Re: [PSES] Declaration of Conformity

Scott The Ecodesign Directive applies to products within scope of a Commission Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC These products must then be labelled in accordance with the relevant Commission Delegated Regulation on how to energy label that product. You don’t declare compliance

[PSES] Declaration of Conformity

Hello Experts, According to the Ecodesign Directive (EU) 2009/125, manufacturers must draw up a declaration of conformity for covered products. However, the Energy Labelling Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 does not explicitly mention this requirement. Is a declaration of conformity also mandatory for

Re: [PSES] Li-Ion Fire Enclosure (IEC 62368-1:2018 / EN 62368-1:2020) Concept

Hi James: The UL94 flammability ratings are based on standardized samples of the plastic material. The ratings may or may not be representative of the results in the end-product. My suggestion is to do the UL94 test on the whole end-product. The heat-sinking of the internal components

Re: [PSES] Li-Ion Fire Enclosure (IEC 62368-1:2018 / EN 62368-1:2020) Concept

Re metal foil wrap, aluminium might burn at LI-ion fire temperature, but copper or brass would not. On 2024-05-31 16:42, James Pawson (U3C) wrote: Hi folks, We are working with a client on a small wearable device with a PS2 Li-Ion cell. Annex M.4.3 requires a fire enclosure for the PS2

Re: [PSES] Product reliability in the field relating to standards testing

Doug, Have you reached out to C63? This information could be included in the next edition of IEEE C63.16 --> “American National Standard Guide for Electrostatic Discharge Test Methodologies and Acceptance Criteria for Electronic Equipment” Thanks, [cid:image075342.jpg@52D522C7.F6E00B9E]

[PSES] Product reliability in the field relating to standards testing

IEC61000-4-2 has been around for a long time. About 30 years ago myself and others presented to tc-77b improvements that were (and still are) needed. Those concerns still need to be addressed. Our current standard has us addressing ESD stresses that cannot happen and on the other hand ignoring

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

We have an answer from UL508A for industrial panels but the question was, “ SCCR ratings on industrial machinery” Perhaps it is the question that is the difficulty here. Ralph From: Bill Lawrence Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:50 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES]

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Assume UL 508A Marking is: -Original Message- From: MIKE SHERMAN Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM To: Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question Brian I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

I suggest that John has “nailed it”, as he often does. Ralph From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:26 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language problem and I think

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Brian —   I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say.  Mike Sherman  Sherman PSC LLC On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language problem and I think I can help with that, in the context of 'confusion'. The 'SSCR voltage' on the nameplate  actually means  'Minimum permitted value of the Maximum voltage of the SSCR'. Obviously those words are too long

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking. Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as *SCCR: 10kA* but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", such as *SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum* What is the source,

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Hi Brian: See the very last line of: https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf Best regards, Rich From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the interrupting voltage is an important parameter? The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type. Ralph From: Brian

[PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Greetings to all. I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery. The ratings I have seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as; SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum Where does the voltage value come from? In one case, the machine had a line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Glyn, I understand that there should not be hazard in all expected situations (normal / abnormal use and fault condition) and USB cable is too short to consider transients. What I am trying to do is to understand 62368-1 and reading it I came to 5.4.11 that was hard for me to understand

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Piotr, Maximum USB cable lengths are quite short, a few meters, and they are not designed to be part of the ‘building or structure’, hence transients are not considered for these ports. If a USB extender or hub is used to extend the USB and this is wired through the building or structure

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

I have been watching this subject for a while. i vaguely recall that in some front matter in some standards is a statement that indicates that this is the minimum requirements to go to market. So in the interests of the Corp/s that I worked for at the time, and any quality targets, that they

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi James, Thank you for drawing attention to this but my sentence was in context of 62368-1 only. When in 2004 (few days after we joined EU) I went with my devices for the first time to EMC lab (it was an internal company laboratory that also offered external services) they didn't had a

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Piotr, Just to add to the debate: “I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being without transients” If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will call up a requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it explicit that

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Ralph and John, 62368-1 I have bought from PKN is in form "first and last page Polish and everything inside English". I suppose they with pleasure will charge me for 62368-2 if I ask them for it. The only question is how much time is needed to prepare these 2 pages. As I remember from

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs. Ouch. From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11 You can get 62368-2 from:

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but it is rather costly. On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote: After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what I have done long

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan, I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi John, I hoped you will answer my question and I got important information from you. Thanks. After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Piotr If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits. >From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as >external circuit in

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors of a device

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan, Thanks for your feedback, but... I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time. It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is external to the equipment and is not mains". I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Thanks for sharing this, Charlie. Best Regards, -Lauren From: Charlie Blackham Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Piotr USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output. Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times (analogue network, ISDN,...). I hope this helps. If you need more info,

[PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Trying to understand 62368-1... I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1. For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and 2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other

[PSES] New Machinery Regulation and "emergency rescue"

Hello Experts, As you are probably aware, the Machinery Regulation has a new criterion related to emergency rescue... EHSR 1.6.2, paragraph 2 - "In the case of machinery or related products into which persons shall enter for operation, adjustment, maintenance or cleaning, the machinery

[PSES] Plywood

All, I've been reviewing the UL 9540A fire test method, and a plywood sensor wall is recommended: "19.05-mm (3/4-in) plywood installed on wood studs and painted flat black." But no grade of plywood is mentioned. In the past, I've seen references to Grades A and B, but I assume this is a way of

[PSES] Arc Flash consultant

Hello Experts, I have a client who is seeking a consultant to review some equipment for DC arc flash hazards. Any takers or references? Cheers, Gary Tornquist - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Dear Charlie, Appreciate your updates!! What is the distance to become an official legislation? Currently, can we use the EU CE compliance DoC texts in UKCA DoC and bear the UKCA mark on the product without re-test according to Designed Standards and Approval Body cert? Thanks and regards,

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

Thank you. On 2024-04-28 06:27, Boštjan Glavič wrote: Hi John After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of Annex G. See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have to

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

Hi John After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of Annex G. See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have to simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

Brian, for a rigorous determination of creepage and of clearance you need to also determine and assign: 1. Over-voltage Category ( affects Clearance ) 2. Pollution Degree ( micro-environment affecting Creepage ) 3. Basic (simple separation) or Reinforced (protective separation)

[PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 (Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at a point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in series. Please

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

Hi Brian: This does not answer your questions, but MAY give you an analysis tool: CLEARANCE is standards name for AIR INSULATION. CREEPAGE DISTANCE is standards name for DISTANCE ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SOLID INSULATION. Hope to meet you at the Symposium! Best regards,

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

Thank you, Rich! Over 240 have already registered for ISPCE 2024! This is the place to be for all Product Safety and Certifications knowledge transfer and networking - https://2024.psessymposium.org/. Best Regards and Be Safe, John John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting,

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

Hi Brian: You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the answers to these questions from experts. Lots of experts in clearance and creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers! Best regards, Rich From: Brian Gregory

[PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

1. Clearances for US Safety: I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer. Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components" does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

In our experience purchasers/compliance officers in large retail organisations expect to explicitly see the RoHS amendment listed in the DoC text as per Mike writes below, because this ticks their box that the product has addressed the additional four substances the amendment was concerned

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add the amendment, though I don’t recommend adding it, but since the amendment applies whether you like it or not, you don’t need to declare that you have applied it as it’s inherent in a declaration to 2011/65/EU. The same goes for any exemptions you may

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

What I've seen is language like "2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU" or "2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU" The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should mention both it and the 2011 directive. Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC > On

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

Agreed, if you look at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/rohs-directive_en you see there have been many Commission Delegated Directives of which 2015/863 is just one. And also,

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the current version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification, so there is no need to separately reference the amending documents. Regards Tom Smith, P.Eng Principal Engineer TJS Technical Services Inc. Tel: +1

[PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the DoC. Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct? >From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU As I understand,

[PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum. The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 December

[PSES] UK

Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Mead House Longwater Road Eversley RG27 0NW UK Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247 -

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

There are also minor differences if the product is installed in a gas-insulated substation, air-insulated substation, or a power station within 61000-6-5. There is a fair amount of EMC standards that might be applicable to a device within a substation depending on the location of installation

[PSES] Conducted emissions test bench

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

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Ralph If you want to search EUR-Lex for other publications against a Directive, or earlier HS listings then a search such as https://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.html?lang=en=2014%2F53%2FEU=1504346404330=quick=EURLEX=DD=desc could work for you (just replace "2014/53/EU" with the required Directive

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Hi Ralph, For EMC you can follow this link : https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/51314 For LVD: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/57244 (this links directly to the summary .pdf files) Greetings, Bart From: rmm.priv...@gmail.com Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:14 To:

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Thank you, Bart. I'll try that link for EMC and LVD harmonized standards listing. Kind regards, Ralph From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:06 AM To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Hi Ralph, Is this what you are looking for? https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/ harmonised-standards_en Greetings, Bart From: Ralph McDiarmid Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Can someone provide a link to this list. I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu website without success. Ralph - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

Amund There are a number of differences including: * Zoning of different areas which then require different levels of tests against 61000-4-4; 61000-4-16 and 61000-4-18 * 61000-4-8 Mag Field is 100 A/m continuous and 1000 A/m for 1 s (but only for equipment containing magnetically

[PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

IEC EN 61000-6-2, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-2: Generic standards - Immunity for industrial environments IEC EN 61000-6-5, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-5: Generic standards - Immunity for equipment used in power station and substation environment I'm quite

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

All the test labs I have used have a qualifier that the results are only for the specimen/s submitted. As the manufacturer, I provide the rational to include in the test report for the configuration/s submitted. For about 4 decades, a minimum and a maximum configs have sufficed. ps.  If the

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

I think one could postulate a worst case hardware/software combination, but it would have to be well defended in text along the lines of “no other configuration could be worst case because…” followed by a discussion of the physical aspects of the other configurations and what they imply, based

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

The usual response is that it depends... More 'light' reading !  To start ! https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/32-KDB-996369-Modules-TCB_Oct_2023.pdf On Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 5:22:12 PM EDT, Lfresearch <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: Sorry for the

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

Just finished some testing at an accredited lab. For an accredited report, they run QPs on all measurements whose peak are w/in 6 dB of the limit. I don't know if that's their rule, or by the regulations. FYI Colorado Brian -- Forwarded Message -- From: Bill Owsley

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong disagreement with some statements here.Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any proficiency can make an educated

Re: [PSES] RFID testing per AIM 7351731

Try NTS Fremont or Intertek. Doug Smith Sent from my iPhone IPhone: 408-858-4528 Office: 702-570-6108 Email: d...@dsmith.org Website: http://dsmith.org From: AOL MAIL Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:57:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] RFID

Re: [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

Clause F.1 of 62368-1 says: /Unless symbols are used, safety related equipment marking, instructions and instructional safeguards shall be in a language accepted in the respective countries./ No doubt Germany expects German. On 2024-04-10 17:10, Charlie Blackham wrote: Rick I’m not expert

Re: [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

Rick I’m not expert on GS certification but Low Voltage Directive Article 6 required safety instructions to be in a suitable language 7. Manufacturers shall ensure that the electrical equipment is accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language which can be easily understood

[PSES] RFID testing per AIM 7351731

Hi folks, May I get recommendations for EMC lab in Bay Area (or West Coast) which is certified for testing RFID per AIM 7351731?  Appreciate any advice. Thank you,Eugene Peyzner Fresenius Medical care - This message is from the

[PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

Dear EMC-PSTC Pros, Specific to ITE IEC 62368-1 type standards and German GS certification. (many power supplies and ITE product carry GS mark) Is German language required on products to match the text of other countries requirement to obtain German GS? And (not or) add a statement that

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

I once tried to do a “worst case” analysis and decided that worst would be testing the HDMI output on the product we had designed at the highest resolution = highest frequency = biggest problem. I ran all our pre-compliance work at this frequency and neglected to check any other resolutions.

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

It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it. Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and

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

generally, 2 limits, QP and P which is 20 db above QP.  Gotta meet both.  Unless the P is so infrequent as to call it a Click.  Which I would not to want a challenge over. On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:53:43 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

we had a pre-compliance chamber, well correlated to compliance labs. so our inside pre-compliance testing is easy.  a bit of capital to get there. We make quick scan on about every variation to get idea of the worst. Then the rest of our attention is on the version. Our goal is not detectable,

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

For EMC if the concern is emissions it would be easy to do some quick scans – 10 minutes on a peak run for each model would give you data to compare against each other to see how much the emissions profile changes due to the modifications. Immunity would take longer but the manufacturer should

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Dear All, Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if you choose to actually test, all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case is a "miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which is worst case without carrying out the test ? A

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Hi Derek It is common practice within the labs to find worse case configuration and test it. At least we are doing it in such a way. You can find some guidlines how to form families on IECEE page, but I think your case is different. The best way is to test one fully populated product. Best

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Propose a sampling of configurations to the powers that may be. Don Gies Field Service Engineer GUTOR M: +1 346 313 6216 E: donald.g...@non.se.com 17 Capitol Reef Road Howell, NJ 07731 USA Sent by Android Phone General From: John Woodgate Sent: Saturday,

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can produce your reasons for your decision if challenged. On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote: Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it would be easy to presume that having all of

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

It may be worth noting at any LISN using magnetic cores/elements in the 50uH bit, must be calibrated at the maximum rated current to verify that saturation isn't a problem. On 4/5/2024 9:56 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote: In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR,

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

In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR, references the noise to "ground".  Any conductor not being measured should be terminated in 50 ohms.  Whatever network used needs to make that so.  Take your pick. On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote: On Fri, 5 Apr 2024

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

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT, Brian Gregory wrote: > Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT > needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only > slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone > remind me

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

The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s. In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test

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

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

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

This gets a bit more complicated for FCC regulations on emissions above 1 GHz, where the prescribed detector is an average detector (at 1 MHz RBW) and the peak limit is defined as 20 dB above that. On 4/5/2024 7:19 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote: That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing

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

That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing based on the original topic.  You are certainly correct with respect to conducted emissions! On 4/5/2024 7:14 PM, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote: I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors. *From:*Brent DeWitt

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

I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors. From: Brent DeWitt Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP? Could you clarify when you would choose to

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

That has been my experience with CB Scheme, E-mark, and product safety in the USA using an NRTL. Namely, pick worst-case with justifications, talk with your certifier, and reach an understanding. If they won't budge and insist on full testing of every variant, move to another certifier who is

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks

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

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz? On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote: I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance

[PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Hi folks, I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the fox urging the chicken coop… So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. All use the same board,

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

I'm having trouble with "Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded." Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six

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

Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit? I could see

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

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

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

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

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

Mark, for the most part I always had 6 of the highest measured in each polarization, for a total of 12. Depending on what we saw, we may have measured more for curiosity's sake. Jim Bacher, WB8VSU From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> Sent: Friday, April 05,

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

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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >