Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <55f9cfdf.3090...@oracle.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Monrad 
Monsen  writes:


I note that even while some in the standards community are adding cost 
in their efforts to systematically remove variation in measurements, no 
one is then passing on the benefits of this improved measurement system 
to manufacturers & their customers by accordingly raising the allowed 
emissions limits.  Wonder why???


Because the initial approach from the metrological theory was that MU 
involved tightening all the limits. So it was decreed that the existing 
limits were set taking MU into account and didn't need to be made more 
stringent.


Incidentally, the main object of studying MU is to control and quantify 
it, not to reduce it unless it's clearly out-of-control.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ted Eckert]

I have seen digital systems with features that have been susceptible to 
radiated noise. One example was a system that had a capacitive touch power 
button. It failed initial radiated immunity testing at the frequency of the 
oscillator of the capacitive circuit. I see more and more digital systems with 
adaptive cooling that depends on some analog temperature measurement circuit. 
I'll admit that most digital systems I've worked on have passed radiated 
immunity without a problem, but not all. I suspect as we see an increasing 
number of touch screens and other interfaces, we will start to see radiated 
immunity issues with consumer computing products again.

I'm not arguing for or against the testing. I'm only stating that I have seen 
examples in the past few years of consumer computing products that do not pass 
radiated immunity testing on the first pass.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Hi Gert & John,
Gert gave some interesting examples of radiated immunity failures (analogue 
measurement systems like thermocouples), but none of them apply to computers 
(the products I usually work on). Also, Gert mentioned some power supply design 
mistakes that have caused EFT failures in the past.  As mentioned, it is rare 
that computer manufacturers design new power supplies as they go from CPU 
generation to CPU generation, so there is really no need to redo the power 
related immunity testing (especially benign EFT testing) for such changes 
unrelated to the power supply.  Hence, this testing is a waste of time and 
money ... adding cost to the product development which is ultimately passed to 
the customer.

John & others would point out that ... "In Europe, no testing is mandatory."  
However, there is an expectation that some analysis be documented for why a 
test was not run.  It is not until a regulator audits that one would know if 
the explanation is "good enough".  Rather than writing a doctoral thesis on why 
a test does not apply to the next generation product, most resign themselves to 
running the uninteresting test to "complete the record".   Besides, South Korea 
does not give any wiggle room for engineering judgment, so the test must be run 
for them anyway.

The problem with government regulation is that politicians and bureaucrats are 
not engineers.  They certainly do not want to take the time to analyze each 
product's design and create a product specific regulation.  Instead, regulators 
tend to lump all products together and create a one-size-fits-all regulation 
for what is required to get their approval.  They also treat all manufacturers 
as equal ignoring a manufacturer's design & performance history.  As a result, 
government regulations are inherently wasteful and should only be applied when 
there are customer safety issues or excessive interference potential neighbors.

John mentions the horror stories of 6dB differences in measured results that 
are supposed to be solved by measurement uncertainty and improvements on the 
non-conducting tables.  However, the FCC limits (similar limits were later 
adopted internationally) were set with a margin to account for measurement 
issues.  Years later today, most communications are digital with error 
correction that which causes TV reception to be crisp and other communications 
to be more fault tolerant.   As there are no interference complaints, then 
there is no need to add extra site calibration days to a lab's accreditation 
requirements or lab equipment costs.  These costs get passed on to 
manufacturers who must then pass them ultimately to their customers.

I note that even while some in the standards community are adding cost in their 
efforts to systematically remove variation in measurements, no one is then 
passing on the benefits of this improved measurement system to manufacturers & 
their customers by accordingly raising the allowed emissions limits.  Wonder 
why???

Monrad
Note:  All opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own and are not necessarily 
those of any company I work for or have worked for.


-


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 graphic

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Monrad Monsen]

Hi Gert & John,
Gert gave some interesting examples of radiated immunity failures 
(analogue measurement systems like thermocouples), but none of them 
apply to computers (the products I usually work on). Also, Gert 
mentioned some power supply design mistakes that have caused EFT 
failures in the past. As mentioned, it is rare that computer 
manufacturers design new power supplies as they go from CPU generation 
to CPU generation, so there is really no need to redo the power related 
immunity testing (especially benign EFT testing) for such changes 
unrelated to the power supply.  Hence, this testing is a waste of time 
and money ... adding cost to the product development which is ultimately 
passed to the customer.


John & others would point out that ... "In Europe, no testing is 
mandatory."  However, there is an expectation that some analysis be 
documented for why a test was not run.  It is not until a regulator 
audits that one would know if the explanation is "good enough".  Rather 
than writing a doctoral thesis on why a test does not apply to the next 
generation product, most resign themselves to running the uninteresting 
test to "complete the record".   Besides, South Korea does not give any 
wiggle room for engineering judgment, so the test must be run for them 
anyway.


The problem with government regulation is that politicians and 
bureaucrats are not engineers.  They certainly do not want to take the 
time to analyze each product's design and create a product specific 
regulation.  Instead, regulators tend to lump all products together and 
create a one-size-fits-all regulation for what is required to get their 
approval.  They also treat all manufacturers as equal ignoring a 
manufacturer's design & performance history.  As a result, government 
regulations are inherently wasteful and should only be applied when 
there are customer safety issues or excessive interference potential 
neighbors.


John mentions the horror stories of 6dB differences in measured results 
that are supposed to be solved by measurement uncertainty and 
improvements on the non-conducting tables.  However, the FCC limits 
(similar limits were later adopted internationally) were set with a 
margin to account for measurement issues.  Years later today, most 
communications are digital with error correction that which causes TV 
reception to be crisp and other communications to be more fault 
tolerant.   As there are no interference complaints, then there is no 
need to add extra site calibration days to a lab's accreditation 
requirements or lab equipment costs.  These costs get passed on to 
manufacturers who must then pass them ultimately to their customers.


I note that even while some in the standards community are adding cost 
in their efforts to systematically remove variation in measurements, no 
one is then passing on the benefits of this improved measurement system 
to manufacturers & their customers by accordingly raising the allowed 
emissions limits.  Wonder why???


Monrad
Note:  All opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own and are not 
necessarily those of any company I work for or have worked for.




-

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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <55f9a5fd.7...@iglou.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, John 
Barnes  writes:


I was told that governments regulate EMC because the product that fails 
is not the product/equipment that causes the problem-- thus the wrong 
party gets the blame, and the culprit gets off scot-free.


Yes: in fact manufacturers would have a case at law in Europe against 
enforcement of emissions requirements without immunity requirements.


But most governments consider EMI and ESD problems to be 
self-correcting:
1.  If a company makes a product that is very susceptible to EMI or 
ESD,

   there will be many problems with it in the field.
2.  If the manufacturer or seller can't/doesn't resolve these
   problems, unhappy customers will complain to anyone who will
   listen-- severely damaging the manufacturer's reputation.
3.  Prospective buyers will look for alternatives, and be leery of
   buying/leasing *any* products made by the manufacturer.
4.  Distributors and sellers will stop carrying the manufacturer's
   products.
5.  The manufacturer will eventually go out of business-- solving the
   problem without government intervention/interference!

I put those arguments as a case for not making vast changes to CISPR 
20/EN 55020 when the EMCD first came in.


Somewhere I heard/read that the European Union (EU) got into the 
regulating of EMI and ESD susceptibility because of the Treaty of 
Maastricht-- one of the major founding treaties of the European Union. 
This treaty allowed countries (states) in the EU to pass legislation to 
protect the "health and welfare" of their people-- and some countries, 
such as Germany, made a very-broad interpretation of "health and welfare".


For example, Don Bush told me that in the 1970's, if you wanted to buy 
a television in Germany, that the PTT (Postal, Telegraph and Telephone) 
authority would send someone to your house to make signal-strength 
measurements-- and they would specify:

*  The type of television antenna you had to buy,
*  Where to mount the antenna,
 AND
*  In which direction to aim the antenna,
to *guarantee* that you had an acceptable level of television 
reception!


Yes, because historically they had deluges of complaints about poor 
reception. So did other administrations, but they didn't adopt such a 
fierce technological solution.


Therefore the EU started developing its market-wide EMI/ESD standards, 
to preempt these countries from making standards/requirements that 
could become barriers to free trade inside the EU.


Correct. There were also quite stringent regulations in other countries 
that could not be justified.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Barnes]

John et al,
I closed dBi Corporation in September 2013 and retired.  So I haven't
bothered keeping up with all of the niggling details of electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC), electromagnetic interference (EMI), and
electrostatic discharge (ESD) standards as they have evolved since then.

But from early 2002 to late 2013 I personally did the official
EMC/EMI/ESD approval tests of 389 products to a wide variety of US,
Canadian, European Union, Australian, New Zealand, and Japanese
standards (see my web site, http://www.dbicorporation.com/).

As a working EMC Engineer, I observed that many countries/market areas
had EMI and ESD requirements for military and medical products/
equipment-- because these could kill or severely injure people if they
misbehaved due to EMI/ESD problems.  But with the exception of the
European Union-- and India for products with fax capability-- I don't
recall any legal EMI/ESD standards or requirements for commercial
products and equipment.  

I was told that governments regulate EMC because the product that fails
is not the product/equipment that causes the problem-- thus the wrong
party gets the blame, and the culprit gets off scot-free.  But most
governments consider EMI and ESD problems to be self-correcting:
1.  If a company makes a product that is very susceptible to EMI or ESD, 
there will be many problems with it in the field.  
2.  If the manufacturer or seller can't/doesn't resolve these 
problems, unhappy customers will complain to anyone who will 
listen-- severely damaging the manufacturer's reputation.
3.  Prospective buyers will look for alternatives, and be leery of 
buying/leasing *any* products made by the manufacturer.
4.  Distributors and sellers will stop carrying the manufacturer's
products.
5.  The manufacturer will eventually go out of business-- solving the 
problem without government intervention/interference!



Somewhere I heard/read that the European Union (EU) got into the
regulating of EMI and ESD susceptibility because of the Treaty of
Maastricht-- one of the major founding treaties of the European Union. 
This treaty allowed countries (states) in the EU to pass legislation to
protect the "health and welfare" of their people-- and some countries,
such as Germany, made a very-broad interpretation of "health and
welfare".  

For example, Don Bush told me that in the 1970's, if you wanted to buy a
television in Germany, that the PTT (Postal, Telegraph and Telephone)
authority would send someone to your house to make signal-strength
measurements-- and they would specify:
*  The type of television antenna you had to buy,
*  Where to mount the antenna,
  AND
*  In which direction to aim the antenna,
to *guarantee* that you had an acceptable level of television reception!

Therefore the EU started developing its market-wide EMI/ESD standards,
to preempt these countries from making standards/requirements that could
become barriers to free trade inside the EU.



I worked at IBM and Lexmark from 1977 to early 2002, and both companies
had internal standards for EMC/EMI/ESD that were frequently much tougher
than the legally-mandated standards-- out of self-interest:
*  To keep our customers satisfied.
*  To maintain our reputation for building/supporting high-quality
   products.

I don't know if it is still there, but there used to be a large map of
the US posted in IBM/Lexmark's Conducted Emissions lab, with map pins
showing all the places where EMC-Lab folks had gone to investigate field
problems.

John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, NCT, ESDC Eng, ESDC Tech, PSE, Master EMC  
  Design Eng, SM IEEE (retired)
Lexington, KY
http://www.dbicorporation.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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:32 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Ted I was thinking about this on the drive in this morning - not from a power 
grid build out - more pragmatically instances of failure. Most companies do 
have ESD programs, both on the manufacturing floor and for product design. This 
developed not because of regulation but ESD failures. It was likely spurred on 
with the introduction of CMOS devices which in the day came shipped with the 
chip leads inserted through aluminum foil or other hopefully equipotential 
material to reduce damage. It took a lot of care getting them from the shipping 
"pallets" if you will onto the PCB. Yields were still low because the inputs 
were extremely sensitive. More were lost on the floor, and ESD or "no problem 
found" field problems were high. So ESD became a big problem and manufacturing 
floors were ESD hardened and so was the products. Even though the CMOS was 
eventually hardened by the chip manufacturers this particular lesson was 
learned and continuous design efforts and evaluation have continued in most 
companies.
While I have seen as a young engineer computers that would lock-up when metal 
cabinets across the carpeted office would lock-up or reboot and other examples 
of severe ESD upset. I have never experienced other immunity problems, other 
than the occasional and somewhat rare instance of dirty power - and even that 
has mostly been addressed by power supply manufacturers long before the 
immunity requirements of the EU came into play.
The point being when immunity problems have been identified the US has 
addressed the problem - for the most part - with the need for regulation, but 
again it took a demonstrated problem to drive it.

This isn't really meant to be a treatise on should regulation be required as it 
is in EU or self-driven. Just an observation from the past, when I worked on 
the prototype for dirt. Certainly others may have different observations.

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Let me add yet another point of view.

In the United States and Canada, the step-down transformer that serves any give 
house may only supply 5 - 12 other houses. Residential and commercial customers 
are on separate transformers. Even in the denser cities, it is unlikely that 
any commercial or industrial equipment will be connected directly to mains that 
supply residential customers. This reduces the likelihood of transients from 
industrial equipment affecting consumer equipment. In Europe, there are many 
places where commercial and residential customers share a connection. The 
consumer equipment will be more directly affected by transients from industrial 
equipment. There is a similar difference that could explain why radiated 
immunity is not required in North America. Consumer products are typically 
further from noise sources.

That said, I don't see a difference for ESD or lightning surges. However, it is 
possible that there just are fewer cases of interference in North America 
because of the different ways we build cities and power grids.

This is just my theory, but I would expect that if interference were a problem 
in the United States, we would hear more people complaining about it. If there 
is one thing Americans like to do, it is to complain. They are even happier if 
they can blame somebody else for a problem. As such, I am taking the lack of 
visible complaints for a possible lack of the problem of interference.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

-

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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[CR]

On 9/15/2015 2:26 PM, Brian O'Connell wrote:

  expect  ... higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the cost becomes 
the key driver.


Quality suffers unless it is built into design; squeezing out quality 
for the sake of higher profits leads to delays and overruns
that would not occur if there were either 1) laxer (no?) requirements, 
EMC or others or 2) a corporate culture that funds
quality at each stage - and  not merely in response to regulations.  I 
have always viewed my role as more preventing
problems than piling on Band-Aids® to squeak by qualification -- and 
sometimes (the good times) I could.


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 

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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <55f8a060.4060...@oracle.com>, dated Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Monrad 
Monsen  writes:


.  We have to be careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  
Today, the standards committees are going beyond the original intent 
(reduce interference by mandating emissions limits) and now are trying 
to become too scientific about the exact measurement uncertainty and 
careful characterization of the nonconductive table, etc.  All of this 
is occurring even though the number of FCC interference complaints per 
year has dropped to almost non-existent.   Also, I never see any 
electrical fast transient (EFT) failures at the European mandated levels


In Europe, *no* testing is mandatory. Certainly no standard can mandate 
anything, but the EMC Directive does not mandate testing either. It's 
entirely the choice of the manufacturer. There is no requirement to 
waste time and money on tests that will undoubtedly be passed.


The subject of measurement uncertainty is complicated and can be 
confusing, but its application does help to eliminate false 'FAIL' 
results. Ditto the non-conducting table: that was highlighted by large 
(6 dB) differences in measured results. And the permittivity of the 100 
mm spacer can affect the results where it is used. A waterlogged wood 
block give very good results!

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
ok.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Ted Eckert  
writes:


As such, I am taking the lack of visible complaints for a possible lack 
of the problem of interference.


The *only* justification for emission limits and immunity requirements 
is complaints of interference.


A major reason for different approaches in Europe and US is historical. 
For around 40 years, people in continental Europe could not listen to 
the radio stations they wanted to, partly  because of 'jamming' by 
authorities with different politics and partly because many such 
transmissions were low-power and were drowned out by local interference 
sources. So European governments have for long been very sensitive about 
any threat to broadcast reception.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m, but I have never seen a
product fail this testing at this low level. 

 

 

I am operating a small Netherlands test house, and I can assure you that
many products

In my lab do fail 3V/m  (at 80%AM) initially. Any analogue measurement
system (thermocouples) is very susceptible to 3V/m if no

basic decoupling caps and/or serial impedance are present, connected to
a decent ground plane.

Regularly EUT fail right starting the test at 80 MHz, and I have seen an
internal power supply of a reputable USA brand

(24V 10 amps) actually switching OFF (not fold back, inoperable until
power off) at 3 V/m.

 

>Also, I never see any electrical fast transient (EFT) failures at the
European mandated levels

 

Same for EFT. Residential levels of 1000/500 V do have a huge impact on
reset switches in uP systems

if not correctly decoupled. Audio systems change in beepers. Crow bar
protections in power supply

suddenly conduct and blow a fuse, and triac regulated dimmers
spontaneously ignite.

Nevertheless, the levels are low, I agree and are easy to meet. That is
a reasonable approach

for government regulation on non-safety related functional tests.

Some commercial entities simply need a kick in the ...,  just to take
their consumers seriously.

 

Note that testing (in the EU) is not an obligation, you may carry out
testing yourself, substantially

reducing costs, or build your technical file based on similarity of
design.

 

>In our case, the EFT test is a waste of time for most product releases,
but we have to complete the record because of a regulatory burden

 

You hit the nail on the head: for most product releases !

So what would have happened with those releases that failed
Jeopardized your brands reputation ?

 

 

Gert Gremmen

 

 

 

From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 16 September 2015 00:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.

The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers.  We did
ESD, voltage dips & interrupts, and shock & vibration testing on our
products long before Europe came up with immunity requirements.  Had
studies been done on typical surges seen at customer sites along with
developing surge test equipment, we would have done surge testing as
well even without a regulatory requirement.  

What did regulation add? We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m,
but I have never seen a product fail this testing at this low level.
Instead, this testing is an overhead cost to products that may have
small changes that would not be impacted by this particular test.  In
actuality, our company chooses to add radiated immunity test
requirements at 12V/m level at spot frequencies in wireless bands.
Again, why do we do this?  Do ensure our products do well at customer
sites and to maintain our corporate reputation.  However, it is best to
allow the manufacturer/designer to focus efforts and cost to areas that
benefit the customer the most ... so costs can be controlled for the
customer (the customer ultimately pays for development work done on the
product).  

Hate to say it in this discussion list, but most reliability is gained
by having good functional testing of the code and Beta testing.  We have
to be careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  Today, the
standards committees are going beyond the original intent (reduce
interference by mandating emissions limits) and now are trying to become
too scientific about the exact measurement uncertainty and careful
characterization of the nonconductive table, etc.  All of this is
occurring even though the number of FCC interference complaints per year
has dropped to almost non-existent.   Also, I never see any electrical
fast transient (EFT) failures at the European mandated levels.  We
already re-use the many of the same power supply designs and filter
designs for many generations of products. In our case, the EFT test is a
waste of time for most product releases, but we have to complete the
record because of a regulatory burden (not just Europe, but now for
South Korea).   My point is ... don't add unnecessary test cost burden.
Let the manufacturer focus development and test time on what is of value
to the customer.

I happen to be involved in the international standards committees
because the main thing we want is consistency so the same product can be
sold worldwide.  The ultimate goal should be one standard, one test, one
mark, and worldwide acceptance.  Personally, I would prefer that FCC
drop all use of ANSI standards and strictly adopt the international
emissions standard.  I certainly don't want FCC to add immunity
requirements.

Please remember that customers are smarter than some in government give
them c

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ted Eckert]

Let me add yet another point of view.

In the United States and Canada, the step-down transformer that serves any give 
house may only supply 5 - 12 other houses. Residential and commercial customers 
are on separate transformers. Even in the denser cities, it is unlikely that 
any commercial or industrial equipment will be connected directly to mains that 
supply residential customers. This reduces the likelihood of transients from 
industrial equipment affecting consumer equipment. In Europe, there are many 
places where commercial and residential customers share a connection. The 
consumer equipment will be more directly affected by transients from industrial 
equipment. There is a similar difference that could explain why radiated 
immunity is not required in North America. Consumer products are typically 
further from noise sources.

That said, I don't see a difference for ESD or lightning surges. However, it is 
possible that there just are fewer cases of interference in North America 
because of the different ways we build cities and power grids.

This is just my theory, but I would expect that if interference were a problem 
in the United States, we would hear more people complaining about it. If there 
is one thing Americans like to do, it is to complain. They are even happier if 
they can blame somebody else for a problem. As such, I am taking the lack of 
visible complaints for a possible lack of the problem of interference.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer.

From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 3:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.

The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their 
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers.  We did ESD, 
voltage dips & interrupts, and shock & vibration testing on our products long 
before Europe came up with immunity requirements.  Had studies been done on 
typical surges seen at customer sites along with developing surge test 
equipment, we would have done surge testing as well even without a regulatory 
requirement.

What did regulation add? We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m, but I 
have never seen a product fail this testing at this low level.  Instead, this 
testing is an overhead cost to products that may have small changes that would 
not be impacted by this particular test.  In actuality, our company chooses to 
add radiated immunity test requirements at 12V/m level at spot frequencies in 
wireless bands.  Again, why do we do this?  Do ensure our products do well at 
customer sites and to maintain our corporate reputation.  However, it is best 
to allow the manufacturer/designer to focus efforts and cost to areas that 
benefit the customer the most ... so costs can be controlled for the customer 
(the customer ultimately pays for development work done on the product).

Hate to say it in this discussion list, but most reliability is gained by 
having good functional testing of the code and Beta testing.  We have to be 
careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  Today, the standards 
committees are going beyond the original intent (reduce interference by 
mandating emissions limits) and now are trying to become too scientific about 
the exact measurement uncertainty and careful characterization of the 
nonconductive table, etc.  All of this is occurring even though the number of 
FCC interference complaints per year has dropped to almost non-existent.   
Also, I never see any electrical fast transient (EFT) failures at the European 
mandated levels.  We already re-use the many of the same power supply designs 
and filter designs for many generations of products. In our case, the EFT test 
is a waste of time for most product releases, but we have to complete the 
record because of a regulatory burden (not just Europe, but now for South 
Korea).   My point is ... don't add unnecessary test cost burden.  Let the 
manufacturer focus development and test time on what is of value to the 
customer.

I happen to be involved in the international standards committees because the 
main thing we want is consistency so the same product can be sold worldwide.  
The ultimate goal should be one standard, one test, one mark, and worldwide 
acceptance.  Personally, I would prefer that FCC drop all use of ANSI standards 
and strictly adopt the international emissions standard.  I certainly don't 
want FCC to add immunity requirements.

Please remember that customers are smarter than some in government give them 
credit for.  They know that they get what they pay for.  If they purchase from 
a solid known brand, they may pay more but

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Monrad Monsen]

Interesting discussion regarding pros & cons on government regulations.

The companies I have worked for took it seriously that they wanted their 
products to be reliable to maintain a good name with customers.  We did 
ESD, voltage dips & interrupts, and shock & vibration testing on our 
products long before Europe came up with immunity requirements.  Had 
studies been done on typical surges seen at customer sites along with 
developing surge test equipment, we would have done surge testing as 
well even without a regulatory requirement.


What did regulation add? We now have radiated immunity testing at 3V/m, 
but I have never seen a product fail this testing at this low level.  
Instead, this testing is an overhead cost to products that may have 
small changes that would not be impacted by this particular test.  In 
actuality, our company chooses to add radiated immunity test 
requirements at 12V/m level at spot frequencies in wireless bands.  
Again, why do we do this?  Do ensure our products do well at customer 
sites and to maintain our corporate reputation.  However, it is best to 
allow the manufacturer/designer to focus efforts and cost to areas that 
benefit the customer the most ... so costs can be controlled for the 
customer (the customer ultimately pays for development work done on the 
product).


Hate to say it in this discussion list, but most reliability is gained 
by having good functional testing of the code and Beta testing.  We have 
to be careful about how much EMC testing is mandated.  Today, the 
standards committees are going beyond the original intent (reduce 
interference by mandating emissions limits) and now are trying to become 
too scientific about the exact measurement uncertainty and careful 
characterization of the nonconductive table, etc.  All of this is 
occurring even though the number of FCC interference complaints per year 
has dropped to almost non-existent.   Also, I never see any electrical 
fast transient (EFT) failures at the European mandated levels.  We 
already re-use the many of the same power supply designs and filter 
designs for many generations of products. In our case, the EFT test is a 
waste of time for most product releases, but we have to complete the 
record because of a regulatory burden (not just Europe, but now for 
South Korea).   My point is ... don't add unnecessary test cost burden.  
Let the manufacturer focus development and test time on what is of value 
to the customer.


I happen to be involved in the international standards committees 
because the main thing we want is consistency so the same product can be 
sold worldwide.  The ultimate goal should be one standard, one test, one 
mark, and worldwide acceptance.  Personally, I would prefer that FCC 
drop all use of ANSI standards and strictly adopt the international 
emissions standard.  I certainly don't want FCC to add immunity 
requirements.


Please remember that customers are smarter than some in government give 
them credit for.  They know that they get what they pay for. If they 
purchase from a solid known brand, they may pay more but they will get a 
reliable product that will last them for years to come.  However, no one 
in India would want to pay double the price for a printer compared to 
the price the same printer is offered in USA ... but India's government 
that almost mandates in-country testing forces this kind of higher 
pricing in their country. Regulation strikes again.


Research -- yes.
Regulation -- no. (Exceptions may be for a valid safety concern for 
customer or excessive interference potential neighbors.)


Monrad
Note:  All opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own and are not 
necessarily those of any company I work for or have worked for.

<http://www.oracle.com>
On 9/15/2015 1:32 PM, Rodney Davis wrote:


How many big companies survive if their only market is USA.  Pretty 
safe to say almost all major players have a European, and other 
regions of export and hence though not specifically requiring 55024 
most product sold I think would be safe to say meet immunity.



Too expensive to have a fully approved variant and a second variant 
 approved for NA.





*From:* dward 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it 
as impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be. This 
includes EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the 
idea that personal safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work 
in a socialist type environment, but not in here.


Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from 
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive 
use of the recipient(s) named above.  It may contain informa

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Rodney Davis]

How many big companies survive if their only market is USA.  Pretty safe to say 
almost all major players have a European, and other regions of export and hence 
though not specifically requiring 55024 most product sold I think would be safe 
to say meet immunity.


Too expensive to have a fully approved variant and a second variant  approved 
for NA.




From: dward 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question


As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as 
impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes 
EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal 
safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type 
environment, but not in here.





Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.



From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Ravinder



W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier 
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what 
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean 
counting for the US market!) :(



John Allen

W.London, UK



-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.



However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements.



The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.



My personal view.



Regards



Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com<mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com>





5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

www.hgst.com<http://www.hgst.com>



-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.



My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.



-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message 
<009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net<mailto:009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>>,
 dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price mailto:edpr...@cox.net>> 
writes:



>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.



It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

As a US citizen my premise on any government involvement is to make it as 
impossible or as hard for them to regulate anything as can be.  This includes 
EMC, immunity or any other thing.  Too many fall under the idea that personal 
safety outweighs personal freedom.  That may work in a socialist type 
environment, but not in here.  

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Ravinder

 

W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier 
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what 
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean 
counting for the US market!) :(

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

 

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

 

My personal view.

 

Regards

 

Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

 <mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com> ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com

 

 

5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

 <http://www.hgst.com> www.hgst.com

 

-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [ <mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com> 
mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

 

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net> 
009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price < 
<mailto:edpr...@cox.net> edpr...@cox.net> writes:

 

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

 

Immunity is for other people, right?just

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See  <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-

---

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Brian O'Connell]

A significant portion of 'white' gear appliance equipment, made and sold in 
North America, does not meet any basic stuff in CISPR14.2, but agree that most 
of the ITE/AV/industrial stuff has been tested and certified per the EMC or 
RTTE directives.

Should be noted that some of the appliance safety standards indirectly require 
immunity.

The expectation of a North American-based global corporation to self-regulate 
is not unreasonable. My employer is a supplier to several F500 companies, and 
their level of product control and testing indicates that they are interested 
in both controlling costs and controlling product reliability.

Where most large western companies lose control in their pursuit of the bottom 
line is at their Asian or Latin American factories where any number of unknown 
shenanigans routinely occur. A good design does not always survive the 
factory...

Per the OP, the few products with a USB port were taken to a MS461 lab where 
RS/CS gurus live. They have saved our bacon more than once (mmm, bacon).

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

My personal view.

Regards

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital company
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com


5601 Great Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95119
www.hgst.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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

Ravinder

 

W.r.t. your 2nd para, the 1st  sentence is roughly what I said in an earlier
post - but the 2nd sentence could be a misleading assumption because of what
you said in the 1st para (and what I also said in my earlier post about bean
counting for the US market!) L

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

-Original Message-
From: Ravinder Ajmani [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 18:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the
cost becomes the key driver.

 

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of
these countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are
designed to meet these requirements. 

 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

 

My personal view.

 

Regards

 

Ravinder Ajmani

HGST, a Western Digital company

 <mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com> ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com

 

 

5601 Great Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95119

 <http://www.hgst.com> www.hgst.com

 

-Original Message-

From: Gary McInturff [ <mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com>
mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation.
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out
of 10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

 

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as
any other functional specification but whether it's done through
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>
009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ed Price <
<mailto:edpr...@cox.net> edpr...@cox.net> writes:

 

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of

>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 

>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.

>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 

>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC
committees on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the
Convenership of one.

 

Immunity is for other people, right?just

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



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

 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc
-2Dpstc.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxv
z4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=t7oXi6LZLk9
QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-
2Dpstc.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz
4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=t7oXi6LZLk9Q
UYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8&e= 

 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc
.ieee.org_&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4
Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=dpVzl3vy7Ty2l
VA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok&e>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ravinder Ajmani]

Pardon my skepticism, but I have very little faith on the US industries 
self-enforcing any kind of regulations.  When Wall Street analysts expect 
public companies to show higher profits quarter after quarter, lowering the 
cost becomes the key driver.

However most US companies ship their products overseas, and almost all of these 
countries have some form of immunity requirements, similar to the EU 
regulations.  Hence one can assume that the products built in US are designed 
to meet these requirements. 

The sad thing is that in until the eighties US was leading the world on EMC 
requirements, but now has fallen behind.

My personal view.

Regards

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital company
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com


5601 Great Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95119
www.hgst.com

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other people, right?just
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=t7oXi6LZLk9QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8&e=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lVA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok&e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=MBC-PWkSTEdeV_H3SE5E5EPsKwSScsy8M4MdESoVsWI&e=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=LjdwUv5zHYB3ySMXNcEZdm5qwGtHal09S1fn1PyFDE8&e=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=tT_yY90TkyzdkSVMHn2qyiXL4O15CdyApX6TfWVVI9Y&e=
 

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 posti

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<615de2313b58495c8b21dea995bda...@s-ais-exch01-13.esterline.net>, dated 
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Gary McInturff  writes:


Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. 
A business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit 
without justification - poor product performance, competitive 
advantage, regulation.


But therein lies an anomaly. Those US experts are employed to help write 
immunity standards by the businesses you say, correctly in many cases, 
do not favour anything that might increase total product cost. (Immunity 
doesn't add much to the hardware cost of a good design, but immunity 
testing is an additional cost.)


Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure 
out of 10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one 
etc.


ESD is a special case; immunity to radiated RF is a more tractable 
phenomenon.


My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as 
important as any other functional specification but whether it's done 
through self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny 
question.


Agreed in principle; this is a universal question. Consider 
self-enforcement of speed limits, or homicide.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other people, right?just
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=t7oXi6LZLk9QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8&e=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lVA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok&e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=MBC-PWkSTEdeV_H3SE5E5EPsKwSScsy8M4MdESoVsWI&e=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=LjdwUv5zHYB3ySMXNcEZdm5qwGtHal09S1fn1PyFDE8&e=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html&d=BQIBAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8&s=tT_yY90TkyzdkSVMHn2qyiXL4O15CdyApX6TfWVVI9Y&e=
 

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated 
Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley  writes:


Where does it give the definition of a 'screened port' for use with EMC 
standards?


In EN 555103-2 itself.

For example, would a coax bnc type cable meet this requirement, as long 
as it had a 'braided screen' as opposed to foil?


Yes, if the connector variant is suitable for the cable and is assembled 
correctly. Using a cable with a BNC having a bush with a too-large 
internal diameter and/or an incompatible internal construction would not 
comply. There must be a reliable 360 degree screen to connector body 
contact.


Just a little confused, as this exemption would seem to cover the 
majority of signal cables.


Braided screens are much less common that they used to be. There are 
many more foil screens with drain wires. But the requirements also 
include very low-inductance terminations of the screen to the connector 
at both ends.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

I think it's also interesting and significant that many industries - and
certainly many sections of the telecomms and IT industries - have to specify
their own immunity requirements to ensure that the kit will work correctly
in the end-use environments, but that probably leads to
duplications/variations in those requirements (as is also true in the
various regional/national Defence EMC requirements - but even that is slowly
changing towards common requirements throughout NATO) , and is something
which I find quite astonishing for such a large and technologically-advanced
country. 

 

That in turn probably leads to higher overall costs, whereas, were there to
be common mandatory requirements, then fewer tests would be required i.e.
"one size fits all" as is pretty much the case in the EU and other regions
with common technical requirements - OTOH, maybe this is a crafty "hidden
barrier to trade" which does not break the WTO rules and helps knowledgeable
US manufacturers in their own backyards!

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 15 September 2015 03:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Gary:

 

True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 1934
in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren't so important anymore, while
the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. We expect our laws
and regulations to evolve to address the important issues of the day,
junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

Immunity problems may manifest themselves as product quality issues (fitness
for use, truth in advertising) or safety issues (inadvertant activation,
erratic reliability, failure to respond), so maybe the FCC shouldn't be the
lead agency. OTOH, immunity control is technically so closely related with
established FCC emission regulations (and our industry that helps enforce
them) that I don't see it making any sense to get another authority
involved. Agency cooperation isn't unheard of; for example, the FCC and FAA
share requirements for radio tower marking, lighting and location.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a
far different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions
coming from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be
detrimental to the public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They
were never set up or intended to protect the general public - even the CB
and Ham radio stuff was to protect the public communications and not our
neighbors TV. Although proper design, frequency allocation and usage would
cut down on that type of interference. They do mention immunity but only in
so much as to let you know that properly operating public communications
equipment could cause problems - and the consumer should deal with it
because the FCC has no authority to mandate it for non- public
telecommunications equipment. 

 

Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the
minute I suppose.

 

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message

, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis <
<mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com> rodney.da...@mitel.com>

writes:

 

>Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section

>15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for 

>reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

 

Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough'
without immunity standards?

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-


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


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

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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Robert Dunkerley]

>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 
>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 
>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)

Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of 
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.
--


Where does it give the definition of a 'screened port' for use with EMC 
standards? For example, would a coax bnc type cable meet this requirement, as 
long as it had a 'braided screen' as opposed to foil?

Just a little confused, as this exemption would seem to cover the majority of 
signal cables.
---
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 
2015, Ed Price  writes:


True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 
1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. 
We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.


It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC 
committees on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the 
Convenership of one.


Immunity is for other people, right?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ed Price]

Gary:

 

True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 1934
in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren't so important anymore, while
the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. We expect our laws
and regulations to evolve to address the important issues of the day,
junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

 

Immunity problems may manifest themselves as product quality issues (fitness
for use, truth in advertising) or safety issues (inadvertant activation,
erratic reliability, failure to respond), so maybe the FCC shouldn't be the
lead agency. OTOH, immunity control is technically so closely related with
established FCC emission regulations (and our industry that helps enforce
them) that I don't see it making any sense to get another authority
involved. Agency cooperation isn't unheard of; for example, the FCC and FAA
share requirements for radio tower marking, lighting and location.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a
far different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions
coming from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be
detrimental to the public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They
were never set up or intended to protect the general public - even the CB
and Ham radio stuff was to protect the public communications and not our
neighbors TV. Although proper design, frequency allocation and usage would
cut down on that type of interference. They do mention immunity but only in
so much as to let you know that properly operating public communications
equipment could cause problems - and the consumer should deal with it
because the FCC has no authority to mandate it for non- public
telecommunications equipment. 

 

Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the
minute I suppose.

 

 

-Original Message-

From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM

To:  <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message

, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis <
<mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com> rodney.da...@mitel.com>

writes:

 

>Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section

>15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for 

>reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

 

Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough'
without immunity standards?

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

And of course 15.5   General conditions of operation. (b) Operation of an 
intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions 
that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted 
that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another 
intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical 
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
-Dave

From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question


Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section 15.17 
Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for reducing the 
susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.



This clause is enough to make you responsible for any immunity complaint 
regardless of the levels!


Rodney Davis


From: Ed Price 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question


Dennis:



The rationale that you don't need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don't need more and don't want more.  I'll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.





Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.



From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



John:



Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems "everywhere" with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message 
mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"

mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>> writes:



>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they

>respect their limits- in more than one way).



It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by some 
products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

>

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I

>suppose.



Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

>

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too

>cables with average screening properties



Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too 
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't 
exclusively use balanced lines.

>



--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a far 
different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions coming 
from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be detrimental to the 
public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They were never set up or 
intended to protect the general public - even the CB and Ham radio stuff was to 
protect the public communications and not our neighbors TV. Although proper 
design, frequency allocation and usage would cut down on that type of 
interference. They do mention immunity but only in so much as to let you know 
that properly operating public communications equipment could cause problems - 
and the consumer should deal with it because the FCC has no authority to 
mandate it for non- public telecommunications equipment. 

Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the minute 
I suppose.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message
, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis 
writes:

>Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section
>15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for 
>reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough' 
without immunity standards?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html&d=BQIDAw&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4&s=WwN2MFQ_50HdcUpMj7HyHU_hj9Sv2ASXXbnDpiQY6Ug&e=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_&d=BQIDAw&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4&s=Yqpn35vzdmwXm5TeOB1nI1sSgOY3SeQZ7yD6oL9SsYY&e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_&d=BQIDAw&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4&s=AKsj7S25tFtqV--Ka7-cgiW_m-NUSWmKvqXu1JHcRbs&e=
 
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html&d=BQIDAw&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4&s=gwwr3PeoPTI7zfJUJ48VcE3J1tni6bEtf6zIC2xbWLQ&e=
  (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html&d=BQIDAw&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4&s=cSeJt_Z-30_Ju_ITgmO-l3xQ0N4BY8DPHapabrSmKzY&e=
 

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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
ok.com>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis  
writes:


Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section 
15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible 
for reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.


Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 
'enough' without immunity standards?

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

Exactly – and thank you for pointing that out Rodney.  In the US, if you make a 
product you are responsible for that product.  You are responsible for it 
meeting the frequency spectrum rules, you are responsible for it to meet safety 
needs so that it is safe to use and you are responsible for it to be immune to 
affects in the environment in which it will be used - period.  No immunity laws 
needed, no immunity laws desired.

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodney.da...@mitel.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section 15.17 
Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for reducing the 
susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

 

This clause is enough to make you responsible for any immunity complaint 
regardless of the levels!

 

Rodney Davis

 

  _  

From: Ed Price mailto:edpr...@cox.net> >
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question 

 

Dennis:

 

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local> 
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

Rocks have been thrown from lawnmower blades and have killed or injured people. 
Do we now outlaw rocks because in some obscure instance they might get caught 
in a mower blade.  Is there really a need to put “do not light, may explode” on 
stick of dynamite? Or ‘contents may be hot’ on a cup of hot coffee?   

 

Not wanting to require immunity is not the same as not having immune products.  
Consumer awareness and consumer groups, and yes, law suits if needed; not 
government intervention.  If you want guaranteed failure, get the government 
involved.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Seconded!

 

Anyway, what would one of  your “average” US customers say if, for example, one 
of their sophisticated modern consumer appliances (e.g. a robotic lawnmower/ 
vacuum cleaner/ “internet of things” kitchen appliance / “domestic robot” 
[already almost here!)  – need I go on?) went haywire and ran them/their kids 
over in the garden/house or set fire to the house whilst everyone was in bed 
because their neighbour switched on their perfectly legally EM 
emissions-compliant CB set, TV, washing machine (etc.),  but their own 
equipment was very susceptible to those EM emissions?

 

Sue the perfectly innocent neighbour or else the manufacturer, the distributor 
etc? Maybe, if the first person (people) ever got out of hospital!  Some may 
think I’m exaggerating but the same sort of thing has happened in the past in 
the US and elsewhere. 

 

The responsible approach is like many countries to legally require a reasonable 
level of EM immunity for consumer and industrial products (and the medical and 
some other sectors are even more stringent) – and since so many such countries 
already have the requirements in place, then why does the US government not 
take the “easy path” and introduce similar requirements? (same reasons, I 
suppose, as the opposition to gun-control and so on :().

 

The bean counters might want to rely on their product liability insurance – but 
that only works once or twice and then a company will find it difficult to get 
that anymore, and the resulting publicity can be horrendous.

 

Prevention is better than punishment!

 

Not politics on my part, just what I consider to be ethical common sense.

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 14 September 2015 17:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Dennis:

 

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:E

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Rodney Davis]

Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section 15.17 
Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for reducing the 
susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.


This clause is enough to make you responsible for any immunity complaint 
regardless of the levels!


Rodney Davis


From: Ed Price 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question


Dennis:



The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA




From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.





Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.



From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



John:



Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message 
mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"

mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>> writes:



>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they

>respect their limits- in more than one way).



It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by some 
products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

>

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I

>suppose.



Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

>

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too

>cables with average screening properties



Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too 
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't 
exclusively use balanced lines.

>



--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> When I turn my back on the 
sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, 
Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

There always will be 'accidents' caused by bad products, even those that pass 
all the tests. From Ford Pintos to toaster ovens to toys, you cannot regulate 
them out of existence.  A percentage will always slip through.  

​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <002801d0ef00$de0b37e0$9a21a7a0$@pctestlab.com>, dated Mon,
14 Sep 2015, dward  writes:

>I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much 
>regulation in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more. 
>I’ll decide what is best for me, not the government.

But if you were a manufacture of a product that caused a bad accident due to 
lack of immunity It already happened twice, one in a Danish hospital and 
once in a fire due to a malfunctioning toast oven.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

-

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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

The lawyers would prefer not to legislate the safety related requirements so 
they can have more law suits to keep them busy and rich☺

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 1:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Seconded!

Anyway, what would one of  your “average” US customers say if, for example, one 
of their sophisticated modern consumer appliances (e.g. a robotic lawnmower/ 
vacuum cleaner/ “internet of things” kitchen appliance / “domestic robot” 
[already almost here!)  – need I go on?) went haywire and ran them/their kids 
over in the garden/house or set fire to the house whilst everyone was in bed 
because their neighbour switched on their perfectly legally EM 
emissions-compliant CB set, TV, washing machine (etc.),  but their own 
equipment was very susceptible to those EM emissions?

Sue the perfectly innocent neighbour or else the manufacturer, the distributor 
etc? Maybe, if the first person (people) ever got out of hospital!  Some may 
think I’m exaggerating but the same sort of thing has happened in the past in 
the US and elsewhere.

The responsible approach is like many countries to legally require a reasonable 
level of EM immunity for consumer and industrial products (and the medical and 
some other sectors are even more stringent) – and since so many such countries 
already have the requirements in place, then why does the US government not 
take the “easy path” and introduce similar requirements? (same reasons, I 
suppose, as the opposition to gun-control and so on ☹).

The bean counters might want to rely on their product liability insurance – but 
that only works once or twice and then a company will find it difficult to get 
that anymore, and the resulting publicity can be horrendous.

Prevention is better than punishment!

Not politics on my part, just what I consider to be ethical common sense.

John Allen
W.London, UK

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: 14 September 2015 17:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Dennis:

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.


​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

John:

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.


Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message 
mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.loca

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

The old adage “buyer beware” fits.

That said, the price of freedom is that everyone takes responsibility for 
themselves, they take responsibility on what they purchase and what they use.  
They reject government intrusion.  They set up things like the consumer 
protection organizations in the US; which do protect against many of what 
others think is required to be legislated.  It does not take laws and 
standards; it does not take government watch dogs, it takes personal 
responsibility.  The return policies and lemon policies of most if not all 
manufactured products in the US speak to that savvy.  If you buy a product that 
does not do what it claims, it can be and generally is returned.  

 

I also believe that the US buyer is far more savvy than many give them credit.  
Yes, there are those who would rather have some agency think for them; there 
always will be. But for the most part, using BBB and other consumer groups 
there is absolutely no reason to introduce an overly cumbersome, inane and 
self-serving government intrusion in private affairs of US citizens.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Dennis:

 

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local> 
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

Seconded!

 

Anyway, what would one of  your “average” US customers say if, for example, one 
of their sophisticated modern consumer appliances (e.g. a robotic lawnmower/ 
vacuum cleaner/ “internet of things” kitchen appliance / “domestic robot” 
[already almost here!)  – need I go on?) went haywire and ran them/their kids 
over in the garden/house or set fire to the house whilst everyone was in bed 
because their neighbour switched on their perfectly legally EM 
emissions-compliant CB set, TV, washing machine (etc.),  but their own 
equipment was very susceptible to those EM emissions?

 

Sue the perfectly innocent neighbour or else the manufacturer, the distributor 
etc? Maybe, if the first person (people) ever got out of hospital!  Some may 
think I’m exaggerating but the same sort of thing has happened in the past in 
the US and elsewhere. 

 

The responsible approach is like many countries to legally require a reasonable 
level of EM immunity for consumer and industrial products (and the medical and 
some other sectors are even more stringent) – and since so many such countries 
already have the requirements in place, then why does the US government not 
take the “easy path” and introduce similar requirements? (same reasons, I 
suppose, as the opposition to gun-control and so on L).

 

The bean counters might want to rely on their product liability insurance – but 
that only works once or twice and then a company will find it difficult to get 
that anymore, and the resulting publicity can be horrendous.

 

Prevention is better than punishment!

 

Not politics on my part, just what I consider to be ethical common sense.

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 14 September 2015 17:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Dennis:

 

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local> 
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@cetest.nl> writes:

 

>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 

>respect their limits- in more than one way).

 

It is clea

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message <002801d0ef00$de0b37e0$9a21a7a0$@pctestlab.com>, dated Mon, 
14 Sep 2015, dward  writes:


I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much 
regulation in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want 
more. I’ll decide what is best for me, not the government.


But if you were a manufacture of a product that caused a bad accident 
due to lack of immunity It already happened twice, one in a Danish 
hospital and once in a fire due to a malfunctioning toast oven.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ed Price]

Dennis:

 

The rationale that you don’t need consumer electronics with a modicum of 
immunity works only for you, because you are what I would call an expert 
customer. You have the knowledge to ameliorate immunity problems, but most of 
the population does not have this capability.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:20 AM
To: 'Ed Price'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local> 
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@cetest.nl> writes:

 

>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 

>respect their limits- in more than one way).

 

It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by some 
products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

> 

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I 

>suppose.

 

Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

> 

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a 

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too 

>cables with average screening properties

 

Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too 
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't 
exclusively use balanced lines.

> 

 

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See  <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to < 
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 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> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules:  
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> 
http://www.ie

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

I for one would never want the US to get into this arena.  Too much regulation 
in the US as it is.  Don’t need more and don’t want more.  I’ll decide what is 
best for me, not the government.

 

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 1:41 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity 
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of legalese 
that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away from emitters. 
OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission compliance into 
account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My personal experience 
indicates that most immunity problems with consumer electronics is not a design 
problem but a reliability problem. As an example, last year a friend asked me 
to repair his semi-pro mixer board (used in a church environment); he had 
problems “everywhere” with distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. 
However, the mixer board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly 
abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message < <mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local> 
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@cetest.nl> writes:

 

>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 

>respect their limits- in more than one way).

 

It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by some 
products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

> 

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I 

>suppose.

 

Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

> 

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a 

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too 

>cables with average screening properties

 

Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too 
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't 
exclusively use balanced lines.

> 

 

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See  <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow 
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to < 
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 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> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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> sdoug...@ieee.org>

Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org>

 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>

David Heald: < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> dhe...@gmail.com>

-

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Scott Douglas]

John,

Apology not necessary. I did not take it in any negative manner.

And, just for the record, I really did do what I said. This was all 
early in the life of CB licenses and before the "Hey Good Buddy" craze 
hit the airwaves. Soon after that happened, I gave it up. Could not 
handle all of the lack of respect being shown by every truck driver with 
a microphone.


And, back then a CB with a linear amp was the poor man's way of talking 
long distance using skip when we could not afford to become amateurs or 
Hams. Or could not fathom the need to learn Morse code. But we did use 
caution and discretion. If anyone ever complained about our use, we 
always backed down and cleared the air. Last thing we wanted was one of 
those rolling FCC vans to show up in our neighborhood with their DF 
antennas turning round. We had fun and learned a lot. But once the movie 
"Convoy" came out, it was all down hill from there.


Scott

On 9/13/2015 5:12 AM, John Allen wrote:


Scott

I think I need to apologise for the tone of my earlier email – a bit 
OTT w.r.t. yourself on reflection !


John Allen

*From:*John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
*Sent:* 13 September 2015 08:51
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

“Lazyboy”

You may not have, and, as a licenced Amateur, I am sure you would not 
because you know that you should not, and that there are better and 
more challenging ways to talk to your faraway friends – but I don’t 
think that some CB operators are as “conscientious” J.


John Allen

W.London, UK

*From:*Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 12 September 2015 23:13
*To:* John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk 
to South America. And woke the neighbors on Sunday morning so they 
could listen to me on their turned-off console radio receiver...


So says
Lazyboy
KDT-8165

On 9/12/2015 12:37 PM, John Allen wrote:

FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real”
Amateur station which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and
CB operators (especially in some countries! ) may use illegal amps
(“boosters”) to raise the transmit power beyond the legal limits!


John Allen

W.London, UK

*From:*dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
*Sent:* 12 September 2015 20:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
    *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other
than his or her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no
quacking duck, nothing but respective number licensed to him or her.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>>

Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00)

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

    Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too
cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very
specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
    Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible
response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated
CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing b

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

Scott

 

I think I need to apologise for the tone of my earlier email – a bit OTT w.r.t. 
yourself on reflection !

 

John Allen

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 13 September 2015 08:51
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

“Lazyboy”

 

You may not have, and, as a licenced Amateur, I am sure you would not because 
you know that you should not, and that there are better and more challenging 
ways to talk to your faraway friends – but I don’t think that some CB operators 
are as “conscientious” J.

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 23:13
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk to South 
America. And woke the neighbors on Sunday morning so they could listen to me on 
their turned-off console radio receiver...

So says
Lazyboy
KDT-8165

On 9/12/2015 12:37 PM, John Allen wrote:

FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” Amateur station 
which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB operators (especially in 
some countries! ) may use illegal amps (“boosters”) to raise the transmit power 
beyond the legal limits!


John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 20:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or 
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking duck, nothing 
but respective number licensed to him or her.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  

Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question 

 

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".



What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts



If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.



I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "







Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%0b%3cmailto:j...@jmwa

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

“Lazyboy”

 

You may not have, and, as a licenced Amateur, I am sure you would not because 
you know that you should not, and that there are better and more challenging 
ways to talk to your faraway friends – but I don’t think that some CB operators 
are as “conscientious” J.

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 23:13
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk to South 
America. And woke the neighbors on Sunday morning so they could listen to me on 
their turned-off console radio receiver...

So says
Lazyboy
KDT-8165

On 9/12/2015 12:37 PM, John Allen wrote:

FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” Amateur station 
which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB operators (especially in 
some countries! ) may use illegal amps (“boosters”) to raise the transmit power 
beyond the legal limits!


John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 20:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or 
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking duck, nothing 
but respective number licensed to him or her.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  

Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question 

 

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".



What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts



If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.



I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "







Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%0b%3cmailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%3e%20> 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> ]

Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48

Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 

Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message

<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Scott Douglas]

Well, I never hooked up a 1 kW linear amp to my 5 W CB radio to talk to 
South America. And woke the neighbors on Sunday morning so they could 
listen to me on their turned-off console radio receiver...


So says
Lazyboy
KDT-8165

On 9/12/2015 12:37 PM, John Allen wrote:


FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” 
Amateur station which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB 
operators (especially in some countries! ) may use illegal amps 
(“boosters”) to raise the transmit power beyond the legal limits!



John Allen

W.London, UK

*From:*dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
*Sent:* 12 September 2015 20:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than 
his or her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking 
duck, nothing but respective number licensed to him or her.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>>


Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00)

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net]
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".



What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts



If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.



I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "







Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%0b%3cmailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%3e%20>]


Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48

Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>


Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message

<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com 
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com%0b%3cmailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>> 
>,

dated Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley <mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com 
<mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com%0b%3

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

Ed

 

Hopefully (?) at least some of the kit sold in the US is also elsewhere in
the World where there ARE EM immunity requirements, and so the relevant
design precautions are effectively in place anyway (unless/until the bean
counters get their way to make the US-market products cheaper!)

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 21:41
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of
legalese that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away
from emitters. OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission
compliance into account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My
personal experience indicates that most immunity problems with consumer
electronics is not a design problem but a reliability problem. As an
example, last year a friend asked me to repair his semi-pro mixer board
(used in a church environment); he had problems "everywhere" with
distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. However, the mixer
board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message <
<mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@cetest.nl> writes:

 

>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 

>respect their limits- in more than one way).

 

It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by
some products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

> 

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I 

>suppose.

 

Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

> 

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a 

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too 

>cables with average screening properties

 

Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't
exclusively use balanced lines.

> 

 

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 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>
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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> sdoug...@ieee.org>

Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org>

 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>

David Heald: < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Ed Price]

John:

 

Unfortunately, American consumer electronics has no E-field immunity
requirement. The only help a consumer gets is that little paragraph of
legalese that advises you to re-orient your device and move further away
from emitters. OTOH, most consumer equipment design which takes emission
compliance into account will also yield reasonable immunity levels. My
personal experience indicates that most immunity problems with consumer
electronics is not a design problem but a reliability problem. As an
example, last year a friend asked me to repair his semi-pro mixer board
(used in a church environment); he had problems "everywhere" with
distortion, low gain and external RF susceptibility. However, the mixer
board was fine; it was his patch cords that were horribly abused and leaky.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message <
<mailto:FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>
FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AF42@ZEUS.cetest.local>,

dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 

< <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> g.grem...@cetest.nl> writes:

 

>A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 

>respect their limits- in more than one way).

 

It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited by
some products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.

> 

>To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I 

>suppose.

 

Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)

> 

>My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a 

>professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too 

>cables with average screening properties

 

Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none too
good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that don't
exclusively use balanced lines.

> 

 

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on
the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

 

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 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>
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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> sdoug...@ieee.org>

Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org>

 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher:  < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>

David Heald: < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> 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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message , 
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, dward  writes:


I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than 
his or her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking 
duck, nothing but respective number licensed to him or her.




It is, or used to be, a licence offence (or license offense) in Britain, 
to use unofficial phonetic alphabet words when reciting the call sign.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

Yes, that is the point isn’t it – it was not an amateur radio operator.  First, 
wrong frequency, second not the way amateurs identify themselves.

 

​

Dennis Ward

This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 12:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” Amateur station 
which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB operators (especially in 
some countries! ) may use illegal amps (“boosters”) to raise the transmit power 
beyond the legal limits!


John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 20:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or 
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking duck, nothing 
but respective number licensed to him or her.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> > 

Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>  

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question 

 

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".



What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts



If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.



I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "







Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Allen]

FWIW, 27MHz sounds more like a CB station rather than an “real” Amateur station 
which (IIRC) would be using the 28MHz band – and CB operators (especially in 
some countries! ) may use illegal amps (“boosters”) to raise the transmit power 
beyond the legal limits!


John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: 12 September 2015 20:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or 
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking duck, nothing 
but respective number licensed to him or her.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

 Original message 

From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"  

Date: 9/12/2015 11:25 AM (GMT-08:00) 

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question 

 

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.



My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.



Gert Gremmen



Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



Gert:



Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.



Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".



What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts



If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.



I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "







Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv





-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%0b%3cmailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk%3e%20> 
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> ]

Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48

Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 

Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question



In message

<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com 
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com%0b%3cmailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>
 
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com> >,
dated Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com%0b%3cmailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com> 
<mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com> > writes:



>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 

>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 

>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)



Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.

--

OOO - Own

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[dward]

I agree -an amateur could not and would not use a call sign other than his or 
her designated licensed call sign. No blue leader, no quacking duck, nothing 
but respective number licensed to him or her.




Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message 
From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
 Date: 9/12/2015  11:25 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test 
Question 
A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.

 

My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Gert:

 

Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".

 

What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts

 

If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.

 

This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.

 

I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv

 

 

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> ]

Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48

Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 

Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message

<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com> >,
dated Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com> > writes:

 

>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 

>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 

>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)

 

Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk>  When I turn my back on the sun, it's to
look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh,
Essex UK

 

-



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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message , 
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
 writes:


A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they 
respect their limits- in more than one way).


It is clearly not true, given the unlimited lack of immunity exhibited 
by some products. Immunity isn't even controlled in the Americas.


To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I 
suppose.


Yes. 'Amateur' is the larval form. (;-)


My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a 
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too 
cables with average screening properties


Was it definitely due to cables? Much professional PA equipment is none 
too good on immunity. And there are far too many installations that 
don't exclusively use balanced lines.




--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

A Ham never can be a source of interference, by definition (if they
respect their limits- in more than one way).

To me an amateur is not a HAM, but that is a matter of language I
suppose.

 

My example showed a (spiced up) example of lack of immunity in a
professional audio installation , that due pragmatic testing, too cables
with average screening properties

and a substantial power output in a "room" with  may-i-say very specific
acoustic properties, lead to an extremely interfering situation.

 

Gert Gremmen

 

Van: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 september 2015 20:09
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

Gert:

 

Allow me to fine tune your story for accuracy. In the late 1950's, the
USA FCC re-allocated the 27 MHz region (called 11 meter band) from
amateur use to a new "citizens" band. (I don't know how many other
countries followed that example.) This was created from the existing
amateur 10-meter band, making amateurs rather unhappy. This 11-meter
Citizens Band eventually degenerated into unregulated technical and
operational chaos. If you had a device exhibiting a susceptible response
of a "blue angel calling a red devil" and not something like "WB6WSN
calling..." then the source was not an amateur but an unregulated CB'er.
Please, hams are sensitive about being the assumed source of
interference.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 10:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".

 

What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?

Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good Painted metal:
complies but may have substantial potential difference between parts

 

If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided coax and signal cables is all over the market.

 

This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"

and this  exemption clause

is a recipe for problems in the field.

 

I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2) Final testing was ok, and the system worked
like a charm.

The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on
its transmitter and "preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "

 

 

 

Gert Gremmen

ce-test qualified testing bv

 

 

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-

Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
<mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> ]

Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48

Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 

Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

 

In message

<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com
<mailto:6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com> >,
dated Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com> > writes:

 

>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 

>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 

>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)

 

Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
<http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk>  When I turn my back on the sun, it's to
look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh,
Essex UK

 

-



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

unsubscribe)

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 Doug

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message , 
dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" 
 writes:



This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"
and this  exemption clause
is a recipe for problems in the field.


It hasn't proved to be, over the long life of this provision, which was 
introduced after strong evidence of 'no failures' during third-party 
test, where the stringent construction requirements were shown to be 
met.


As you know, immunity standards requirements do not guarantee total 
freedom from interference where the disturbance is unusually strong.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

This is a typical standards clause included in a standard by non-emc
"experts".

What  is a metal enclosure, and when is it not enclosure ?
Metalized plastic:  is not metal but might be as good
Painted metal: complies but may have substantial potential difference
between parts

If heavy interference exists, 4 braid connection points are not enough,
and inferior braided 
coax and signal cables is all over the market.

This is an example of economic drive  "fast  cheap & pragmatic testing"
and this  exemption clause 
is a recipe for problems in the field.

I remember a customer of mine building PA systems for a church
application ( = 55103-2)
Final testing was ok, and the system worked like a charm.
The first Sunday in real use, the vicar got an unexpected reply on its
questions to the mighty
when a local 27 MHz radio amateur switched on its transmitter and
"preached"  : "blue angel calling red devil "



Gert Gremmen
ce-test qualified testing bv


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 11 september 2015 16:48
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated
Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley  writes:

>Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 
>screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 
>understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)

Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When
I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M
Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[John Woodgate]

In message 
<6165069ea399fe46b1a5148bcb1a75ebd...@ex-ukha-01.ad.s-a-m.com>, dated 
Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Robert Dunkerley  writes:


Would this not imply that nearly all types of signal cables (most are 
screened this way?) would be exempt from this test, or is my 
understanding totally wrong? (probably the case!)


Not all products have a metal case. Not all ports meet the definition of 
'screened port'. Not all cables have braided screens/shields.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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

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

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

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

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

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