wrt question 1 (EMI frequency range), if
> the 2.4G Bluetooth module is already covered by a Declaration of conformity
> or certified according to FCC 47 CFR Part 2 Subpart J (spurious emissions,
> or Radio tests) ?
>
> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-2/subpart-J
>
>
>
> According to a colleague of mine, if the Bluetooth module is already Radio
> tested and/or certified, we may test the subject EUT as an "unintentional
> radiator" (Subpart B), excluding the 2.4 GHz and the 10x rule, but using
> the 5x highest frequency rule for unintentional radiators as the radiated
> EMI range.
>
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> I'm not at all convinced..
>
>
>
> I hope someone in this forum can clarify this.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot in advance and happy holidays!
>
>
>
> Paolo
>
&

Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions

[Charlie Blackham]

Paolo

I would recommend FCC KDB 996369 D04 Module Integration Guide V02
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=44637=P

§ 15.33(a) gives you an upper frequency of 12.5 GHz for part 15B “emc” emissions
§ 15.33(b) gives you an upper frequency of 25 GHz for part 15C “radio spurious” 
emissions

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: Paolo Roncone 
Sent: 21 December 2021 12:24
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions

Hi David

Thanks for the reply
You mean both EMI and Radio must cover up to 10× BT module frequency?

Thanks again
Paolo

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 13:05 David Schaefer 
mailto:david.schae...@element.com>> wrote:
Paolo,

You are correct. Part 15.33 requires 10x the highest frequency, including the 
radio.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15
§ 15.33 Frequency range of radiated measurements.
(a) For an intentional radiator, the spectrum shall be investigated from the 
lowest radio frequency signal generated in the device, without going below 9 
kHz, up to at least the frequency shown in this paragraph:
(1) If the intentional radiator operates below 10 GHz: to the tenth harmonic of 
the highest fundamental frequency or to 40 GHz, whichever is lower.

Thanks,



[cid:image485435.jpg@AB03C68D.3D324536]
David Schaefer​
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com<mailto:david.schae...@element.com>
www.element.com<http://www.element.com>
[cid:image500385.png@AF1E39A8.EDE4CEF2]<https://www.linkedin.com/organization-guest/company/element-materials-technology?challengeId=AQFf9AemZ4SobwAAAXOQwivOsnkHiTt2ByoCkOxVQjOGOjRlivicVgYlN1dz5QXjId9bpa0keWzfVxhl8KPj78uD6-S6nfqRsg=e49e0dc0-96a3-2516-27fa-ee2e8c42b177>
[cid:image854727.png@4FB8496E.8B7E390A]<https://twitter.com/ElementTesting/>
[cid:image509551.jpg@3BA80E2B.D1E50632]<https://elementmaterials.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3xQqm84s6IydI5D>
From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com<mailto:paoloc...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:32 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
Hi all,

an EUT with built-in Bluetooth 2.4 GHz module must be tested - as any 
electrical/electronic equipment sold in the USAm to FCC requirements for EMI.

Questions:
1. What is the frequency range of EMI radiated emissions for the EUT in 
question?
According to § 15.33 of Part 15:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15#15.33

[image.png]
My understanding is that the above mentioned EUT must be tested up to at least  
10 x 2.4 GHz = 24 GHz for radiated emissions, with the limits specified in § 
15.109 (Field strength in uVolts/m).

2. Does it make any difference wrt question 1 (EMI frequency range), if the 
2.4G Bluetooth module is already covered by a Declaration of conformity or 
certified according to FCC 47 CFR Part 2 Subpart J (spurious emissions, or 
Radio tests) ?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-2/subpart-J

According to a colleague of mine, if the Bluetooth module is already Radio 
tested and/or certified, we may test the subject EUT as an "unintentional 
radiator" (Subpart B), excluding the 2.4 GHz and the 10x rule, but using the 5x 
highest frequency rule for unintentional radiators as the radiated EMI range.

[image.png]
I'm not at all convinced..

I hope someone in this forum can clarify this.

Thanks a lot in advance and happy holidays!

Paolo





-


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

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

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

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

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

For policy que

[PSES] FCC Part 15 - Frequency range of radiated emissions

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi all,

an EUT with built-in Bluetooth 2.4 GHz module must be tested - as any
electrical/electronic equipment sold in the USAm to FCC requirements for
EMI.

Questions:
1. What is the frequency range of EMI radiated emissions for the EUT in
question?
According to § 15.33 of Part 15:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15#15.33

[image: image.png]
My understanding is that the above mentioned EUT must be tested up to at
least  10 x 2.4 GHz = 24 GHz for radiated emissions, with the limits
specified in § 15.109 (Field strength in uVolts/m).

2. Does it make any difference wrt question 1 (EMI frequency range), if the
2.4G Bluetooth module is already covered by a Declaration of conformity or
certified according to FCC 47 CFR Part 2 Subpart J (spurious emissions, or
Radio tests) ?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-2/subpart-J

According to a colleague of mine, if the Bluetooth module is already Radio
tested and/or certified, we may test the subject EUT as an "unintentional
radiator" (Subpart B), excluding the 2.4 GHz and the 10x rule, but using
the 5x highest frequency rule for unintentional radiators as the radiated
EMI range.

[image: image.png]

I'm not at all convinced..

I hope someone in this forum can clarify this.

Thanks a lot in advance and happy holidays!

Paolo

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

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

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

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

It is an uncontrolled measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

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

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

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

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

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

It is an uncontrolled measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261




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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

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

 
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org
=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbu
ww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwE

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Charles Grasso]

Hi Doug et al,

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

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

Chas

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

>  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
>
> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Thinking aloud here:
>
>
>
> This strikes me as more of a flicker/inrush current kind of problem,
> whereas conducted emissions would be more of a steady state problem.
>
>
>
> In the AC mains flicker test it’s a “stiff” supply and a series impedance
> over which to measure the inrush current. In your case, the DC supply
> inrush probably won’t be dictated by EMC standards but by system
> performance, acceptable dips in supply rails, decoupling, etc.
> Inductance/capacitance of the interconnecting supply lines will probably be
> less than that created by the LISN.
>
>
>
> Conducted emissions are always there when the equipment is running. To my
> knowledge tests aren’t commonly carried out during power transitions, maybe
> for this very reason?
>
>
>
> If the power bus to the EUT isn’t “primary” of “platform” power in the
> context of a military or automotive standard, or if the cables don’t
> resemble an AC mains distribution network, where does the requirement to
> measure conducted emissions come from?
>
>
>
> If the power is only derived from the source unit that toggles the power
> to it, and if that source unit only powers this one device, then conducted
> emissions might be better measured on the input to the source device
> instead?
>
>
>
> Interesting issue.
>
>
>
> Anyway, hope this helps.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> James Pawson
>
> The EMC Problem Solver
>
>
>
> *Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*
>
> *EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA :
> Consultancy*
>
>
>
> www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |  ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk
>
> +44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957
>
> 2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL
>
> Registered in England and Wales # 10574298
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* doug emcesd.com 
> *Sent:* 10 December 2021 04:00
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
>
>
>
> Not a car. The power to our EUT is cycled by a a device. To put it on the
> other side of the LISN  would not mean much as we have no control of that
> device. And even if we did that, the continuous interruption of the DC
> current would still send the LISN into oscillation at each current edge.
>
>
>
> Doug Smith
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> IPhone: 408-858-4528
>
> Office: 702-570-6108
>
> Email: d...@dsmith.org
>
> Website: http://dsmith.org
> --
>
> *From:* Ken Javor 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 9, 2021 7:55:05 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question
>
>
>
> The purpose of a LISN when testing for vehicular use is to simulate the
> common impedance between battery and fuse block.
>
> There should be no power cycling “behind” the LISN, because in the vehicle
> there is no switch between battery and fuse block other than the ignition
> switch itself.
>
> Therefore the power cycling device goes between the LISN output and the
> switched load.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *Douglas Smith  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>
> >
> *Reply-To: *Douglas Smith  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__doug-40emcesd.com=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=OVcQCPr1r2j4G99wMQoHdTA8Uh-Ecshq2eAiFJgY7Xc=>
> >
> *Date: *Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:16:51 +
> *To: * <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__EMC-2DPSTC-40LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Doug,

 

Thinking aloud here:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Interesting issue.

 

Anyway, hope this helps.

James

 

 

 

 

James Pawson

The EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

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

 

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

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

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

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

 

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

 

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

 

Doug Smith

Sent from my iPhone

IPhone: 408-858-4528

Office: 702-570-6108

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

Website: http://dsmith.org

  _  

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

 

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

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

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

 
-
--

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Heckrotte, Michael]

Hi Doug,

Consider using a voltage probe instead of a LISN.


Best Regards,
Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


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

Hi All,

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

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

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

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

-


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

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

Hi All,

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

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

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

Doug
[cid:3721931705_1385162]

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=ZlitdX1VfubivGC9jkpGQcoDatsRqj9Wo2t42QNZdps=>>

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

Hi All,

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

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

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

Doug
[cid:3721931705_1385162]

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__emc-2Dpstc-40ieee.org=DwMFAw=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=c9NR2mGfldry-2pM9Bbuww=kavBu9H9umaS2l7Zwzp81cdwEgTt9UJa3f56hflvA8A=ZlitdX1VfubivGC9jkpGQcoDatsRqj9Wo2t42QNZdps=>>

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[Ken Javor]

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

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

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

 
-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] unusual conducted emissions question

[doug emcesd.com]

Hi All,

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Non-isolated Solar Invertor EMC emissions

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

>
Matthew Wilson
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
https://gbelectronics.uk
+44 (0)1903 244 500
Ascot House//Mulberry Close//Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea//West Sussex//BN12 4QY//UK

Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
-Original Message-
>From: Agar, Philip (Leonardo, UK) <165a27c6a118-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
>Sent: 12 October 2021 15:00
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [PSES] Non-isolated Solar Invertor EMC emissions
>


*snip*

>I then set
>to introduce Schaffner FN2010-30-08 filters into both the PV array input
>and AC mains output of the invertor but with no significant success

With those type of filters, the question is 'how' did you employ it? From my 
experience if the outer metallic enclosure of the filter is not really well 
bonded to a large lump of metal chassis of the equipment making the EMC racket, 
preferably at 'ground' potential, they don't do much.

Once we cured a load of conducted noise emanating from some equipment simply by 
scratching a bit of paint off the chassis and using two 10p serrated star 
washers under a similar filter component.

The filter is also needing to be located 'at the edge' of the equipment 
otherwise noise will simply get reintroduced in to the filtered side.

>If so, on what basis might EMC compliance be claimed for such a unit?

Ask to see the equipment's declaration of conformity!

Good luck.

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Non-isolated Solar Invertor EMC emissions

[Agar, Philip (Leonardo, UK)]

Background:

I have been installing a recently manufactured 230 Vac 5.5 kW pure sine 
non-isolated solar invertor whose design exploits the PV array input operating 
in the same power domain as the AC mains output, i.e. no isolating 
transformers.  Noticing that my medium wave and long wave reception was now no 
longer possible due to the loud hum received right through the bands, I hung an 
oscilloscope on the mains wiring and noticed a 300 Vpp 50 Hz square wave with 
sharp edges (around 1-5 us order) superimposed (common mode) upon the AC mains 
output.  The AC mains itself is otherwise a well formed near sinusoidal 50 Hz 
waveform with only minor distortion at cross-over. 

Not wishing to cause nuisance interference to myself or others, I read the 
installation manual from cover to cover for guidance on EMC but found nothing 
and so began to try and understand how the issue might be resolved.  
Appreciating that the superimposed waveform might be influenced by the 
parasitic capacitance of the PV array relative to ground, I measured the 
parasitic capacitance as approximately 23 nF (this was not surprising in view 
of the length of underground cabling and PV array size).  I then set to 
introduce Schaffner FN2010-30-08 filters into both the PV array input and AC 
mains output of the invertor but with no significant success.  I am currently 
theorising that the level of the emission is so high that the common mode 
filtering inductor of this filter type is saturating. 

Question:
Is it widely recognised that this type of invertor design is associated with 
high levels of EMC emissions? If so, on what basis might EMC compliance be 
claimed for such a unit?  Perhaps there are specialist EMC filters targeted at 
this kind of invertor design.

Phil 
EMC Engineer
Leonardo UK Ltd

Registered Office: 1 Eagle Place, St James’s, London SW1Y 6AF

A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended

recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended

recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.

You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or

distribute its contents to any other person.




-

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lee Hill]

Hi everyone:

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

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

What a pain!

Thanks in advance

Best Regards

Lee & Randal
SILENT Solutions LLC

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[Carl Newton]

Hello Brian,

I worked for two industrial computer companies for many years in the 
past.  Way back in the '90's when  you could actually contact the FCC 
directly and get an answer I put this question to the OET and the answer 
at that time is that an industrial device is only exempt if it performed 
test and/or control only.  If it performed any other function such as 
distributing or printing data, for example, it was not exempt.


The following updated information (April 2020) within document "772105 
D01 Exempt Devices v01" can be found at the link below.


   c) Digital devices used EXCLUSIVELY as industrial test equipment,
   commercial test equipment, or medical test equipment. “Test
   equipment” includes devices used for maintenance, research,
   evaluation, simulation, and other analytical or scientific
   applications, in areas such as industrial plants, public utilities,
   hospitals, universities, laboratories, automotive service centers,
   and electronics repair shops. Devices designed for home use, such as
   consumer blood pressure meters, bathroom scales, and digital
   thermometers, do not fall under this exemption.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=j==s=web==rja=8=2ahUKEwj_8aiXr5nuAhXfAp0JHb2UDRsQFjAAegQIAxAC=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.fcc.gov%2Fkdb%2FGetAttachment.html%3Fid%3DaPHDD74GRH5N2s050fBjxA%253D%253D%26desc%3D772105%2520D01%2520Exempt%2520Devices%2520v01r01%26tracking_number%3D33062=AOvVaw1Mk1BMyAt4NZTEeO_bxGjd 
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=j==s=web==rja=8=2ahUKEwj_8aiXr5nuAhXfAp0JHb2UDRsQFjAAegQIAxAC=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.fcc.gov%2Fkdb%2FGetAttachment.html%3Fid%3DaPHDD74GRH5N2s050fBjxA%253D%253D%26desc%3D772105%2520D01%2520Exempt%2520Devices%2520v01r01%26tracking_number%3D33062=AOvVaw1Mk1BMyAt4NZTEeO_bxGjd>


Carl

On 1/12/2021 12:21 PM, Brian Kunde wrote:
I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could 
use some advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC 
emissions.


I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment 
does not have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the 
manufacturer of the equipment.  Is this true? I was told that 
interference is unlikely, even if the equipment exceeds the FCC 
emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC limits is recommended, and 
voluntary, but not required.  True?



On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, 
it has to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity 
tests.   Is that correct?



Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be 
appreciated.


The Other Brian


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 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 
<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/ 
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.


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


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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[Dennis Ward]

While for many industrial devices part 15 may not be required, they will 
generally have some portion of part 18 limits and requirements that must be 
met. And part 18 is FCC

[cid:image002.png@01D6E8D6.5F702A00]
Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com<mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com> | 
www.pctest.com<http://www.pctest.com/> | 
www.element.com<http://www.element.com/>

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

From: André Videira 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
Just saw I sent my e-mail only to Brian.


Hello Brian,

I worked for some time with industrial equipment, and rarely FCC was required.
>From my understanding, it is only required if your machine has any type of 
>radio device in it.

About the Europe requirements, this depends a bit on the product you are 
testing ans certifying.
Usually, the equipment has its own standard, and should be referred to it.
This standard sometimes may have different levels from the EN 55011, even 
though it uses the same setup for tests.
It is a case-by-case evaluation.

I worked a long time with frequency inverters, and its basic standard for EMC 
is the IEC/EN 61800-3.
In this standard, the test setup is almost the same as from the EN 55011 (the 
standard is referenced, but there are a few differences) , but there there are 
changes in the limits (they are called C1, C2, C3 and C4, instead of Class A 
and Class B).
For example, the C3 from radiated emission is a higher limit, that I don't 
remember if there is any similar in EN 55011.

Hope I could help a bit.

Best regards,
André

Em ter, 12 de jan de 2021 18:21, Brian Kunde 
mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> escreveu:
I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use some 
advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.

I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does not 
have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of the 
equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely, even if 
the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC limits is 
recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?


On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it has 
to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is that 
correct?


Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be appreciated.

The Other Brian


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org<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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Ccdaea1fb2f2b4843fd8308d8b7259e45%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460719499557349%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Jj4h8mprpRa6YTgD%2BpcLz2yc8huQjezEW4l1gafxH7Y%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Ccdaea1fb2f2b4843fd8308d8b7259e45%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460719499567345%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=j7qnYNdDuT%2FVKLoK9AibkZkGq8%2F14Ie4ZLWj0BNr5yY%3D=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Ccdaea1fb2f2b4843fd8308d8b7259e45%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460719499577341%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=LAyJysGfBozQomofPtqKoh%2Fl%2F2Uh84fBXfwCjAsNUj8%3D=0>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=04%7C01%7Cde

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[Dennis Ward]

A couple of things

1 Never put a lot of confidence in statements like 
interference is unlikely.

2 Exemption from having a specific technical limit or 
exemption from FCC authorization, does not mean exemption from compliance.  
Industrial digital devices are subject to the general rules of 15.5 which 
states they are not to cause interference, and if they do they are to stop 
operating.  Industrial devices also have a specific interference mitigation 
process they may have to go through if they are found to cause interference.

3 The exemption for industrial equipment under 15.103 
applies ONLY to test equipment.  Many, if not all, Industrial devices do have 
technical limits in Part 18. They also may have general emissions limits 
outside the actual operating frequencies of the device in that rule part.  
While these limits may be more relaxed than part 15, they none the less do 
exist.

4 If the "industrial machine" is not a piece of test 
equipment, is not an appliance, is not a transportation vehicle or an 
electronic or power control system or the like, exemption under 15.103 cannot 
be applied.  Also most industrial devices are likely to be subject to the 
specific limits in Part 18.
Thanks
[cid:image001.png@01D6E8D4.F393F880]
Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com<mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com> | 
www.pctest.com<http://www.pctest.com/> | 
www.element.com<http://www.element.com/>

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:22 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use some 
advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.

I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does not 
have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of the 
equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely, even if 
the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC limits is 
recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?


On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it has 
to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is that 
correct?


Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be appreciated.

The Other Brian


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Cad55fa7a47344a6cedca08d8b71e8ed9%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460689173423667%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=SoRfiakt0FAKjf0OP6YhrWKSumqiOE%2FzxyGHOleZpXA%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Cad55fa7a47344a6cedca08d8b71e8ed9%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460689173423667%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=OtSIvm4vtZCRo70KwAojWzTdBZocKvvbY4NHcd0sBmY%3D=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Cad55fa7a47344a6cedca08d8b71e8ed9%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637460689173433659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=qY0ru%2BRucstF%2F1zOIaL%2FznKFjAau5Jvl%2BlGrp4kDXZE%3D=0>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7Cad55fa7a47344a6cedca08d8b71e8ed9%7C048204512a274c35

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[Bill Stumpf]

Brian,
Industrial equipment is not exempt from FCC Part 15 regulations.  The common 
belief that it is exempt is based on a misinterpretation of Part 15 Section 
15.103(c) which states as exempt "A digital device used exclusively as 
industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment.".  I sent an inquiry to the 
FCC some time ago and their response was: “It is an exemption for demonstrating 
compliance for the digital logic contained in test equipment exclusively used 
in commercial, medical and industrial situations, not commercial equipment.”
Therefore, unless the industrial equipment is test equipment, it is not exempt. 
 Note however that even exempt equipment is subject to the general conditions 
of operation contained in Section 15.5 and 15.29 that the operator of the 
exempted device shall be required to stop operating the device upon a finding 
by the Commission or its representative that the device is causing harmful 
interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the 
harmful interference has been corrected. Although not mandatory, it is strongly 
recommended that the manufacturer of an exempted device endeavor to have the 
device meet the specific technical standards in this part.
Basically, the procedure for the equipment authorizations is verifying that the 
device is within limits for unintentionally radiating unwanted emissions as 
good quality engineering.

Refer also to FCC KDB 772105 
D01<https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=aPHDD74GRH5N2s050fBjxA%3D%3D=772105%20D01%20Exempt%20Devices%20v01r01_number=33062>

Bill Stumpf - Lab/Technical Manager
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
166 South Carter Street
Genoa City, WI 53128
262-279-0210




From: Brian Kunde [mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:22 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use some 
advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.

I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does not 
have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of the 
equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely, even if 
the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC limits is 
recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?


On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it has 
to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is that 
correct?


Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be appreciated.

The Other Brian


-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[André Videira]

Just saw I sent my e-mail only to Brian.


Hello Brian,

I worked for some time with industrial equipment, and rarely FCC was
required.
>From my understanding, it is only required if your machine has any type of
radio device in it.

About the Europe requirements, this depends a bit on the product you are
testing ans certifying.
Usually, the equipment has its own standard, and should be referred to it.
This standard sometimes may have different levels from the EN 55011, even
though it uses the same setup for tests.
It is a case-by-case evaluation.

I worked a long time with frequency inverters, and its basic standard for
EMC is the IEC/EN 61800-3.
In this standard, the test setup is almost the same as from the EN 55011
(the standard is referenced, but there are a few differences) , but there
there are changes in the limits (they are called C1, C2, C3 and C4, instead
of Class A and Class B).
For example, the C3 from radiated emission is a higher limit, that I don't
remember if there is any similar in EN 55011.

Hope I could help a bit.

Best regards,
André

Em ter, 12 de jan de 2021 18:21, Brian Kunde 
escreveu:

> I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use
> some advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.
>
> I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does
> not have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of
> the equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely,
> even if the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC
> limits is recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?
>
>
> On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it
> has to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is
> that correct?
>
>
> Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be
> appreciated.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[MIKE SHERMAN]

Brian --

I'm also interested in hearing from our group on the FCC question.

Regarding Europe: be careful on applying 55011. Read the scope closely. It is 
my belief that it applies to a much narrower subset of industrial machinery 
than the generic heavy industrial standards 61000-6-2 and 61000-6-4.

Mike

> On 01/12/2021 11:21 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:
>  
>  
> I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use 
> some advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.
>  
> I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does 
> not have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of 
> the equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely, even 
> if the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC limits 
> is recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?
>  
>  
> On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it 
> has to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is 
> that correct?
>  
>  
> Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be 
> appreciated.
>  
> The Other Brian
>  
>  
> -
> 
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org >
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site 
> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in 
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org >
> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org >
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org >
> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com >
> 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] FCC Emissions on Industrial Equipment

[Brian Kunde]

I am working on the first Industrial Machine of my career so I could use
some advice and clarification regarding the requirements for FCC emissions.

I have been told by many that in North America, Industrial Equipment does
not have to be tested, verified, or anything for FCC by the manufacturer of
the equipment.  Is this true?  I was told that interference is unlikely,
even if the equipment exceeds the FCC emissions limits.   Meeting the FCC
limits is recommended, and voluntary, but not required.  True?


On the other hand,  Europe is not so.  If EE equipment goes to Europe, it
has to pass the EN 55011 emissions test as well as the immunity tests.   Is
that correct?


Any additional information that would be helpful to me would be appreciated.

The Other Brian

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN 50498:2010 Emissions measurement distance

[David Schaefer]

Charlie,

EN 50498 refers back to the old EU automotive directive 2004/104/EC, which uses 
CISPR 25 (2002).  CISPR 25 specifies a 1 meter measurement distance with the 
EUT on a copper bench.

Thanks,


David Schaefer
Operations Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445, United States
O +1 612 638 5136 ext. 4003
david.schae...@element.com
www.element.com
  


From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 7:40 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 50498:2010 Emissions measurement distance


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
All

I couldn't see the measurement distance specified in this standard for 
aftermarket electronic equipment in vehicles - have I missed it, or do you use 
3m as per the emissions standards listed in the bibliography?

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>
Web: 
https://sulisconsultants.com/<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/I5T6Cr8Gqc7mrJ6C7fxSb/>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-


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<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/<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/UlXDCwVNyskNvrPU95fNd/>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/_-OxCxn0zuDXLNBiwIRsD/>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>

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

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

Disclaimer

This email is sent on behalf of Element Materials Technology Group Limited or 
the relevant group company with which you are dealing (together, Element). 
Element Materials Technology Group Limited is a limited company registered in 
England and Wales with registered number 09915743. Its registered office is at 
5 Fleet Place, London, England, United Kingdom, EC4M 7RD and its principal 
place of business is at 10 Lower Grosvenor Place, London, England, United 
Kingdom, SW1W 0EN.

Element cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage sustained as a 
result of viruses or malware and the recipient must ensure that the email and 
attachments are virus and malware free. Emails and attachments are opened at 
your own risk.

The information transferred is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Transmission of this email is not intended to waive confidentiality and/or 
privilege.

The contents of this email are subject to contract and do not contain an offer 
that is capable of acceptance. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with you, the 
Element Standard Terms of Business for the relevant group company apply in 
respect of any services provided to you, including advice given to you by 
email. The Standard Terms of Business are available on request and can be found 
at https://www.element.com/terms/terms-and-conditions

For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see 
our Privacy statement at https://www.element.com/terms/privacy-statement

-

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 

[PSES] EN 50498:2010 Emissions measurement distance

[Charlie Blackham]

All

I couldn't see the measurement distance specified in this standard for 
aftermarket electronic equipment in vehicles - have I missed it, or do you use 
3m as per the emissions standards listed in the bibliography?

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Commercial Standards with strict EMC emissions limits

[Ken Javor]

The international version of RTCA/DO-160 section 21 comes to mind, but that
is only for aircraft use.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Charlie Blackham 
Reply-To: Charlie Blackham 
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 16:12:57 +
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Commercial Standards with strict EMC emissions limits

All
 
I¹m looking at various end applications for a particular radio module and am
drawing up a list of EMC emissions standards applicable to the end product
that have radiated emissions limits that are more stringent than those in
FCC 47CFR15B or EN 55032 Class B in the range 30 ­ 6000 MHz.
 
So far, I have identified:
* EN 60945:2002; Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment
* EN 50498:2010; Aftermarket electronic equipment in vehicles
* CISPR 25; Equipment installed in Vehicles.
 
Are there any other ones that would be applicable in Europe, or other
countries that people are aware of?
 
Best regards
Charlie
 
Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com <mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
 
-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Commercial Standards with strict EMC emissions limits

[Charlie Blackham]

All

I'm looking at various end applications for a particular radio module and am 
drawing up a list of EMC emissions standards applicable to the end product that 
have radiated emissions limits that are more stringent than those in FCC 
47CFR15B or EN 55032 Class B in the range 30 - 6000 MHz.

So far, I have identified:

  *   EN 60945:2002; Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment
  *   EN 50498:2010; Aftermarket electronic equipment in vehicles
  *   CISPR 25; Equipment installed in Vehicles.

Are there any other ones that would be applicable in Europe, or other countries 
that people are aware of?

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for selecting emissions class

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Thanks for the reply Matthew, it ties in very much with some responses I got on 
LinkedIn to this query

 

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6631477154083409920/

 

Primarily that:

*   vehicle manufacturers have specific requirements for anything that gets 
put into their products.
*   No specific guidance for aftermarket components
*   Need to synthesize these requirements from OEM specifications.

 

All the best

James

 

 

 

James Pawson

EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance

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

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

Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

 

From: Matthew Wilson | GBE  
Sent: 07 February 2020 21:24
To: James Pawson (U3C) ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for 
selecting emissions class

 

Maybe some document like this from Ford would help?

 

https://www.elect-spec.com/download/EMC_CS_2009rev1.pdf

 

Similar from Jaguar Land Rover?

 

http://emc.jaguarlandrover.com.edgesuite.net/docs/download/JLR-EMC-CS_v1.0_Amendment_4.pdf

 

Have a look for “Automotive OEM Specifications” on your chosen search engine.

 

HTH.

 

Matthew Wilson,

GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.

 









Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.




​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.

From: James Pawson (U3C) mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> > 
Sent: 05 February 2020 12:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for 
selecting emissions class

 

Hello experts,

 

Can anyone point me towards any guidance for selecting the appropriate CISPR 25 
emissions Class (1-5) based on installation of equipment within a vehicle? The 
standard states “The level class to be used (as a function of the frequency 
band) shall be agreed upon between the vehicle manufacturer and the component 
supplier.”

 

I’m assuming that factors like proximity to radio antenna and length of cables 
will make a difference but can find no guidance after entering a variety of 
search terms.

 

This query is related to aftermarket automotive accessories covered under EN 
50498 which doesn’t specify limits for conducted emissions. 

 

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Thanks and all the best

James

 

James Pawson

EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance

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

www.unit3compliance.co.uk 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3compliance.co.uk%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544030142=ci6vbU2ZVgPD3bqtXLL8p7SNIXuURAVrRaDt8RHYmCI%3D=0>
  -- 07811 139957

Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

 

-


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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544040134=KzA0%2BasE6LeYGfvsF4Cuvxttq4UYmF3SQ0OU0JS%2FVyI%3D=0>
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544040134=NPZ%2Flf53rmKg5fkw4zt9zhRmKQHRdheNyBmLSu8H9G0%3D=0>
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775e

Re: [PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for selecting emissions class

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

Maybe some document like this from Ford would help?

https://www.elect-spec.com/download/EMC_CS_2009rev1.pdf

Similar from Jaguar Land Rover?

http://emc.jaguarlandrover.com.edgesuite.net/docs/download/JLR-EMC-CS_v1.0_Amendment_4.pdf

Have a look for "Automotive OEM Specifications" on your chosen search engine.

HTH.

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.


Matthew Wilson
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
https://gbelectronics.uk
+44 (0)1903 244 500
Ascot House//Mulberry Close//Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea//West Sussex//BN12 4QY//UK

Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your 
system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are 
not the views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: James Pawson (U3C) 
Sent: 05 February 2020 12:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for 
selecting emissions class

Hello experts,

Can anyone point me towards any guidance for selecting the appropriate CISPR 25 
emissions Class (1-5) based on installation of equipment within a vehicle? The 
standard states "The level class to be used (as a function of the frequency 
band) shall be agreed upon between the vehicle manufacturer and the component 
supplier."

I'm assuming that factors like proximity to radio antenna and length of cables 
will make a difference but can find no guidance after entering a variety of 
search terms.

This query is related to aftermarket automotive accessories covered under EN 
50498 which doesn't specify limits for conducted emissions.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks and all the best
James

James Pawson
EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance
Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing / Consultancy / 
Environmental & Vibration
www.unit3compliance.co.uk<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unit3compliance.co.uk%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544030142=ci6vbU2ZVgPD3bqtXLL8p7SNIXuURAVrRaDt8RHYmCI%3D=0>
 -- 07811 139957
Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

-


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://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544040134=KzA0%2BasE6LeYGfvsF4Cuvxttq4UYmF3SQ0OU0JS%2FVyI%3D=0>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fproduct-compliance.oc.ieee.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544040134=NPZ%2Flf53rmKg5fkw4zt9zhRmKQHRdheNyBmLSu8H9G0%3D=0>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2F=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544040134=apjfvm8IuoyjPBVyL5ngl1C0m6kI9ezIWhEEt9jw2b4%3D=0>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flist.html=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544050127=RUJW69m0VYQGV04T7E0tsKBncCYponHLIuNt91UIXsU%3D=0>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Flistrules.html=02%7C01%7Cmatthew.wilson%40gbelectronics.com%7Cef249e3e271a46775ed708d7aa34360c%7C0991060a48f54e72abaa7189692c6192%7C1%7C0%7C637165013544050127=UYVhXbrRXssWQZMyxyeUzI6%2FpVvXoHYTOVJROUKc1X8%3D=0>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug..

[PSES] CISPR 25 Limits for conducted disturbances - guidance for selecting emissions class

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello experts,

 

Can anyone point me towards any guidance for selecting the appropriate CISPR
25 emissions Class (1-5) based on installation of equipment within a
vehicle? The standard states "The level class to be used (as a function of
the frequency band) shall be agreed upon between the vehicle manufacturer
and the component supplier."

 

I'm assuming that factors like proximity to radio antenna and length of
cables will make a difference but can find no guidance after entering a
variety of search terms.

 

This query is related to aftermarket automotive accessories covered under EN
50498 which doesn't specify limits for conducted emissions. 

 

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Thanks and all the best

James

 

James Pawson

EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance

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

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

Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

 


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] FW: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

[itl-emc user group]

From: micha...@acbcert.com 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method 
enforcement

Hi Charles, I hope you are well.

When performing your 15.109 emissions (part 15 subpart B) on the digital device 
part of the product, you should have the transmitter part active (powered) but 
it does not need to be transmitting.   Receiver mode would be nice, or active 
scanning, or something like that.
You then test your unintentional radiator emissions from the whole product, to 
Part 15.109, with module powered but not transmitting.
Remember that your module may now become the highest frequency item in your 
product, so consider that when figuring out which frequency to test to.
(e.g., if you installed a 5.85 GHz WLAN, then your 15.109 emissions need to be 
done up to ≥29.25 GHz).
If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the digital device 
operation of any part of your product (host or module), it is a fail.

Then, with your module transmitting, you need to perform the checks to ensure 
that the final product meets the transmitter spurious emissions tests/limits of 
15.407.
If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the transmitter part of 
your product, or a result of the interaction between transmitter and host, it 
is a fail.

If you see a fail, fix it, get it passing, sell it, get rich, retire.   I think 
that's the plan, at least.


Thanks,

Michael.


Michael Derby
Senior Regulatory Engineer
Director
ACB Europe

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry
Web:   www.acbcert.com<http://www.acbcert.com/>

e-mail:micha...@acbcert.com<mailto:micha...@acbcert.com>
Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code)
Corporate office phone: USA:   (+1) 703 847 4700




From: Grasso, Charles mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com>>
Sent: 20 November 2019 17:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

EMC Gurus,

According to KDB789033 (Note3) : After January 01, 2019 all emissions are 
required to meet the limits as specified in the rules and it will not be 
sufficient to
show compliance to the limits specified in Section 15.209.  [This means that, 
for Bands 1, 2a, and 2c, there is ONLY a Peak limit for spurious radiated 
emissions
that are outside of the restricted bands (-27 dBm/MHz, or 68.2 dBuV/m @ 3m).  
[There is no Average limit for these spurs that are not in restricted bands.]

Question: Based on the modular method for applying FCC regulations it is my 
understanding that a radio should be tested to compliance for limits as 
specified in Sections 15.407(b)(1-3)
BUT then (even with the radio on) the digital portion of an EUT needs to show 
compliance to only 15.109? In other words, when testing the digital portion of 
a radio
*any* radio spurious emissions that exceed the 109 limits can be ignored?

Am I wrong?

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974

-


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

F

Re: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

[Grasso, Charles]

Thank for comment Michael!
Shame not seeing you at the TCBC conference. Perhaps next year?

From: micha...@acbcert.com 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 2:24 AM
To: Grasso, Charles ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method 
enforcement


 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
micha...@acbcert.com<mailto:micha...@acbcert.com>
Hi Charles, I hope you are well.

When performing your 15.109 emissions (part 15 subpart B) on the digital device 
part of the product, you should have the transmitter part active (powered) but 
it does not need to be transmitting.   Receiver mode would be nice, or active 
scanning, or something like that.
You then test your unintentional radiator emissions from the whole product, to 
Part 15.109, with module powered but not transmitting.
Remember that your module may now become the highest frequency item in your 
product, so consider that when figuring out which frequency to test to.
(e.g., if you installed a 5.85 GHz WLAN, then your 15.109 emissions need to be 
done up to ≥29.25 GHz).
If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the digital device 
operation of any part of your product (host or module), it is a fail.

Then, with your module transmitting, you need to perform the checks to ensure 
that the final product meets the transmitter spurious emissions tests/limits of 
15.407.
If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the transmitter part of 
your product, or a result of the interaction between transmitter and host, it 
is a fail.

If you see a fail, fix it, get it passing, sell it, get rich, retire.   I think 
that's the plan, at least.


Thanks,

Michael.


Michael Derby
Senior Regulatory Engineer
Director
ACB Europe

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry
Web:   www.acbcert.com<http://www.acbcert.com/>

e-mail:micha...@acbcert.com<mailto:micha...@acbcert.com>
Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code)
Corporate office phone: USA:   (+1) 703 847 4700




From: Grasso, Charles mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com>>
Sent: 20 November 2019 17:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

EMC Gurus,

According to KDB789033 (Note3) : After January 01, 2019 all emissions are 
required to meet the limits as specified in the rules and it will not be 
sufficient to
show compliance to the limits specified in Section 15.209.  [This means that, 
for Bands 1, 2a, and 2c, there is ONLY a Peak limit for spurious radiated 
emissions
that are outside of the restricted bands (-27 dBm/MHz, or 68.2 dBuV/m @ 3m).  
[There is no Average limit for these spurs that are not in restricted bands.]

Question: Based on the modular method for applying FCC regulations it is my 
understanding that a radio should be tested to compliance for limits as 
specified in Sections 15.407(b)(1-3)
BUT then (even with the radio on) the digital portion of an EUT needs to show 
compliance to only 15.109? In other words, when testing the digital portion of 
a radio
*any* radio spurious emissions that exceed the 109 limits can be ignored?

Am I wrong?

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 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.h

Re: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

[michaeld]

Hi Charles, I hope you are well.

 

When performing your 15.109 emissions (part 15 subpart B) on the digital
device part of the product, you should have the transmitter part active
(powered) but it does not need to be transmitting.   Receiver mode would be
nice, or active scanning, or something like that.

You then test your unintentional radiator emissions from the whole product,
to Part 15.109, with module powered but not transmitting.

Remember that your module may now become the highest frequency item in your
product, so consider that when figuring out which frequency to test to.

(e.g., if you installed a 5.85 GHz WLAN, then your 15.109 emissions need to
be done up to ?29.25 GHz).

If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the digital device
operation of any part of your product (host or module), it is a fail.

 

Then, with your module transmitting, you need to perform the checks to
ensure that the final product meets the transmitter spurious emissions
tests/limits of 15.407.

If you see emissions exceeding the limit which are from the transmitter part
of your product, or a result of the interaction between transmitter and
host, it is a fail.

 

If you see a fail, fix it, get it passing, sell it, get rich, retire.   I
think that's the plan, at least.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

Michael Derby 

Senior Regulatory Engineer 

Director 

ACB Europe 

 

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry 

Web:<http://www.acbcert.com/> www.acbcert.com 

  

e-mail: <mailto:micha...@acbcert.com> micha...@acbcert.com 

Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code) 

Corporate office phone: USA:   (+1) 703 847 4700 

 

 

 

 

From: Grasso, Charles  
Sent: 20 November 2019 17:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method
enforcement

 

EMC Gurus,

 

According to KDB789033 (Note3) : After January 01, 2019 all emissions are
required to meet the limits as specified in the rules and it will not be
sufficient to 

show compliance to the limits specified in Section 15.209.  [This means
that, for Bands 1, 2a, and 2c, there is ONLY a Peak limit for spurious
radiated emissions 

that are outside of the restricted bands (-27 dBm/MHz, or 68.2 dBuV/m @ 3m).
[There is no Average limit for these spurs that are not in restricted
bands.]

 

Question: Based on the modular method for applying FCC regulations it is my
understanding that a radio should be tested to compliance for limits as
specified in Sections 15.407(b)(1-3)
BUT then (even with the radio on) the digital portion of an EUT needs to
show compliance to only 15.109? In other words, when testing the digital
portion of a radio
*any* radio spurious emissions that exceed the 109 limits can be ignored?

 

Am I wrong?

 

Thanks!

 

Charles Grasso

(w) 303-706-5467

(c) 303-204-2974

 

-


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

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

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Question on 15.407 spurious emissions testing method enforcement

[Grasso, Charles]

EMC Gurus,

According to KDB789033 (Note3) : After January 01, 2019 all emissions are 
required to meet the limits as specified in the rules and it will not be 
sufficient to
show compliance to the limits specified in Section 15.209.  [This means that, 
for Bands 1, 2a, and 2c, there is ONLY a Peak limit for spurious radiated 
emissions
that are outside of the restricted bands (-27 dBm/MHz, or 68.2 dBuV/m @ 3m).  
[There is no Average limit for these spurs that are not in restricted bands.]

Question: Based on the modular method for applying FCC regulations it is my 
understanding that a radio should be tested to compliance for limits as 
specified in Sections 15.407(b)(1-3)
BUT then (even with the radio on) the digital portion of an EUT needs to show 
compliance to only 15.109? In other words, when testing the digital portion of 
a radio
*any* radio spurious emissions that exceed the 109 limits can be ignored?

Am I wrong?

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Bill,

 

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

 

Ghery S. Pettit, iNCE

Pettit EMC Consulting LLC

 

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

 

radiated emissions go a bit lower.


§15.209   Radiated emission limits; general requirements.


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


Frequency (MHz)

Field strength (microvolts/meter)

Measurement distance (meters)


0.009-0.490

2400/F(kHz)

300


0.490-1.705

24000/F(kHz)

30


1.705-30.0

30

30


30-88

100**

3


88-216

150**

3


216-960

200**

3


Above 960

500

3

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

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

Hello group,

 

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

 

Thank you

Peter

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

 


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

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

-


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

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

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

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

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

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society e

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Bill Owsley]

 radiated emissions go a bit lower.

§15.209   Radiated emission limits; general requirements.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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


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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://p

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Andrew Perry]

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

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

AP

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Woodgate]

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


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

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


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


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


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


Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

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

Hello group,

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


Thank you
Peter
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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



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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Woodgate]

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

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

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


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


John E Allen

W. London, UK

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

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

Hello group,

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


Thank you

Peter

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ken Javor]

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

   

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

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

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

Hope that helps.
 

Respectfully,
 

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Ken Javor]

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

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

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

Hello group,

 

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

 

Thank you

Peter
-

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[Brent DeWitt]

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


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


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


Hope that helps.

Respectfully,

Brent DeWitt, AB1LF

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

Hello group,

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


Thank you
Peter
-


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


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


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


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

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

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

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




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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[John Allen]

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

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

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

 

Hello group,

 

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

 

Thank you

Peter

-


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


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

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

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

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

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


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] Frequency range for conducted emissions

[000006cee064502d-dmarc-request]

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Ken Javor]

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

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



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

   

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[John Woodgate]

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


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


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


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

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


Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new 
cars roof for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there 
is (as long as the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing 
against it. If it allows you to reliably position your AMN devices 
you  need, a swiss cheese will be the best solution.


Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and 
me. Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their 
knowledge (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and 
many of them will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need 
to pay to transfer their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack 
motivation (or are not allowed ) to really spend time in correcting, 
drafting and searching for problems in standards texts. Participating 
in standards work is a kind of charity, but for those who are 
nominated to defend their employers interests. So small errors are 
easily overlooked, and it seems that you found a few of them.


Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, 
experiment and verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. 
EMC testing is not an exact science and standards are should be read 
as a generic guideline. No-one will notice the differences in set-up 
and no-one will challenge them as their own experience will be 
similar. If your are to be audited, referring to the open issues in 
the standard might help.


Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and 
small difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where 
the equipment set up and the room calibration will give you a 
measurement uncertainty (MU) of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT 
setup will easily add 15-20 dB to that.


Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32 
(former 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om 
measurement volumes.



Gert Gremmen




-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Gert Gremmen]

Drilling holes in  (new) chamber is like drilling holes in your new cars 
roof for an antenna. I can imagine your hesitation. However there is (as 
long as the holes are not to big and correctly made) nothing against it. 
If it allows you to reliably position your AMN devices you  need, a 
swiss cheese will be the best solution.


Regarding the standards... standards are written by guys like you and 
me. Experts in the WG and national committees are not paid for their 
knowledge (which actually is one of the finest on the planet !) , and 
many of them will confirm that they (or their employer) actually need to 
pay to transfer their expertise to IEC. Many members will lack 
motivation (or are not allowed ) to really spend time in correcting, 
drafting and searching for problems in standards texts. Participating in 
standards work is a kind of charity, but for those who are nominated to 
defend their employers interests. So small errors are easily overlooked, 
and it seems that you found a few of them.


Please do not worry and find your own (defendable) solutions, experiment 
and verify if measurement differences occur. There will be. EMC testing 
is not an exact science and standards are should be read as a generic 
guideline. No-one will notice the differences in set-up and no-one will 
challenge them as their own experience will be similar. If your are to 
be audited, referring to the open issues in the standard might help.


Cable lay-out is the most difficult part of emission testing, and small 
difference will make sometimes 10's of dB of differences. Where the 
equipment set up and the room calibration will give you a measurement 
uncertainty (MU) of about 5 dB (if all done right) the EUT setup will 
easily add 15-20 dB to that.


Oh and if you are interested into a better test set-up than CISPR32 
(former 22), look into the CISPR 16 series,especially the chapters om 
measurement volumes.



Gert Gremmen


On 9-8-2019 21:17, Andrew Perry wrote:

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where 
we will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking 
at Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place 
our two AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length 
requirements.


Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number 
of AE will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have 
fixed positions for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber 
floor into Swiss cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the 
test table when switching from AC port measurement to let's say, 
network port measurement. Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout 
permits exactly what I'm looking for.  However, reading the note of 
the figure (no longer a note in version 2015, by the way) and looking 
at the distance requirements in table D.1, I don't understand how 
figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without rearrangement.


For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, 
then how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The 
note says that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m 
distance.  So this PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 
m from the AAN?  Is the figure misleading in indicating that each 
device can be EUT or AE at its current position?  Keep in mind that 
Table D.1 also states that all cables must be kept at 0.4 m from the 
vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that showed AMNs all over the 
place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32 now shows all 
AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN to be 
bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm 
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few 
centimeters from the plane?


Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the 
table.  There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this 
insulation, but no minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a 
coat of enamel paint on a metal turntable enough?  I understand that 
bare wires shouldn't make contact with ground if they're not supposed 
to, but is an insulation pad really necessary when cables are not bare?


Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm 
not seeing here.


AP
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/li

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[John Woodgate]

I'm afraid that this is what happens when people (mostly in National 
Committees) accept circulated documents 'because the WG members are 
bound to have done a good job', without actually assuming the opposite 
and go looking for problems. It's all to easy to do.


I /hope I'm wrong in this case/ and someone on CISPR/I WG1 will soon 
explain all, but is certainly seems that, even if the standard is in 
fact totally correct and practicable, it needs clarification.


You say CISPR 32:2012, but the current edition is 2015: 
https://webstore.iec.ch/searchform=CISPR%2032 There were a lot of 
proposals for change when the 2012 edition was published.



Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-08-09 20:17, Andrew Perry wrote:

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where 
we will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking 
at Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place 
our two AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length 
requirements.


Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number 
of AE will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have 
fixed positions for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber 
floor into Swiss cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the 
test table when switching from AC port measurement to let's say, 
network port measurement. Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout 
permits exactly what I'm looking for.  However, reading the note of 
the figure (no longer a note in version 2015, by the way) and looking 
at the distance requirements in table D.1, I don't understand how 
figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without rearrangement.


For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, 
then how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The 
note says that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m 
distance.  So this PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 
m from the AAN?  Is the figure misleading in indicating that each 
device can be EUT or AE at its current position?  Keep in mind that 
Table D.1 also states that all cables must be kept at 0.4 m from the 
vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that showed AMNs all over the 
place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32 now shows all 
AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN to be 
bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm 
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few 
centimeters from the plane?


Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the 
table.  There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this 
insulation, but no minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a 
coat of enamel paint on a metal turntable enough?  I understand that 
bare wires shouldn't make contact with ground if they're not supposed 
to, but is an insulation pad really necessary when cables are not bare?


Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm 
not seeing here.


AP
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Conducted emissions AMN/AAN layout

[Andrew Perry]

My friends,

I am preparing to drill new threaded holes in our chamber floor, where we
will perform our CISPR32 (2012) conducted emissions tests.  Looking at
Table D.1 and figure D.2, I am trying to figure out where to place our two
AMNs and single AAN to meet all of the distance and length requirements.

Our setups will look very much like figure D.2, but shape and number of AE
will vary (naturally).  What boggles my mind is how to have fixed positions
for the AMNs and AAN (I don't want to turn my chamber floor into Swiss
cheese), and avoid having to rearrange the EUT on the test table when
switching from AC port measurement to let's say, network port measurement.
Figure D.2 seems to suggest that its layout permits exactly what I'm
looking for.  However, reading the note of the figure (no longer a note in
version 2015, by the way) and looking at the distance requirements in table
D.1, I don't understand how figure D.2 permits EUTs to become AEs, without
rearrangement.

For example, let's say you are measuring the middle EUT using the AAN, then
how can the PSU at the left be >= 0.8m from the active AAN?  The note says
that if the device is AE, then it shall be at a >= 0.8 m distance.  So this
PSU now being AE, shouldn't it be at more than 0.8 m from the AAN?  Is the
figure misleading in indicating that each device can be EUT or AE at its
current position?  Keep in mind that Table D.1 also states that all cables
must be kept at 0.4 m from the vertical plane.  CISPR22 had figures that
showed AMNs all over the place, even bonded to the vertical plane.  CISPR32
now shows all AMN/AAN at the 40 cm line.  D.2.2 text still allows AMN/AAN
to be bonded to the vertical plane, but then how do you maintain the 40 cm
distance for the cables if their endpoint is essentially at a few
centimeters from the plane?

Another question is about this "new" insulation pad underneath the table.
There is a maximum thickness of 0.15m specified for this insulation, but no
minimum.  Are the cable outer sleeves enough?  Is a coat of enamel paint on
a metal turntable enough?  I understand that bare wires shouldn't make
contact with ground if they're not supposed to, but is an insulation pad
really necessary when cables are not bare?

Please let me know what your thoughts are, there must be something I'm not
seeing here.

AP

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

[David Schaefer]

Brian,

You are correct that you only need to run it through one cycle, per the letter 
of the standard.

If this EUT does cycle often you might want to consider mitigation for customer 
satisfaction reasons, or if it is medical device address this in risk 
management. You do not need to ‘fix the problem’ of a passing result.

Thanks,


David Schaefer
Department Manager, EMC
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445, United States
O +1 612 638 5136 ext. 4003
david.schae...@element.com
www.element.com
 


From: Brian Kunde [mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 8:24 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

Reference IEC/EN 61000-3-3:2013 section 6.5 regarding Observation Period. The 
Electrical Equipment (EE) under test is NOT listed in Annex A.

We are trying to make sure we are testing a product correctly. Your help would 
be greatly appreciated.

The EE has a cycle time of about 15 to 20 minutes.  Since the cycle time is 
greater than 10 minutes, it is my understanding that the cycle is NOT repeated 
to determine the Plt.  So would it be correct to start up a 2-hour test, run 
the EE through a single cycle and then just let the EE run in standby mode for 
the remainder of the 2-hour test?



Here is our situation.  We have an EE under test that passes the 10 minute Pst 
limit with a value around 0.8 (1 is the limit).  If we repeat the operational 
cycle over and over again during the 2-hour test, we again will get a Plt value 
of about 0.8 (limit is 0.65) and Fail.  But if we run the cycle only once and 
then let the EE sit in standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test, the 
Plt will creep down below 0.65 and pass the test.

Again, we want to make sure we are performing the test correctly according to 
the standard.

Thanks to all for help on this.

The Other Brian
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
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<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/<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> 
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/<http://www.ieee-pses.org/>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

Disclaimer

This email is sent on behalf of Element Materials Technology Group Limited or 
the relevant group company with which you are dealing (together, Element). 
Element Materials Technology Group Limited is a limited company registered in 
England and Wales with registered number 09915743. Its registered office is at 
5 Fleet Place, London, England, United Kingdom, EC4M 7RD and its principal 
place of business is at 10 Lower Grosvenor Place, London, England, United 
Kingdom, SW1W 0EN.

Element cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage sustained as a 
result of viruses or malware and the recipient must ensure that the email and 
attachments are virus and malware free. Emails and attachments are opened at 
your own risk.

The information transferred is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Transmission of this email is not intended to waive confidentiality and/or 
privilege.

The contents of this email are subject to contract and do not contain an offer 
that is capable of acceptance. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with you, the 
Element Standard Terms of Business for the relevant group company apply in 
respect of any services provided to you, including advice given to you by 
email. The Standard Terms of Business are available on request and can be found 
at https://www.element.com/terms/terms-and-conditions

For information about how we process data and monitor communications please see 
our Privacy statement at https://www.element.com/terms/privacy-statement

-

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.o

Re: [PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

[John Woodgate]

 The real question is 'How is the product used?' If running for one 
cycle and then in stand-by for the rest of 2 hours is 'normal 
operation', then test it that way. But if it's usually run more or less 
continually, being switched back on when it stops, then it isn't correct 
to allow it to run in stand-by during the test.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-06-28 14:24, Brian Kunde wrote:
Reference IEC/EN 61000-3-3:2013 section 6.5 regarding Observation 
Period. The Electrical Equipment (EE) under test is NOT listed in 
Annex A.


We are trying to make sure we are testing a product correctly. Your 
help would be greatly appreciated.


The EE has a cycle time of about 15 to 20 minutes.  Since the cycle 
time is greater than 10 minutes, it is my understanding that the cycle 
is NOT repeated to determine the Plt.  So would it be correct to start 
up a 2-hour test, run the EE through a single cycle and then just let 
the EE run in standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test?




Here is our situation.  We have an EE under test that passes the 10 
minute Pst limit with a value around 0.8 (1 is the limit).  If we 
repeat the operational cycle over and over again during the 2-hour 
test, we again will get a Plt value of about 0.8 (limit is 0.65) and 
Fail.  But if we run the cycle only once and then let the EE sit in 
standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test, the Plt will creep 
down below 0.65 and pass the test.


Again, we want to make sure we are performing the test correctly 
according to the standard.


Thanks to all for help on this.

The Other Brian
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

[Wan Juang FOO (NP)]

I have a maxim, do the EMC Test according to the standard, if it passed, do not 
test again.

Tim Foo

From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 9:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

Reference IEC/EN 61000-3-3:2013 section 6.5 regarding Observation Period. The 
Electrical Equipment (EE) under test is NOT listed in Annex A.

We are trying to make sure we are testing a product correctly. Your help would 
be greatly appreciated.

The EE has a cycle time of about 15 to 20 minutes.  Since the cycle time is 
greater than 10 minutes, it is my understanding that the cycle is NOT repeated 
to determine the Plt.  So would it be correct to start up a 2-hour test, run 
the EE through a single cycle and then just let the EE run in standby mode for 
the remainder of the 2-hour test?



Here is our situation.  We have an EE under test that passes the 10 minute Pst 
limit with a value around 0.8 (1 is the limit).  If we repeat the operational 
cycle over and over again during the 2-hour test, we again will get a Plt value 
of about 0.8 (limit is 0.65) and Fail.  But if we run the cycle only once and 
then let the EE sit in standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test, the 
Plt will creep down below 0.65 and pass the test.

Again, we want to make sure we are performing the test correctly according to 
the standard.

Thanks to all for help on this.

The Other Brian
-


NOTICE:
This message may contain privileged/confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient of this email, please delete it immediately and notify the 
sender.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Observation Period during Flicker Emissions Test

[Brian Kunde]

Reference IEC/EN 61000-3-3:2013 section 6.5 regarding Observation Period.
The Electrical Equipment (EE) under test is NOT listed in Annex A.

We are trying to make sure we are testing a product correctly. Your help
would be greatly appreciated.

The EE has a cycle time of about 15 to 20 minutes.  Since the cycle time is
greater than 10 minutes, it is my understanding that the cycle is NOT
repeated to determine the Plt.  So would it be correct to start up a 2-hour
test, run the EE through a single cycle and then just let the EE run in
standby mode for the remainder of the 2-hour test?



Here is our situation.  We have an EE under test that passes the 10 minute
Pst limit with a value around 0.8 (1 is the limit).  If we repeat the
operational cycle over and over again during the 2-hour test, we again will
get a Plt value of about 0.8 (limit is 0.65) and Fail.  But if we run the
cycle only once and then let the EE sit in standby mode for the remainder
of the 2-hour test, the Plt will creep down below 0.65 and pass the test.

Again, we want to make sure we are performing the test correctly according
to the standard.

Thanks to all for help on this.

The Other Brian

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Conducted rf emissions measurements from network ports

[Larry K. Stillings]

Hi Ian,

 

Simply and quickly, no, FCC does not regulate emissions on
telecommunications ports. 

 

They want you to perform 120 VAC, 60 Hz conducted emissions on the AC
side of the POE Injector to show it complies when connected to mains.

 

Same scenario for the 12 V DC port, they want whatever is converting the
12 VDC from 120 VAC, 60 Hz, customer supplied or representative sample
of what the customer suggests to be used with their product.

 

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World! 
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals -
Product Safety 
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
www.complianceworldwide.com <http://www.complianceworldwide.com/> 

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of
this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message
that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

 

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 6:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Conducted rf emissions measurements from network ports

 

Dear Colleagues.

 

We have a product that can be powered from a PoE source as well as 12V
DC.

For the EU EMC regulations, we measure the conducted rf emissions from
the ethernet port when supplied with PoE power. EN 55032 Table A.11

Is the same test required when declaring compliance with the FCC
regulations?

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Ian McBurney

Lead Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

Kernick Industrial estate,

Penryn,

Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.

Tel: 01326 372070

Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

 

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the company. 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Conducted rf emissions measurements from network ports

[McBurney, Ian]

Dear Colleagues.

We have a product that can be powered from a PoE source as well as 12V DC.
For the EU EMC regulations, we measure the conducted rf emissions from the 
ethernet port when supplied with PoE power. EN 55032 Table A.11
Is the same test required when declaring compliance with the FCC regulations?

Many thanks in advance,

Ian McBurney
Lead Compliance Engineer
Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial estate,
Penryn,
Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK.
Tel: 01326 372070
Email: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Magnetic field emissions below 150 kHz, especially 0 Hz to 9 kHz

[All]

Just google download mil std 461G. Several options should pop up.  

Derek. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 6:19 AM, T.Sato  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:43:30 +,
>  John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
>> CISPR standards do not cover the above, but I suppose military and
>> aviation standards may do.  Is there anything available free of
>> charge?
> 
> MIL-STD-461 RE101 covers 30 Hz to 100 kHz magnetic field measurement
> using 13.3 cm loop at distance of 7 cm.
> 
> http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0300-0499/MIL-STD-461_8678/
> 
> Regards,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tomonori Sato  
> URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Magnetic field emissions below 150 kHz, especially 0 Hz to 9 kHz

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:43:30 +,
  John Woodgate  wrote:

> CISPR standards do not cover the above, but I suppose military and
> aviation standards may do.  Is there anything available free of
> charge?

MIL-STD-461 RE101 covers 30 Hz to 100 kHz magnetic field measurement
using 13.3 cm loop at distance of 7 cm.

http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0300-0499/MIL-STD-461_8678/

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Magnetic field emissions below 150 kHz, especially 0 Hz to 9 kHz

[John Woodgate]

CISPR standards do not cover the above, but I suppose military and 
aviation standards may do.  Is there anything available free of charge?


--
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[Ken Javor]

But the original problem stated the limit was in terms of magnetic field,
and since a loop measures magnetic field directly, there is no problem
having to make an assumption about field impedance.

It is only when the limit is in terms of electric field but the quantity
measured is magnetic field using a loop antenna that the problem Cortland
describes is encountered.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Cortland Richmond 
Reply-To: Cortland Richmond 
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:52:57 -0500
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

   

The bottom line here is that the usual emission standards don't take into
account that the non-radiating near H-field falls off as the cube of
distance (an issue with BPL, remember) and the wave impedance in this area
is nowhere near 120 Ohms.   Measuring at 3 meters using 51.5 dB as a
conversion factor just doesn't  hack it.
 
 Some years ago, I had occasion to look for incremental fall-off with
distance from a wheel mounted tire pressure sending unit.  EVERYTHING was in
the non-radiating near field, but I could find no way to take that into
account in the standard.    I needed an H-field antenna with curves for that
distance not derived from E-fields much farther off.
 
 Cortland Richmond
 Semi retired at Belcan,
 Grand Rapids MI
 
 
 On 1/17/19 6:22 PM, John Woodgate wrote:
 
 
>   
> 
> Well, no it isn't. The definition of the decibel is based on power, and is
> only extended to voltage and current by adding the assumption that the
> resistance is constant.  There is no formally-correct way of extending it to
> resistance and even less to impedance. There is a fatal flaw:  Consider
> 10*log(W) = 20*log(V) - 10*log(R), but 20*log(V) = 20*log(I) + 20*log(R).  The
> multiplier is 10 sometimes and 20 at other times. It gets worse rapidly if you
> try to accommodate complex impedances.
>  
>  
> 
> You can calculate 20*log(Z1/Z2) but you shouldn't call it 'decibels', any more
> than if you calculated 20*log(your height/my height). Of course, if you did a
> similar calculation for your income/my income, it would have to be
> 10*log(yi/mi), because 'money is power'.
>  
>  
> Best wishes
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>  
> On 2019-01-17 22:17, Ken Javor wrote:
>  
>  
>>   Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits It would be
>> completely correct to say that the 51.5 dB factor is dB above one ohm, which
>> is the difference in magnetic and electric field units.
>>  
>>  Ken Javor
>>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>
>>  Reply-To: John Woodgate  <mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk>
>>  Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:11:50 +
>>  To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>>  Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
>>  
>>     
>>  
>>  To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the impedance
>> of free space, 120*¼ = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 51.5266 expressed in
>> 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 'decibels' is a illegal
>> operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.
>>   
>>   
>>  Best wishes
>>  John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>>  J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
>> <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
>>  Rayleigh, Essex UK
>>   
>>  On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>>   Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are making too
>>> much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you use the loop magnetic
>>> field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less efficient than the loop electric
>>> field antenna factor.  Of course, this is based on a far field assumption,
>>> and that is all you have available.  But the magnetic field antenna factor
>>> is fundamental; it is the loop electric field antenna factor that is based
>>> on the FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.
>>>   
>>>   No worries!
>>>   
>>>   Ken Javor
>>>   Phone: (256) 650-5261
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: "Kunde, Brian" 
>>> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>  <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
>>>   Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
>>> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>  <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
>>>   Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
>>>   To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>>> <mailto:EMC-PSTC

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[Cortland Richmond]

The bottom line here is that the usual emission standards don't take 
into account that the non-radiating near H-field falls off as the cube 
of distance (an issue with BPL, remember) and the wave impedance in this 
area is nowhere near 120 Ohms.   Measuring at 3 meters using 51.5 dB as 
a conversion factor just doesn't  hack it.


Some years ago, I had occasion to look for incremental fall-off with 
distance from a wheel mounted tire pressure sending unit. EVERYTHING was 
in the non-radiating near field, but I could find no way to take that 
into account in the standard.    I needed an H-field antenna with curves 
for that distance not derived from E-fields much farther off.


Cortland Richmond
Semi retired at Belcan,
Grand Rapids MI


On 1/17/19 6:22 PM, John Woodgate wrote:

Well, no it isn't. The definition of the decibel is based on power, 
and is only extended to voltage and current by adding the assumption 
that the resistance is constant.  There is no formally-correct way of 
extending it to resistance and even less to impedance. There is a 
fatal flaw:  Consider 10*log(W) = 20*log(V) - 10*log(R), but 20*log(V) 
= 20*log(I) + 20*log(R). The multiplier is 10 sometimes and 20 at 
other times. It gets worse rapidly if you try to accommodate complex 
impedances.


You can calculate 20*log(Z1/Z2) but you shouldn't call it 'decibels', 
any more than if you calculated 20*log(your height/my height). Of 
course, if you did a similar calculation for your income/my income, it 
would have to be 10*log(yi/mi), because 'money is power'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-01-17 22:17, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits It would be 
completely correct to say that the 51.5 dB factor is dB above one 
ohm, which is the difference in magnetic and electric field units.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *John Woodgate 
*Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:11:50 +
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits



To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the 
impedance of free space, 120*π = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 
51.5266 expressed in 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 
'decibels' is a illegal operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.



Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:


 Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are
making too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you
use the loop magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less
efficient than the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of
course, this is based on a far field assumption, and that is all
you have available.  But the magnetic field antenna factor is
fundamental; it is the loop electric field antenna factor that is
based on the FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.

 No worries!

 Ken Javor
 Phone: (256) 650-5261




*From: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Reply-To: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
*To: *
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Conversation: *CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
*Subject: *[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

 If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz
-30Mhz for Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.

 I haven’t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our
Active Loop antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I
believe the data values read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However,
the limits as it appears in Table 10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I
convert?

 I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits
with the exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in
dBuV/m.  Do I just use these limits or do I have to somehow
convert the receiver data to dBuA/m.

 I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be
difficult because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below
that we are getting into the near field. And the impedance
calculation can be difficult to obtain.

 Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion
based on the differences between the two versio

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[John Woodgate]

Well, no it isn't. The definition of the decibel is based on power, and 
is only extended to voltage and current by adding the assumption that 
the resistance is constant.  There is no formally-correct way of 
extending it to resistance and even less to impedance. There is a fatal 
flaw:  Consider 10*log(W) = 20*log(V) - 10*log(R), but 20*log(V) = 
20*log(I) + 20*log(R).  The multiplier is 10 sometimes and 20 at other 
times. It gets worse rapidly if you try to accommodate complex impedances.


You can calculate 20*log(Z1/Z2) but you shouldn't call it 'decibels', 
any more than if you calculated 20*log(your height/my height). Of 
course, if you did a similar calculation for your income/my income, it 
would have to be 10*log(yi/mi), because 'money is power'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 22:17, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits It would be 
completely correct to say that the 51.5 dB factor is dB above one ohm, 
which is the difference in magnetic and electric field units.


Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *John Woodgate 
*Reply-To: *John Woodgate 
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:11:50 +
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits



To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the 
impedance of free space, 120*π = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 
51.5266 expressed in 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 
'decibels' is a illegal operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.



Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk> 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk>

Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:


 Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are
making too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you
use the loop magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less
efficient than the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of course,
this is based on a far field assumption, and that is all you have
available.  But the magnetic field antenna factor is fundamental;
it is the loop electric field antenna factor that is based on the
FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.

 No worries!

 Ken Javor
 Phone: (256) 650-5261




*From: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Reply-To: *"Kunde, Brian" 
<mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
*To: *
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
*Conversation: *CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
*Subject: *[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

 If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz
-30Mhz for Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.

 I haven’t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our
Active Loop antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I
believe the data values read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However,
the limits as it appears in Table 10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I
convert?

 I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits
with the exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.
 Do I just use these limits or do I have to somehow convert the
receiver data to dBuA/m.

 I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be
difficult because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below
that we are getting into the near field. And the impedance
calculation can be difficult to obtain.

 Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion
based on the differences between the two versions of the standard?

 Thanks for the help.

 The Other Brian


*LECO Corporation Notice:**This communication may contain
confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us
of the error. Thank you.
*-


 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to  <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>

 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

 Attachments are not permitted but the IEE

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[Ken Javor]

It would be completely correct to say that the 51.5 dB factor is dB above
one ohm, which is the difference in magnetic and electric field units.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Woodgate 
Reply-To: John Woodgate 
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:11:50 +
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

   

To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the impedance
of free space, 120*¼ = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 51.5266 expressed in
'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 'decibels' is a illegal
operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.
 
 
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
 
On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:
 
 
>   Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are making too
> much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you use the loop magnetic
> field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less efficient than the loop electric
> field antenna factor.  Of course, this is based on a far field assumption, and
> that is all you have available.  But the magnetic field antenna factor is
> fundamental; it is the loop electric field antenna factor that is based on the
> FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.
>  
>  No worries!
>  
>  Ken Javor
>  Phone: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: "Kunde, Brian"  <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
>  Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
> <mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com>
>  Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
>  To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>  Conversation: CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
>  Subject: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
>  
>  Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.
>   
>  If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz -30Mhz for
> Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.
>   
>  I haven¹t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our Active Loop
> antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I believe the data values read
> by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However, the limits as it appears in Table 10 are
> in dBuA/m.  How do I convert?  
>   
>  I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits with the exact
> same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.  Do I just use these
> limits or do I have to somehow convert the receiver data to dBuA/m.
>   
>  I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be difficult
> because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below that we are getting into
> the near field. And the impedance calculation can be difficult to obtain.  
>   
>  Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion based on the
> differences between the two versions of the standard?
>   
>  Thanks for the help.
>   
>  The Other Brian
>   
> 
> LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
> information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by
> mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
>  -
> 
>  
>  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
>  <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>
>  
>  All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>  
>  Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
> formats), large files, etc.
>  
>  Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>  Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
>  List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>  
>  For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>  Scott Douglas  <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>
>  Mike Cantwell  <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>
>  
>  For policy questions, send mail to:
>  Jim Bacher   <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>
>  David Heald  <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>
>  
>   -
>  
>  
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 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 

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[John Woodgate]

To fill in, that 51.5 dB  = 375.84 numerically and comes from the 
impedance of free space, 120*π = 376.99 ohms. which is actually 51.5266 
expressed in 'decibels'. Actually, expressing an impedance in 'decibels' 
is a illegal operation 'but it works, so why bother?'.


Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2019-01-17 21:57, Ken Javor wrote:
Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits You are making 
too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you use the loop 
magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less efficient than 
the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of course, this is based on a 
far field assumption, and that is all you have available.  But the 
magnetic field antenna factor is fundamental; it is the loop electric 
field antenna factor that is based on the FF assumption, so you need 
not worry at all.


No worries!

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



*From: *"Kunde, Brian" 
*Reply-To: *"Kunde, Brian" 
*Date: *Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
*To: *
*Conversation: *CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
*Subject: *[PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.

If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz -30Mhz 
for Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.


I haven’t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our Active 
Loop antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I believe the data 
values read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However, the limits as it 
appears in Table 10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I convert?


I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits with 
the exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.  Do I 
just use these limits or do I have to somehow convert the receiver 
data to dBuA/m.


I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be 
difficult because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below that 
we are getting into the near field. And the impedance calculation can 
be difficult to obtain.


Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion based on 
the differences between the two versions of the standard?


Thanks for the help.

The Other Brian

*LECO Corporation Notice:**This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received 
this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

*-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graph

Re: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

[Ken Javor]

You are making too much of it.  If the limit is in terms of dBuA/m, you use
the loop magnetic field antenna factor, which is 51.5 dB less efficient than
the loop electric field antenna factor.  Of course, this is based on a far
field assumption, and that is all you have available.  But the magnetic
field antenna factor is fundamental; it is the loop electric field antenna
factor that is based on the FF assumption, so you need not worry at all.

No worries!

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "Kunde, Brian" 
Reply-To: "Kunde, Brian" 
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27:15 +
To: 
Conversation: CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits
Subject: [PSES] CISPR11 Rad Magnetic Field Emissions Limits

Reference CISPR11/EN55011:2016 version.
 
If you are an expert at the Radiated Emissions test from 150Khz -30Mhz for
Class A Group 2 equipment, I could really use your help.
 
I haven¹t done this test in over 25 years. I refurbished our Active Loop
antenna and placed it 10 meters from the EUT.  I believe the data values
read by our receiver is dBuV/m.  However, the limits as it appears in Table
10 are in dBuA/m.  How do I convert?
 
I have an old 1999 copy of this standard that shows the limits with the
exact same frequency ranges but the limits are in dBuV/m.  Do I just use
these limits or do I have to somehow convert the receiver data to dBuA/m.
 
I know a straight conversion between dBuV/m and dBuA/m can be difficult
because above 4Mhz we are in the far-field, but below that we are getting
into the near field. And the impedance calculation can be difficult to
obtain.  
 
Am I making too much of this or just take a simple conversion based on the
differences between the two versions of the standard?
 
Thanks for the help.
 
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: