Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

I second that Personal experience. Often I give the advice to get rid of all these grounds and just create one full continuous ground plane including DGND AGND SGND and so on. Then customer comes back and has read manufacturers recommendations for a chip and ignored my advice, only to

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

Yes, as now system "system" is a multi-function apparatus it should comply with all applicable standards It should comply to EN 55012 (not CISPR12) and EN 301-489-1 or other subpart of this series. Note that the 301489-1 does not support Class A devices. This is especially troublesome for IT

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

If you have a transmitter-only device, then you can use EN 300 440-2 V1.4.1 and avoid the use of a Notified Body. However, if you have a receiver-only or transceiver device; you will need a Notified Body because the standard does not give presumption of conformity to the Directive

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

In most (almost all) cases, yes. The module may have been assessed to EN 301 489-x, but that won’t have much resemblance to any EMC testing of a host product. (Remember: CE + CE ≠ CE) So yes, you’ll be doing the full set of EN 301 489-x testing on the host product. Most likely the

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

There is that. But, at RF that’s more like an open circuit. J Ghery From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding 22,300 mile

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

22,300 mile long ground wire? We are working on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator Ted Eckert Microsoft Corporation The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer, NASA, ESA or Arthur C.

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

If I insert a radio module into a system that is compliant to the RED and to the latest 301 489 series, do I have to re-test the whole system towards the 301 489 series? The system already complies with other regular EMC standards (CISPR 12) without the module. Sincerely, Dieter Paasche

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Don’t forget those who claim that you cannot meet EMC requirements without a good earth ground. I always ask them how a satellite in geosynchronous orbit meets far tighter EMC requirements. I guarantee there is no 22,300 mile long “ground” wire connecting it to the earth. But, the myth

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Ken: I wonder which currency symbols could best be substituted for each of the many ground symbols? Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA From: Ken Wyatt [mailto:k...@emc-seminars.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] USB dongle

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Bill, thanks for the complement. One of my mentors, Dr. Tom Van Doren, of the University Missouri - Rolla, would say “the more different “ground” symbols he saw in a schematic, the more business he knew he would get”. Ken ___ I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

This would be consistent with the way other Directives and regulations are applied under the EU New Approach. -- Doug Nix d...@mac.com (519) 729-5704 "Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time." - Thomas Edison > On 28-Jun-17,

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Truly outstanding analogies Ken, Ralph & Bill. I too cringe every time I hear the term "ground" bandied about in EMI circles. It's a widely misunderstood term that the non-initiated envision as some sort of EMI black hole that's by some means able to soak up all that excess RF energy. I'm

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

ETSI EN 300 440-2 V1.4.1 is in the OJ, can this be used as a harmonised standard for GPS article 3.2? Beneath the listing it says “This harmonised standard does not address requirements relating to receiver performance parameters and does not confer a presumption of conformity as regards those

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

As far as I understand: Use EMCD HS for EM aspectsart 3.1 (No NB needed) ; that includes the 301 489 series for EMC of auxiliary equipment (intentionally left out of RED should never have been on the RTTE list either as it was EMC) Use LVD HS for electrical safety also art 3.1 (No NB

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Like they say in some movies…”follow the money”. In the case of EMC issues, it’s usually “follow the current”. Both differential and common mode currents want to return to their sources in the most expedient (low-impedance) route. If designers fail to define a return path, invariably, some of

Re: [PSES] USB dongle connector shield filtered grounding

Rather than 'ground', perhaps 'RF return' or 'counterpoise' might be better terms? I think the thing that makes EMC mysterious is that the complete RF circuit is unseen and difficult to accurately define, given all the parasitic elements. The experience of 'inside' verses 'outside' the

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

I think they've been putting all their effort into getting the Article 3.2 standards onto the OJ as soon as they can (because those are the ones which the manufacturer needs, to self declare without a Notified Body). Most of the EN 301 489 standards are published or at least in a final draft;

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

My understanding re the use of a NB where standards are not harmonized: this is only required under RED for the radio requirements of Article 3.2. Until RED publishes harmonized safety standards: LVD standards + additional considerations for voltages < 50 VAC + RF exposure considerations

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

I too have been wondering about this. It would make sense that you should just use harmonized standards from the LVD and EMCD to satisfy the safety and EMC aspects for a piece of ITE with a radio in it under RED, but I could not find anything to that effect in the Directive. Doesn't make a

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

Hi Scott, Article 3, 1(a) of the RED refers to the essential health and safety requirements of the LVD. This is also noted in section 9.5 of the RED guide. This isn't very explicit, but it implies that the harmonized standards list from the LVD should be used for presumption of conformity to

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

According to RED-CA guide, the clause 11.3 states that after 12 June 2017, only RED is applicable.  Now the HS list is empty and the manufacturer is allowed whatever standards that they consider appropriate.  Don’t understand why they don’t allow this transitional period to use HS of previous R

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

Thanks, Scott, for asking this question! I've been wondering about this for a while now. I wonder if the intent is to leverage the list for the LVD, but I know of no documentation that indicates this. On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Scott Xe wrote: > In addition to 3.1b EMC

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

In addition to 3.1b EMC requirements, 3.1a health & safety requirements are also none of HS.  It looks they deliberately arrange it.  Is there any particular reason behind the scene? Regards, Scott From: "Paasche, Dieter" Reply-To: "Paasche,

Re: [PSES] RED Harmonised Standards

Interesting. One additional question is I don't see any of the 301 489 series. Is this going to be published in the RED harmonized standards list, as it is strictly speaking and EMC requirement, or is this part of the article 3.1 b requirement:" an adequate level of electromagnetic