[PSES] MIL STD 461 technician needed in Oklahoma City
Hi All, not to steal from Davids needs, but I’m looking for an MIL STD 461 EMI technician that’s a US Citizen for the Oklahoma City area. I don’t have a job positing yet, but please feel free to contact me off list and I’ll brief more whats being looked for. Now back to Davids needs, Thanks, Derek. > On Jul 30, 2021, at 9:40 AM, David Schaefer > <12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote: > > All, > > Element’s Brooklyn Park, Minnesota EMC lab is adding product safety testing > and we’re looking for an experienced engineer to get it off the ground. The > link is below, and if you have questions please email me off list. > > https://element-ext-us.icims.com/jobs/6757/product-safety-test-engineer/job > <https://element-ext-us.icims.com/jobs/6757/product-safety-test-engineer/job> > > Thanks, > <https://bit.ly/3gt02wc> > > > > > David Schaefer > Technical 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 <mailto:david.schae...@element.com> > www.element.com <http://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> > 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 > <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 > <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 > 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 Engineerin
[PSES] IEC 61000-4-18 vs. MIL-STD 461 CS116
1. IEC 61000-4-18:2019 - Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-18: Testing and measurement techniques - Damped oscillatory wave immunity test 2. MIL-STD 461, CS116, conducted susceptibility, damped sinusoidal transients, cables and power Are these two tests quite different? … or is it possible that test instruments for CS116 also can carry out the tests according to IEC 61000-4-18? Cheers! Best regards Amund - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 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] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
Once again, I agree completely! For large platforms (e.g. Aircraft Carrier, intercontinental bomber, etc.) the exact distribution may not be known for a particular equipment bay. For many smaller platforms (e.g. helicopters, UAVs, controlled munitions, etc. ) the power distribution is exactly known. So both cases exist. It is risky to assume one or the other, and worthwhile to research this detail within the specification. If any uncertainty remains, it's always good to discuss with your customer. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Ken Javor wrote: > For the record the reason that MIL-STD-461 forbids using shielded power > wires for EMI testing is because even if a particular load gets shielded > power from the point–of-distribution (circuit breaker or fuse box), that > doesn’t means the electrical power bus between the point-of-generation and > distribution is shielded. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. So it > is cheating to shield power between test sample and LISN and pretend that > emissions can’t leak out, or that strong fields can’t couple directly to > power lines. > > Only on those platforms where power is shielded from point-of-generation > to point-of-distribution and from there to the load is it possible to > tailor the standard and allow shielded power for EMI testing. Another > possibility is unshielded power from point-of-generation to > point-of-distribution, or even elsewhere, then brick wall filtering and > shielding from that point on. But that isn’t a typical installation, either. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > -- > *From: *Patrick > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:52:00 -0700 > *To: *Ken Javor > *Cc: * > *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > yes, agree completely: customers and suppliers can agree to tailor where > it makes sense... and that tailoring can be contained within the contract. > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ken Javor > wrote: > > Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise > contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be > shielded during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring > diagrams. > > This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below > and that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in > “F” and retained in “G.” > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > > ---------- > *From: *Patrick > *Reply-To: *Patrick > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note > that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual > installation and usage. If your installation requirements include shields > on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the > procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test > configurations meet expectations. > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) < > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Ken, > That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. > James > > > > *From:* Ken Javor > *Sent:* 15 January 2019 15:34 > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to > electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power > developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with > dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft > platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run > some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you > cited, but the ac power would not. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > -- > *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - > *To: * > *Subject: *[PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > Hello all, > > MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly > carrying “primary power” i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be > separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test > setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall > not be shielded. > > I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of > the standard are most helpful. > > My interpretation is that: > > >1. this only applies to AC power b
Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
For the record the reason that MIL-STD-461 forbids using shielded power wires for EMI testing is because even if a particular load gets shielded power from the pointof-distribution (circuit breaker or fuse box), that doesn¹t means the electrical power bus between the point-of-generation and distribution is shielded. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. So it is cheating to shield power between test sample and LISN and pretend that emissions can¹t leak out, or that strong fields can¹t couple directly to power lines. Only on those platforms where power is shielded from point-of-generation to point-of-distribution and from there to the load is it possible to tailor the standard and allow shielded power for EMI testing. Another possibility is unshielded power from point-of-generation to point-of-distribution, or even elsewhere, then brick wall filtering and shielding from that point on. But that isn¹t a typical installation, either. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Patrick Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 15:52:00 -0700 To: Ken Javor Cc: Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check yes, agree completely: customers and suppliers can agree to tailor where it makes sense... and that tailoring can be contained within the contract. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ken Javor wrote: > Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise > contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be shielded > during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring diagrams. > > This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below and > that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in ³F² and > retained in ³G.² > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > > > From: Patrick > Reply-To: Patrick > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700 > To: > Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note that > 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual installation > and usage. If your installation requirements include shields on all cables, > including primary power, then a discussion with the procuring authority is > needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test configurations meet > expectations. > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) > wrote: >> Hi Ken, >> That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. >> James >> >> >> >> From: Ken Javor >> Sent: 15 January 2019 15:34 >> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check >> >> The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to electrical >> and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power developed in a >> load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with dc vs. ac. If a >> load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft platform and >> subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run some other >> circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you cited, but the >> ac power would not. >> >> Ken Javor >> Phone: (256) 650-5261 >> >> >> >> From: "James Pawson (U3C)" >> Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" >> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - >> To: >> Subject: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check >> >> Hello all, >> >> MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly carrying >> ³primary power² i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be separated >> out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test setup (clause >> 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall not be shielded. >> >> I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of the >> standard are most helpful. >> >> My interpretation is that: >> >> 1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in MIL-STD-1399 >> <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ) >> and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some >> Associated Equipment >> 2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded cable if >> that is what is specified in the final installation >> >> Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my >> interpretation was correct? >> >> Many thanks as always, >> James >> >> >> James Pawson >> Unit 3 Compliance >> >> >> - >> -
Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
yes, agree completely: customers and suppliers can agree to tailor where it makes sense... and that tailoring can be contained within the contract. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ken Javor wrote: > Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise > contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be > shielded during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring > diagrams. > > This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below > and that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in > “F” and retained in “G.” > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > > -- > *From: *Patrick > *Reply-To: *Patrick > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note > that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual > installation and usage. If your installation requirements include shields > on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the > procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test > configurations meet expectations. > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) < > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Ken, > That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. > James > > > > *From:* Ken Javor > *Sent:* 15 January 2019 15:34 > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to > electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power > developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with > dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft > platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run > some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you > cited, but the ac power would not. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > ---------- > > *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - > *To: * > *Subject: *[PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > Hello all, > > MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly > carrying “primary power” i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be > separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test > setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall > not be shielded. > > I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of > the standard are most helpful. > > My interpretation is that: > > >1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in >MIL-STD-1399 ><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> >) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some >Associated Equipment >2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded >cable if that is what is specified in the final installation > > > Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my > interpretation was correct? > > Many thanks as always, > James > > > James Pawson > Unit 3 Compliance > > > - > > > This 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> > <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 Safet
Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
Disagree totally. Unless the Customer pre-emptively states otherwise contractually, MIL-STD-461F/G are very clear that power is not to be shielded during EMI testing, regardless of the platform installation wiring diagrams. This was always meant to be the case, but it was abused precisely as below and that is why the blanket prohibition against shielding was inserted in ³F² and retained in ³G.² Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Patrick Reply-To: Patrick Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:19:32 -0700 To: Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check ( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual installation and usage. If your installation requirements include shields on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test configurations meet expectations. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) wrote: > Hi Ken, > That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. > James > > > > From: Ken Javor > Sent: 15 January 2019 15:34 > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to electrical > and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power developed in a load > and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with dc vs. ac. If a load > were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft platform and subsequently > converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run some other circuitry, the dc > power would be subjected to the wording you cited, but the ac power would not. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > > From: "James Pawson (U3C)" > Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 -0000 > To: > Subject: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > Hello all, > > MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly carrying > ³primary power² i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be separated > out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test setup (clause > 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall not be shielded. > > I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of the > standard are most helpful. > > My interpretation is that: > > 1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in MIL-STD-1399 > <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ) > and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some > Associated Equipment > 2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded cable if > that is what is specified in the final installation > > Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my > interpretation was correct? > > Many thanks as always, > James > > > James Pawson > Unit 3 Compliance > > > - > > > This 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
Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
( not really addressing your question, but possibly of interest...). Note that 4.3.8.6 explicitly states cable assemblies shall simulate actual installation and usage. If your installation requirements include shields on all cables, including primary power, then a discussion with the procuring authority is needed, with possible tailoring, to make sure test configurations meet expectations. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:27 AM James Pawson (U3C) < ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Ken, > > That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. > > James > > > > > > *From:* Ken Javor > *Sent:* 15 January 2019 15:34 > *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > > > The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to > electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power > developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with > dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft > platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run > some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you > cited, but the ac power would not. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > > -- > > *From: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Reply-To: *"James Pawson (U3C)" > *Date: *Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - > *To: * > *Subject: *[PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check > > Hello all, > > MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly > carrying “primary power” i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be > separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test > setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall > not be shielded. > > I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of > the standard are most helpful. > > My interpretation is that: > > >1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in >MIL-STD-1399 ><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ><http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> >) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some >Associated Equipment >2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded >cable if that is what is specified in the final installation > > > Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my > interpretation was correct? > > Many thanks as always, > James > > > James Pawson > Unit 3 Compliance > > > - > > > This 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> > <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 < > 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 > Mike Cantwell > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher > David Heald > - > ---
Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
Hi Ken, That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. James From: Ken Javor Sent: 15 January 2019 15:34 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you cited, but the ac power would not. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 _ From: "James Pawson (U3C)" mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> > Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> > Subject: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check Hello all, MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly carrying "primary power" i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall not be shielded. I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of the standard are most helpful. My interpretation is that: 1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in MIL-STD-1399 <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some Associated Equipment 2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded cable if that is what is specified in the final installation Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my interpretation was correct? Many thanks as always, James James Pawson Unit 3 Compliance - This 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> <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> > 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] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
The issue is with primary power: that supplied by the platform to electrical and electronic loads. It does not apply to secondary power developed in a load and supplied to another load. It has nothing to do with dc vs. ac. If a load were supplied with 28 Vdc power from an aircraft platform and subsequently converted that to say 24 Vac at 400 cycles to run some other circuitry, the dc power would be subjected to the wording you cited, but the ac power would not. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: "James Pawson (U3C)" Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 08:21:24 - To: Subject: [PSES] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check Hello all, MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly carrying ³primary power² i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall not be shielded. I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of the standard are most helpful. My interpretation is that: 1. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in MIL-STD-1399 <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some Associated Equipment 2. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded cable if that is what is specified in the final installation Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my interpretation was correct? Many thanks as always, James James Pawson Unit 3 Compliance - This 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] MIL-STD-461 and power cables sanity check
Hello all, MIL-STD-461 has a requirement for any conductors in a cable assembly carrying "primary power" i.e. AC power from a vessel distribution bus to be separated out from the main cable bunch and routed separately in a test setup (clause 4.3.8.6). It also states that the primary power cables shall not be shielded. I understand the rationale for this, the explanatory notes at the end of the standard are most helpful. My interpretation is that: a. this only applies to AC power buses (like those referenced in MIL-STD-1399 <http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1300-1399/MIL-STD-1399-300B_13192/> ) and not to DC power supplied from another part of the EUT or from some Associated Equipment b. power supplied in this fashion can be supplied within a shielded cable if that is what is specified in the final installation Having not done any MIL-STD work before I just wanted to make sure my interpretation was correct? Many thanks as always, James James Pawson Unit 3 Compliance - This 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] Table III Susceptibility Scanning; MIL STD 461 E vs F
Historical Question, Will someone please give a little of the rationale for the changes in rev E vs F of Table III, Susceptibility Scanning. Thanks Chad Ofc: 858.762.6853 | Cel: 858.527.8149 - This 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Table III Susceptibility Scanning; MIL STD 461 E vs F
Chad Airy asks: Will someone please give a little of the rationale for the changes in rev E vs F of Table III, Susceptibility Scanning. I suspect we need look no further than Appendix A 40.3.10.4.1 (4.3.10.4.1) Frequency scanning. Scan rate is continuously calculated in MIL 461F and and test times have been measured instead of calculated form assumptions. Note the portions emphasized below. 416E ... ** The scan rate for each range is calculated based on the start frequency for the range.** The total test time to run RS103 from 1 MHz to 18 GHz is 177 minutes. A similar calculation for a stepped scan results in a total test time which is 2 times this value or 353 minutes. It must be emphasized that the scan speeds should be slowed down if the EUT response time or Q are more critical than those used to establish the values in Table III. 461F ** Actual test times were measured in a laboratory allowing for settling time and leveling. ** The total test time to run RS103 from 2 MHz to 18 GHz for a stepped scan is 168 minutes for one polarization. Similarly, an analog scan would result in a total test time of approximately 100 minutes. ** These times are based on continuously calculating the next frequency using the present tuned frequency and the allowed step size. ** Cortland Richmond - - This 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Table III Susceptibility Scanning; MIL STD 461 E vs F
Here's the whole story, from soup to nuts. Prior to 1993, MIL-STD-462 contained no guidelines on sweep times or dwell times and step rates. MIL-STD-462 was released in 1967 when all susceptibility testing was done manually. The time constant of the human-in-the-loop was considerably longer than the response time of the typical test sample, and no control needed to be exercised to keep the test from sweeping too fast. But by 1993, when MIL-STD-462D was released, sweeping synthesized generators driving wide-band amplifiers were the norm, with or without computer control, and control did have to be exerted to avoid sweeping at a rate faster than the test sample could evidence susceptibility. Thus we have Table III. In 1993, they used a one second dwell time, and very small step sizes. In the deliberations running up to the -E revision, there was quite a bit of discussion that we ought to lengthen the dwell time and increase the step sizes in a manner that yielded no change to the overall length of swept frequency susceptibility tests. The dwell time lengthening was of course to ensure time for the test sample to respond, and the increased step size was based on a general agreement that the -462D step sizes were too conservative. A comparison of the two tables between -462D and -461E reveals that below 1 GHz, we did in fact increase step sizes, but unfortunately they were not changed above 1 GHz, and with the increase to a three second dwell time, the -461E RS103 test became onerous indeed. That was fixed in the -F revision process, again polling the working group members as to whether they were seeing any microwave susceptibilities so sharply tuned that the step sizes could not be relaxed. No one had any such experience, and thus we have the -461F Table III. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Airy, Chad chad.a...@ga-asi.com Reply-To: Airy, Chad chad.a...@ga-asi.com Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 16:49:47 -0800 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Conversation: Table III Susceptibility Scanning; MIL STD 461 E vs F Subject: [PSES] Table III Susceptibility Scanning; MIL STD 461 E vs F Historical Question, Will someone please give a little of the rationale for the changes in rev E vs F of Table III, Susceptibility Scanning. Thanks Chad Ofc: 858.762.6853 | Cel: 858.527.8149 - This 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41
Also, all DEF STANs are available at http://www.dstan.mod.uk/ Neil Barker Manager Central Quality e2v 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Mobile: +44 (0)7801 723735 Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571 www.e2v.com http://www.e2v.com/ P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail? -Original Message- From: Powell, Doug [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: 30 June 2008 18:44 To: david.cole...@selex-comms.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 All Mil-Stds are available at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ -doug From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of david.cole...@selex-comms.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 Has anyone got (or know of) a comparison between DEFSTAN 59-41 and MIL-STD 461 (any versions, but preferably recent), that ideally covers the Land Use aspects of the standards? I know the UK MoD will accept 461 tested equipment, but for an RFQ it is better to respond with some technical argument why a read across is (or isn't) feasible. Any help appreciated, Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number; 04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41
Thanks guys, but the question was not where can I get copies of these standards?, but a request for a technical comparison of the limits / levels / methods embodied within them. Which as you can appreciate, is no small task. So not wishing to possibly re-invent the wheel, I posed the question as I did. Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM SELEX Communications Barker, Neil neil.bar...@e2v.com 01/07/2008 15:58 To 'Powell, Doug' doug.pow...@aei.com, david.cole...@selex-comms.com, emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 Also, all DEF STANs are available at http://www.dstan.mod.uk/ http://www.dstan.mod.uk/ Neil Barker Manager Central Quality e2v 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616 Mobile: +44 (0)7801 723735 Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571 www.e2v.com http://www.e2v.com/ P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail? From: Powell, Doug [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: 30 June 2008 18:44 To: david.cole...@selex-comms.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 All Mil-Stds are available at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ -doug From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of david.cole...@selex-comms.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 Has anyone got (or know of) a comparison between DEFSTAN 59-41 and MIL-STD 461 (any versions, but preferably recent), that ideally covers the Land Use aspects of the standards? I know the UK MoD will accept 461 tested equipment, but for an RFQ it is better to respond with some technical argument why a read across is (or isn't) feasible. Any help appreciated, Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ Sent by E2V TECHNOLOGIES PLC or a member of the E2V group of companies. A company registered in England and Wales. Company number; 04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, UK. This email and any attached files contains company confidential information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, distributing, amending or using for any other purpose. In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common law) for damage or bre ach arising or related to this email including but not limited to viruses and libel. SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in England and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is Lambda House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41
About three years ago, I made a short table that lists the additional requirements of DF 59-41 beyond 461E. It's not up to date, what with DF 59-411 461F existing now, but it still might be of some interest. I have already sent a copy to Dave, but I will provide a copy to anyone else who would like it. Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Lab Rat Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of david.cole...@selex-comms.com Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:07 AM To: Barker, Neil; 'Powell, Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 Thanks guys, but the question was not where can I get copies of these standards?, but a request for a technical comparison of the limits / levels / methods embodied within them. Which as you can appreciate, is no small task. So not wishing to possibly re-invent the wheel, I posed the question as I did. Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM SELEX Communications - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41
Has anyone got (or know of) a comparison between DEFSTAN 59-41 and MIL-STD 461 (any versions, but preferably recent), that ideally covers the Land Use aspects of the standards? I know the UK MoD will accept 461 tested equipment, but for an RFQ it is better to respond with some technical argument why a read across is (or isn't) feasible. Any help appreciated, Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM This email and any attached files contains company confidential information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, distributing, amending or using for any other purpose. In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common law) for damage or bre ach arising or related to this email including but not limited to viruses and libel. SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in England and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is Lambda House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41
All Mil-Stds are available at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ -doug From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of david.cole...@selex-comms.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:15 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL-STD 461 vs. DSTAN 59-41 Has anyone got (or know of) a comparison between DEFSTAN 59-41 and MIL-STD 461 (any versions, but preferably recent), that ideally covers the Land Use aspects of the standards? I know the UK MoD will accept 461 tested equipment, but for an RFQ it is better to respond with some technical argument why a read across is (or isn't) feasible. Any help appreciated, Best Regards, Dave Coleman AIIRSM This email and any attached files contains company confidential information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, distributing, amending or using for any other purpose. In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not limited to viruses and libel. SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in England and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is Lambda House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Rif: Re: MIL-STD 461 C
thank you to everybody who replied me on the forum and off-list. Now I have the standard I was looking for. Paolo ** Paolo Peruzzi Esaote S.p.A. Research Product Development - Design Quality Control via di Caciolle, 15 I- 50127 Florence tel: +39 055 4229469 fax: +39 055 4223305 e-mail: paolo.peru...@esaote.com ** This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.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: MIL-STD 461 C
www.emccompliance.com on 6/12/03 9:26 AM, Paolo Peruzzi at paolo.peru...@esaote.com wrote: Dear group, I would like to get the old broadband and narrowband RE limit tables of the superseded MIL STD 461C, for teaching purposes. Could anybody tell me where to find a pdf of that standard? Thanks, Paolo ** Paolo Peruzzi Esaote S.p.A. Research Product Development - Design Quality Control via di Caciolle, 15 I- 50127 Florence tel: +39 055 4229469 fax: +39 055 4223305 e-mail: paolo.peru...@esaote.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.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 -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261 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: emc_p...@symbol.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: MIL-STD 461 C
-Original Message- From: Paolo Peruzzi [ mailto:paolo.peru...@esaote.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:27 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: MIL-STD 461 C Dear group, I would like to get the old broadband and narrowband RE limit tables of the superseded MIL STD 461C, for teaching purposes. Could anybody tell me where to find a pdf of that standard? Thanks, Paolo ** Paolo Peruzzi Esaote S.p.A. Research Product Development - Design Quality Control via di Caciolle, 15 I- 50127 Florence tel: +39 055 4229469 fax: +39 055 4223305 e-mail: paolo.peru...@esaote.com ** Paolo: I'm sending you a pdf of the entire MIL-STD-461C. (If anyone else would like a copy, email me off-list. BTW, it's about 12MB.) Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty
RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1.
Other than they are both EMC test requirements, the difference is night and day. The MIL-STD-461 tests are: Much more severe/sensitive Cover much wider frequency bands Are typically done with different equipment. The MIL Radiated Immunity tests use 8 different antennas, EN61326-1 uses 1. The best thing to do is look at the applicable test requirements table in the MIL-STD and compare to EN61326-1. Products designed to the MIL-STD with look very much different than one that just meets the EN. Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices -Original Message- From: paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com [mailto:paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:23 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1. Folks, We have received an inquiry, concerning on the key differences between the test requirements of MIL-STD -461 and EN61326-1. Can someone familiar with these two stds provide some details on these different test requirements. Your input would be most appreciated . Best Regards,Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., Boston --- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: test requirements of MIL-STD -461 vs EN61326-1.
Folks, We have received an inquiry, concerning on the key differences between the test requirements of MIL-STD -461 and EN61326-1. Can someone familiar with these two stds provide some details on these different test requirements. Your input would be most appreciated . Best Regards,Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., Boston --- 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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: mil-std-461/462 for download
Quoted from http://www.conformity.com/shop/newsbreaks.html#need --- Need Help In Finding Copies Of MIL STD 461? Dont ever say that you get nothing in return for all of your tax dollars. Its now possible to obtain copies of MIL STD 461 E (the latest release) through the Internet at http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch. If youre looking for earlier editions of the standards (many programs are still using the earlier release MIL STD 461 D), try http://www-chas.nosc.mil/spawar/pdf/MIL461D.PDF. -- Barry Ma ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: mil-std-461/462 for download
Paul, There is MIL-STD-461E and other MIL standards at this site. http://www.rbitem.com/emcstandards/northamerica/default.asp Gaston Cloutier telweb Inc. 350 rue Franquet, porte 45 Sainte-Foy, Quebec Canada G1P 4P3 Tel: 418-650-5516, poste: 217 Fax: 418-650-0860 Email: gclout...@telweb.com Web: www.telweb.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paul Slavens Sent: 9 octobre, 2000 12:21 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: mil-std-461/462 for download Dear Group, Where can I download MIL-STD-461/462 from the internet? Thanks in Advance Paul _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: mil-std-461/462 for download
Paul, Try this page. http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ Rocky -)-(- -Original Message- From: Paul Slavens [mailto:paul_slav...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 11:21 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: mil-std-461/462 for download Dear Group, Where can I download MIL-STD-461/462 from the internet? Thanks in Advance Paul _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
mil-std-461/462 for download
Dear Group, Where can I download MIL-STD-461/462 from the internet? Thanks in Advance Paul _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: MIL STD 461
The DAPS link will get you only the latest release; i.e., 461E (462 is now merged into 461E). But not very many programs have reached the testing stage yet, so I still see a lot of 461D/462D requirements. You can get 461D, 462D and 464 at the SPAWAR link: http://www-chas.nosc.mil/spawar/pdf/MIL461D.PDF 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 Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Rocky (Kenneth P) [mailto:kpgon...@ingr.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 12:00 PM To: lfresea...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: MIL STD 461 Derek, This link worked for me. http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ Rocky -)-(- -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL STD 461 Hi, can anyone remind me where the MIL STD 461 can be download from? Thanks, Derek. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: MIL STD 461
Derek, This link worked for me. http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ Rocky -)-(- -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL STD 461 Hi, can anyone remind me where the MIL STD 461 can be download from? Thanks, Derek. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
MIL STD 461
Hi, can anyone remind me where the MIL STD 461 can be download from? Thanks, Derek. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: MIL-STD-461
Go to www.emccompliance.com. Go to the EMC Info button on the top RHS of page. Both these PDF files are large! -- From: kim.boll.jen...@lasat.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: MIL-STD-461 Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2000, 11:40 PM Dear all, Can someone help me ! I need the MIL-STD-461B and C version (I have D version) can I download these versions form the internet ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
MIL-STD-461
Dear all, Can someone help me ! I need the MIL-STD-461B and C version (I have D version) can I download these versions form the internet ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
Scott, Try this web site. http://www.dodssp.daps.mil/ I was able to download rev E with no problems the other day. It is over 1.3 Mb. Rocky -)-(- -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 9:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Hi All, I followed the links, got registered and, with my user ID logged on so I could muddle around to find the document. Once I had it displayed on my desktop, I tried to save it to disk. That option was not available. So I tried to email it to myself. That did not work either. I got the file, but it was only 552 KB and Acrobat could not open it up. I was just looking to read it to see what it is all about, thinking maybe I might learn something. Well, looks like I'll have to find some other light lunch time reading instead. Thanks anyway for the links. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: mmate...@foxboro.com [mailto:mmate...@foxboro.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 11:03 AM To: j...@advancedshielding.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Importance: Low You must register on http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/online/ to get the access to MIL-STDs Mirko -Original Message- From:Matejic, Mirko Sent:Tuesday, December 14, 1999 10:22 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 MIL-STD-461E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT issued on August 20, 1999, 253 pages is available in Acrobat Reader format, 970 KB on: http://assist.daps.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=35789 Mirko -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:43 To:'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Jose: The best source of information about MIL-STD-461 is the standard itself. All of the requirements are defined very thoroughly (well, maybe not so thorough for Methods CS103, CS104 CS105) within the document, and an Appendix A is provided which gives you a discussion of the purposes, problems and rationale behind each of the Test Methods. Remember that the D revision has now been superseded by the E version. What used to be MIL-STD-461D and the separate MIL-STD-462D have now been combined into a single document, which is MIL-STD-461E. New equipment should be qualified to the E version, but existing equipment may still be tested under the version in effect at the time of the original qualification. So, don't throw away your B, C or D versions. Ed - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
FYI - The address I used about a month ago to register was: http://www.dodssp.daps.mil it may still get you to the same place as the other address. It then took about 3-4 days to get my account number/password (whatever you want to call it). I then downloaded a copy of MIL-STD-461E with no hassle. Good Luck! -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko [mailto:mmate...@foxboro.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 10:03 AM To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 You must register on http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/online/ to get the access to MIL-STDs Mirko -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 10:22 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 MIL-STD-461E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT issued on August 20, 1999, 253 pages is available in Acrobat Reader format, 970 KB on: http://assist.daps.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=35789 Mirko -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:43 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Jose: The best source of information about MIL-STD-461 is the standard itself. All of the requirements are defined very thoroughly (well, maybe not so thorough for Methods CS103, CS104 CS105) within the document, and an Appendix A is provided which gives you a discussion of the purposes, problems and rationale behind each of the Test Methods. Remember that the D revision has now been superseded by the E version. What used to be MIL-STD-461D and the separate MIL-STD-462D have now been combined into a single document, which is MIL-STD-461E. New equipment should be qualified to the E version, but existing equipment may still be tested under the version in effect at the time of the original qualification. So, don't throw away your B, C or D versions. Ed - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
You must register on http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/online/ to get the access to MIL-STDs Mirko -Original Message- From: Matejic, Mirko Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 10:22 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 MIL-STD-461E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT issued on August 20, 1999, 253 pages is available in Acrobat Reader format, 970 KB on: http://assist.daps.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=35789 Mirko -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:43 To: 'Jose Miguel Rio'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Jose: The best source of information about MIL-STD-461 is the standard itself. All of the requirements are defined very thoroughly (well, maybe not so thorough for Methods CS103, CS104 CS105) within the document, and an Appendix A is provided which gives you a discussion of the purposes, problems and rationale behind each of the Test Methods. Remember that the D revision has now been superseded by the E version. What used to be MIL-STD-461D and the separate MIL-STD-462D have now been combined into a single document, which is MIL-STD-461E. New equipment should be qualified to the E version, but existing equipment may still be tested under the version in effect at the time of the original qualification. So, don't throw away your B, C or D versions. Ed - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
Jose: The best source of information about MIL-STD-461 is the standard itself. All of the requirements are defined very thoroughly (well, maybe not so thorough for Methods CS103, CS104 CS105) within the document, and an Appendix A is provided which gives you a discussion of the purposes, problems and rationale behind each of the Test Methods. Remember that the D revision has now been superseded by the E version. What used to be MIL-STD-461D and the separate MIL-STD-462D have now been combined into a single document, which is MIL-STD-461E. New equipment should be qualified to the E version, but existing equipment may still be tested under the version in effect at the time of the original qualification. So, don't throw away your B, C or D versions. Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Jose Miguel Rio [SMTP:j...@advancedshielding.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 3:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 Dear group: I have two questions: 1) Where can I find shielding properties of copper (sheets)? 2) Where can I find information about test method of MIL-STD 461 MIL-STD 462? Thank you Jose Miguel Rio Advanced Shielding Technologies - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462
Answer to question #1:For all practical purposes, the shielding effectiveness (SE) of Cu sheet is infinite. Whatever enclosure you build, its SE will be limited not by the conductivity of Cu, but by the seams and apertures inherent in any useful structure. unless you are looking for SE at dc, Cu or Al is more than sufficient. If you need a dc magnetic field-free zone, then and only then do you have to start looking at ferromagnetic materials. Answer to question #2:I assume you have the standards themselves (by the way, MIL-STD-461E is the present revision, which combines -461D/-462D, plus minor changes). So you are looking for additional supporting material. There are lots of people doing seminars. RB comes to mind. I used to do a one week -461/-462 testing seminar. I have all the slides and sample test procedures. I don't know they would be worth much without the accompanying spiel and hands-on test experience, but if you have specific questions, I do have the answers. -- From: Jose Miguel Rio j...@advancedshielding.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: copper properties MIL-STD 461 462 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, Dec 14, 1999, 5:13 AM Dear group: I have two questions: 1) Where can I find shielding properties of copper (sheets)? 2) Where can I find information about test method of MIL-STD 461 MIL-STD 462? Thank you Jose Miguel Rio Advanced Shielding Technologies
RE: MIL-STD-461 C vs D
Dave: I just got a copy of the draft, so I don't know much about any changes yet. You are right about the merger. However, D was a sweeping change against C, and you have to read the very fine print to discover the compulsions behind the madness behind the Methods. ;-) Ed From: Brumbaugh, David david.brumba...@pss.boeing.com Subject: RE: MIL-STD-461 C vs D Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:02:10 -0800 To: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@ieee.org, 'ed.pr...@cubic.com' ed.pr...@cubic.com As I understand it, 461E will simply merge 461 and 462 into a single interface standard. There is no plan to change the requirements or test methods unless there is a very compelling reason to do so. DB All those still studying 461D/462D will be very happy to know that drafts of 461E are now circulating. Merry Christmas! Regards, Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 Date: 12/11/1998 Time: 12:42:15 -- ---End of Original Message- -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 12/11/1998 Time: 13:34:27 -- - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: MIL-STD-461 C vs D
Hello Here is the basics on 461D MIL-STD-461 D EMI CE101 replaces CE01 CE102 up to 10MHz No Narrow or Wide band only Peak Band. CE03 test is gone CE07 test is gone CS101 replaces CS01 CS02 test is gone CS06 test is gone CS114 Bulk Current Injection is combo replacement of CS02 whole sprectrum RS03 low end sprectrum RE101 was 50KHz now 100KHz replaces RE01 RE102 up to 18 GHz replaces RE02 RS101 was 50KHz now 100KHz replaces RS01 RS02 test is gone RS103 replaces RS03 At 07:34 AM 12/9/98 -0800, Brumbaugh, David wrote: Hi group, Here's one for all of you that make products for US military/gov't customers: I was reviewing MIL-STD-461D (I know, a little late to be commenting at this point) and I noticed that although CS101 in -461D corresponds to CS01 in -461C, there is no counterpart to -461C's CS02 requirement. In other words, the conducted susceptibility test on power leads has been deleted above 50 kHz in -461D. The bulk current injection test (CS114) covers the range up to to 400 MHz, but that is a common mode test, and doesn't necessarily impose the voltage levels that can be present on a power bus above 50 kHz. In my experience, most of the noise that is of concern ranges between 50 kHz, and a few megahertz, especially with the switching frequencies used in today's power supplies. Is anyone else concerned about this? Is there some rationale that supports the -461D version in this regard? There is no discussion on this in the application guide to -461D. I'd be interested in any comments or shared concern out there. Thanks in advance David Brumbaugh The Boeing Company Phantom Works - Electromagnetic Effects M/C 8H-11 POB 3999 Seattle, WA 98124-2499 Phone: 253-773-3733 Pager: 800-759-7243, PIN 5474642# Fax: 253-773-4173 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
MIL-STD-461 C vs D
Hi group, Here's one for all of you that make products for US military/gov't customers: I was reviewing MIL-STD-461D (I know, a little late to be commenting at this point) and I noticed that although CS101 in -461D corresponds to CS01 in -461C, there is no counterpart to -461C's CS02 requirement. In other words, the conducted susceptibility test on power leads has been deleted above 50 kHz in -461D. The bulk current injection test (CS114) covers the range up to to 400 MHz, but that is a common mode test, and doesn't necessarily impose the voltage levels that can be present on a power bus above 50 kHz. In my experience, most of the noise that is of concern ranges between 50 kHz, and a few megahertz, especially with the switching frequencies used in today's power supplies. Is anyone else concerned about this? Is there some rationale that supports the -461D version in this regard? There is no discussion on this in the application guide to -461D. I'd be interested in any comments or shared concern out there. Thanks in advance David Brumbaugh The Boeing Company Phantom Works - Electromagnetic Effects M/C 8H-11 POB 3999 Seattle, WA 98124-2499 Phone: 253-773-3733 Pager: 800-759-7243, PIN 5474642# Fax:253-773-4173 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: MIL-STD-461/462D, RE102, noisefloor
--- On Fri, 9 May 1997 08:34:50 +0200 Heck, Stefan stefan.h...@dnv.com wrote: System requirements for RE102 When performing the emission test RE102 according to MIL-STD-461/462D we observe that the test system noise floor is at some frequencies just below the most stringent limit (navy mobile and army). This is when we use the bandwidths prescribed by the standard. We can lower the noise level when we reduce the bandwidth. Has anybody similar experience? How can we lower the noise floor and at the same time fulfill the standard requirements regarding the setup? We are using brandnew and high standard test receivers and antennas. Any hints are really appreciated! Stefan Heck -End of Original Message- Stefan: It would help us to comment more accurately if you gave us a list of the equipment (analyzers, antennas, cables) which you are using. You may need a good low-noise pre-amp. Look for something with less than a 1 dB noise figure. My favorite vendor is Miteq, in New York, USA. (They have a web site.) But first, check to see if you have antennas which are efficient enough to have decently low antenna factors. Then, make sure you have very good, low loss coax; no longer than necessary. Finally, don't rely on too much automation. Verify that any computer system is actually correcting the data as you assume. If it does come down to your receiver (analyzer) not having enough sensitivity, I would be surprised. Any combination of HP, EMCO, AHS, Singer, RS, Tek or Carnel gear (that I have ever used), made in the last 10 years, will let you read to below 461's limits. I just finished an RE102 test where I had a limit of 3dBuV/m in a short band around 2100 MHz. My HP-8571A's input sensitivity at this frequency is almost as good as my Miteq pre-amp's 0.6dB NF, so I didn't bother with the pre-amp. Well, I did have to use a non-standard narrower bandwidth, and I used a higher gain than usual horn antenna, and it did take me about an hour to scan 100 MHz of spectrum, but the stock test equipment did get the job done! (You WILL have problems using an NF-105 with a VA-105 passive antenna and RG-58 coax.) -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 5/9/97 Time: 3:22:16 PM --
MIL-STD-461/462D, RE102, noisefloor
System requirements for RE102 When performing the emission test RE102 according to MIL-STD-461/462D we observe that the test system noise floor is at some frequencies just below the most stringent limit (navy mobile and army). This is when we use the bandwidths prescribed by the standard. We can lower the noise level when we reduce the bandwidth. Has anybody similar experience? How can we lower the noise floor and at the same time fulfill the standard requirements regarding the setup? We are using brandnew and high standard test receivers and antennas. Any hints are really appreciated! Stefan Heck ___phone +47-67 57 95 06 h...@dnv.com/ Senior EMC Engineer \ FAX+47-67 57 89 60 / Det Norske Veritas \
Re: MIL-STD-461/462D, RE102, noisefloor
cc: Heck, Stefan cc: emc-p...@ieee.org STFrom: Heck, Stefan stefan.h...@dnv.com STSubject: MIL-STD-461/462D, RE102, noisefloor STSystem requirements for RE102 STWhen performing the emission test RE102 according to MIL-STD-461/462D we STobserve that the test system noise floor is at some frequencies just STbelow the most stringent limit (navy mobile and army). This is when we STuse the bandwidths prescribed by the standard. We can lower the noise STlevel when we reduce the bandwidth. STHas anybody similar experience? How can we lower the noise floor and at STthe same time fulfill the standard requirements regarding the setup? We STare using brandnew and high standard test receivers and antennas. STAny hints are really appreciated! From memory (and a bad one today) you are allowed to use narrower bands but you must scale based upon those narrower bandwidths. There is a formula even provided somewhere. Not sure this applies to this test, or not. - Robert - robert.m...@engineers.com AJM Electronics --- ~ OLX 2.1 TD ~ Paper is always strongest at the perforations.
