The defined I/O coupling methods for EN55022:1997 do not appear to
accurately depict real-world shielding provided by "twisted" pair
wiring, almost as if the test method were rigged against passing EMI
with T-P cable.
Considerable study went into development of twisted pair connectivity
rules for each ANSI/IEEE 802.x LAN technology, emissions, immunity,
cable grade etc., including coupling (remember TokenRing was 4 and 16
MHz, and Ethernet was 10 MHz so the harmonics were there).
David
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Author: "Ken Javor" <SMTP:[email protected]> at ADEMCONET
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 9/8/2000 5:31 PM
The point is that RE/CE protect broadcast bands. Making an RE measurement
(E or H field, regardless) from a LAN line a couple meters long is not
representative of what you would measure if the LAN line were significantly
longer, as it might be in situ. Therefore a CE measurement can be better
correlated to predicted RE from a much longer line (at frequencies where the
tested LAN line is electrically short.
----------
>From: Paolo Roncone <[email protected]>
>To: "'Ken Javor'" <[email protected]>, "'Cortland Richmond'"
<[email protected]>
>Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
>Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2000, 3:51 AM
>
> Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject :
>
> First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted)
> measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's
> not all (resonances, cable layout etc. count a lot).
> Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk
> about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But
for
> the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the
> new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you
change
> your opinion !
> Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered.
> If you wanna take care of lower frequencies (< 30 MHz) take a loop antenna
> (remember the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your
> system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with
> whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much
> quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps,
> current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal
> generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current
> measurements and more) in the new CISPR22.
> As for the question of "outside world", I think in this ever more
connected
> world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more
> blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard
bodies,
> otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing (hope some
> CISPR/CENELEC member gets it).
> If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions
> requirements are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an
> "intra-system" (what's the system ? that's another good question to be
> settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of
it
> without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a
> product (system) that works properly and reliably.
>
> One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North
> America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly
> don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports.
> Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of
> interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very
> bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public
> services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic...
or
> not ????
>
> My personal opinion ...
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43
> A: Paolo Roncone; '[email protected]'
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>
> Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know
> over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume
here
> 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in
> the comments to which I am responding. The purpose of controlling common
> mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the
> cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions
in
> a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE. In turn, the
> purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception.
> ----------
>>From: Paolo Roncone <[email protected]>
>>To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
>>Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
>>Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
>>Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM
>>
>
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to
protect
>> the "outside" (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports
>> that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the
standard.
>> The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new
>> CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition
of
>> telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter if they connect to the
>> "outside world" or not.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paolo Roncone
>> Compuprint s.p.a.
>> Italy
>>
>
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
