Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I agree with Mr. Woodgate. Leading off with the Forrestal, without adequately explaining the failure mechanism, gives an unrealistic and misleading introduction to the subject. There was a degraded shield termination that allowed rf to couple to EED leads. For an entity whose emission challenge is CISPR 22 to cite a radar transmission as an "emission" is quite misleading. A better example might be early ABS braking systems to rf transmissions. on 3/27/03 4:25 AM, King, Richard at richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com wrote: > > Dear All, > > Many thanks for your collective help with this question. I attach my final > text below in case others on the list have a use for it. > > --- > Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) > > In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier > U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is > quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray > electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an > uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled > fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused > severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. > > This article briefly describes the problems caused by Electromagnetic > Interference, what must be done to control it, and the relevance it has to > our work. > > Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) is caused by equipment that emits radio > frequency energy, either deliberately or as a by-product. If this energy > gets into nearby equipment it can degrade or even prevent its normal > operation. This is an important factor in hardware design. Products cannot > be allowed to accidentally cause an aircraft's landing gear to retract, or > crash a nearby life-support machine for example. Just as importantly, > equipment must continue to work reliably when stray energy is present, > shrugging off interference from nearby "noisy" devices (such as the U.S.S. > Forrestal's radar system). > > Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is the science of non-interference. If > two pieces of equipment can operate in the same environment without the loss > of function or performance in either, they are said to be (mutually) > Electromagnetically Compatible. > > To ensure this compatibility for our systems, equipment must be designed to > control its susceptibility to, and its emission of, electromagnetic > interference. This can only be achieved through an engineering planned > process applied over the whole product lifecycle. Careful consideration of > design, procurement, production, site selection, installation, operation, > and maintenance is required. > > > > --- > > Best regards, > > > Richard King > Systems Engineer > Thales Communications UK, > > >> -Original Message- >> From: King, Richard [SMTP:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:07 AM >> To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' >> Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for >> non-specialists >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am working on an article about EMC for an internal newsletter. The aim >> is >> to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my colleagues >> and >> I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of >> engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and >> hardware), managers and support staff. >> >> To put the piece in context I would like to succinctly describe what EMC >> is >> in an opening couple of paragraphs. However I am struggling to do so in >> language that is easy to read and not full of techno-jargon. >> >> My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of producing >> similar >> material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people >> producing similar text? Are there any examples of good summaries >> available, >> on the web or elsewhere, that people in my position can draw upon for >> inspiration? >> >> My current draft is copied after my signature. Comments or alterations, >> either by direct e-mail or to the list, will be gratefully received. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> Richard King >> Systems Engineer >> Thales Communications UK. >> >> Begin Draft Subject Description = >> >> EMC is two things: >> >> - The resistance of a piece of equipment to external Electromagnetic >> Interference (EMI) >> - The control of a piece of equipment's production of EMI. >> >> If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same Electromagnetic >> Environment (EME) without degradation in the performance or function of >> either, they are said to be mutually Electromagnetically Compatible. >> >> To ensure Compatibility it is necessary to carefully design equipment such >> that both its susceptibility to, and its emission of EMI is controlled. >> Standards exist that define limits for
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
When the missile launched it struck another aircraft, the pilot was John Mccain, now Senator John McCain. Bill From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:37 PM To: boconn...@t-yuden.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists It is interesting, nonetheless, to note that the disaster occurred in July 1967, and in September of that year, MIL-E-6051C, EMC Requirements, Systems, was updated to the "D" revision, which for the first time required 20 dB safety margin demonstrations for EEDs. Coincidence? Perhaps... Ken Javor on 3/27/03 1:20 PM, boconn...@t-yuden.com at boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote: Sir I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in the U.S. Navy & USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew. The aircraft in question was stationary in the flight deck; it was not in the landing phase. The failure mode was a faulty connector. One of the major changes invoked by this disaster was the extensiion/formalization of enviromental stress testing (shock. vibration, & thermal). EMC was not, IMO, considered part of the root cause. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: King, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:18 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK > -Original Message- > From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for > non-special ists > > >In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier > >U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is > >quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray > >electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an > >uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled > >fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused > >severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. > > This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a > **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take > fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and > functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think > about it for a while, you will see why. > > Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim > is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if > the EMI were not present. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261
Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote (in ) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: >It is interesting, nonetheless, to note that the disaster occurred >in July 1967, and in September of that year, MIL-E-6051C, EMC >Requirements, Systems, was updated to the "D" revision, which for >the first time required 20 dB safety margin demonstrations for >EEDs. Coincidence? Perhaps... > I would say it's either too soon after the incident to be caused by it, or it's a knee-jerk reaction to the incident. Two months, one of them August, is a VERY short time in the world of standards. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I read in !emc-pstc that Bill Morse wrote (in <614cc7c21856d1118da30060b06b487306084...@smf-nt-mail1.verifone.com>) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists' on Fri, 28 Mar 2003: >When the missile launched it struck another aircraft, the pilot was John >Mccain, now Senator John McCain. Missed! (;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
It is interesting, nonetheless, to note that the disaster occurred in July 1967, and in September of that year, MIL-E-6051C, EMC Requirements, Systems, was updated to the "D" revision, which for the first time required 20 dB safety margin demonstrations for EEDs. Coincidence? Perhaps... Ken Javor on 3/27/03 1:20 PM, boconn...@t-yuden.com at boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote: Sir I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in the U.S. Navy & USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew. The aircraft in question was stationary in the flight deck; it was not in the landing phase. The failure mode was a faulty connector. One of the major changes invoked by this disaster was the extensiion/formalization of enviromental stress testing (shock. vibration, & thermal). EMC was not, IMO, considered part of the root cause. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: King, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:18 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK > -Original Message- > From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for > non-special ists > > >In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier > >U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is > >quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray > >electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an > >uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled > >fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused > >severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. > > This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a > **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take > fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and > functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think > about it for a while, you will see why. > > Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim > is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if > the EMI were not present. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
Sir I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in the U.S. Navy & USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew. The aircraft in question was stationary in the flight deck; it was not in the landing phase. The failure mode was a faulty connector. One of the major changes invoked by this disaster was the extensiion/formalization of enviromental stress testing (shock. vibration, & thermal). EMC was not, IMO, considered part of the root cause. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: King, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:18 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK > -Original Message- > From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for > non-special ists > > >In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier > >U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is > >quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray > >electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an > >uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled > >fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused > >severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. > > This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a > **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take > fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and > functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think > about it for a while, you will see why. > > Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim > is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if > the EMI were not present. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK > -Original Message- > From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for > non-special ists > > > I read in !emc-pstc that King, Richard > wrote (in ) about 'Help > wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists' on > Thu, 27 Mar 2003: > > >In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier > >U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is > >quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray > >electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an > >uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled > >fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused > >severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. > > This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a > **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take > fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and > functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think > about it for a while, you will see why. > > Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim > is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if > the EMI were not present. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. > http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk > Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go > to > http://www.isce.org.uk > PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! > Thales Defence (Wells) DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I read in !emc-pstc that King, Richard wrote (in ) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: >In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier >U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is >quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray >electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an >uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled >fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused >severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think about it for a while, you will see why. Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if the EMI were not present. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
>-Original Message- >From: King, Richard [mailto:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] >Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:07 AM >To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' >Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for >non-specialists > > > >Dear all, > >I am working on an article about EMC for an internal >newsletter. The aim is >to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my >colleagues and >I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of >engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and >hardware), managers and support staff. > >To put the piece in context I would like to succinctly >describe what EMC is >in an opening couple of paragraphs. However I am struggling to do so in >language that is easy to read and not full of techno-jargon. > >My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of >producing similar >material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people >producing similar text? Are there any examples of good >summaries available, >on the web or elsewhere, that people in my position can draw upon for >inspiration? > >My current draft is copied after my signature. Comments or alterations, >either by direct e-mail or to the list, will be gratefully received. > >Thanks in advance, > > >Richard King >Systems Engineer >Thales Communications UK. > I pitch it low and slow: "The whole idea of Electromagnetic Compatibility is to produce a product that operates in complete electronic harmony with its environment. Ideally, our product will cause no harm to any existing electronic system. We don't want our product to accidentally retract the landing gear or crash the payroll computer. And just as importantly, our equipment will continue to work reliably, shrugging off RF fields and powerline noise." That's all you need for the executive level description. If you want to go to the next level, then loop through: "We ensure the compatibility of our product by creating a model of the real electronic environment, either from an established standard or by analysis. We use this model to define a set of electronic environmental tests. When our product is made to operate successfully in these model environments, we maximize the probability that our product will operate harmoniously in its market environment." If they want even more information, see if they might like a summer intern job in your lab. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
Dear All, Many thanks for your collective help with this question. I attach my final text below in case others on the list have a use for it. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This article briefly describes the problems caused by Electromagnetic Interference, what must be done to control it, and the relevance it has to our work. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) is caused by equipment that emits radio frequency energy, either deliberately or as a by-product. If this energy gets into nearby equipment it can degrade or even prevent its normal operation. This is an important factor in hardware design. Products cannot be allowed to accidentally cause an aircraft's landing gear to retract, or crash a nearby life-support machine for example. Just as importantly, equipment must continue to work reliably when stray energy is present, shrugging off interference from nearby "noisy" devices (such as the U.S.S. Forrestal's radar system). Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is the science of non-interference. If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same environment without the loss of function or performance in either, they are said to be (mutually) Electromagnetically Compatible. To ensure this compatibility for our systems, equipment must be designed to control its susceptibility to, and its emission of, electromagnetic interference. This can only be achieved through an engineering planned process applied over the whole product lifecycle. Careful consideration of design, procurement, production, site selection, installation, operation, and maintenance is required. ... Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK, > -Original Message- > From: King, Richard [SMTP:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:07 AM > To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' > Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for > non-specialists > > > Dear all, > > I am working on an article about EMC for an internal newsletter. The aim > is > to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my colleagues > and > I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of > engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and > hardware), managers and support staff. > > To put the piece in context I would like to succinctly describe what EMC > is > in an opening couple of paragraphs. However I am struggling to do so in > language that is easy to read and not full of techno-jargon. > > My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of producing > similar > material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people > producing similar text? Are there any examples of good summaries > available, > on the web or elsewhere, that people in my position can draw upon for > inspiration? > > My current draft is copied after my signature. Comments or alterations, > either by direct e-mail or to the list, will be gratefully received. > > Thanks in advance, > > > Richard King > Systems Engineer > Thales Communications UK. > > Begin Draft Subject Description = > > EMC is two things: > > - The resistance of a piece of equipment to external Electromagnetic > Interference (EMI) > - The control of a piece of equipment's production of EMI. > > If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same Electromagnetic > Environment (EME) without degradation in the performance or function of > either, they are said to be mutually Electromagnetically Compatible. > > To ensure Compatibility it is necessary to carefully design equipment such > that both its susceptibility to, and its emission of EMI is controlled. > Standards exist that define limits for both these aspects. Examples you > may > have heard of are the European EMC Directive, which is mandatory for all > electrical hardware sold in the European Union; and the Defence Standard > DEF-STAN 59-41, which many of our contracts refer to. > > In addition to the distinction between emissions and susceptibility, EMI > can > be further classified as either conducted or radiated. The former is > energy > transferred via wires or other conductors; and the latter refers to > electromagnetic waves propagating through free space. > > EMC is a necessary consideration for projects that deliver hardware. > Furthermore, many of the requirements for EMC are common between projects. > This commonality can be exploited to increase efficiency for individual > projects and across sites. > > E
Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
To me, all this regulation can be synopsized: Electronics shall not put out stuff - conducted or radiated Electronics shall not be upset when stuff comes in - susceptibility to conducted or radiated. Difference in attitude between US and elsewhere: It is my understanding that in the US the FCC thought not to complicate the manufacturing process by adding susceptibility tests to product testing, but rather have the consumer simply modify their behaviour. If a product does not work well because it is easily upset by stuff coming in, the consumer will buy a different product and/or complain to the manufacturer, thus automatic control without FCC intervention. But in the EC and elsewhere, they thought to add tests ahead of time in order to establish a minimum quality standard of performance for the consumer, like prescreen for the consumer. Which is better control? Arguments go both ways. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 101 E San Fernando, Suite 402 San Jose, CA 95112 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I read in !emc-pstc that robert Macy wrote (in ) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists' on Tue, 25 Mar 2003: >But in the EC and elsewhere, >they thought to add tests ahead of time in order to >establish a minimum quality standard of performance for the >consumer, like prescreen for the consumer. No, not 'ahead of time', more nearly 'behind the times'. The preoccupation (apt!) with immunity is a consequence of the stupid restrictions placed on spectrum usage in Germany after WW2. This was at least partly due to the incipient Cold War - the East didn't want VOA and BBCOS to have West German transmitters relaying political messages at high power eastwards. The result was that German listeners had to put up with low field strength and consequent interference. They got into the habit of complaining about it. Some of the interference was way out-of-band and due to lack of immunity. Hence the German spectrum management authorities promoted national limits for immunity long before the EU came into the picture. The EU 'level playing field' thus more or less had to include immunity, but maybe not at the test levels required in some national standards. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
>-Original Message- >From: C N [mailto:abx...@hotmail.com] >Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:48 PM >To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for >non-specialists > > > >For non-technical people ... in other words KISS. > >>EMC is two things: > >I respectfully disagree. >Here's what I'd say. >Take it as you wish. > >EMC or Electromagnetic Compatibility is the products ability to >pass a variety of electromagnetic product testing requirements >demanded by different countries or customers. > Doug: I think that the ability to pass the tests is more correctly called Compliance. Compatibility is achieved only if the compliance requirements accurately portray the real world. Assuming that the compliance requirements have been set reasonably well, achieving Compliance will reasonably assure Compatibility. Yet, carried to extremes, it's certainly possible to not be in compliance, yet be compatible most of the time. And sometimes, you can be compliant, without always being compatible. Regards, Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
