Hi Paul, By reading your explanation it seems as if you miss the point of what immunity testing is about.
Testing Immunity ! Your explanation makes me think you want to exercise the standard to the letter. That's probably not the case, but one should also take the following into account: Besides stpping/sweeping over the frequency range one needs to allow time to prove that the EUT does not respond unwantedly. This means that before even reading the standard, you need to know the equipment, define the equipments function (in terms of what immunity testing is about), define criteria of pass/fail and make an estimation of the required dwell time per step. This often leads to unrealistic long test times , because the required dwell time may be very long for some equipment. Then one should take measures to reduce test time to within the equipments life time. prescan with Increase frequency step size ! (watch out for resonances) Modify equipment to decrease fault response time (low pass filters ; software ) Build Specifc test features Write specific test software ..... Of course you will be violating the standard; but if it's for Europe, no one cares, as you will prove to exercise "due diligence" The test will give you only PRESUMPTION of compliance anyway. Gert Gremmen ce-test, qualified testing -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: donderdag 3 oktober 2002 00:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024? Greetings, Problem: What is the correct dwell time to be used for radiated and conducted immunity for 61000-4-3/61000-4-6 under EN55024? My thoughts; Section 8 of IEC 61000-4-3 (I have 1995): "The rate of sweep shall not exceed 1.5 x 10 -3 decades/s." I understand we shall not exceed a 1 % step size unles (as laid out in EN55024) we are prepared to increase our field strength. (We are not.) 1.5 milli decades per second = 667 seconds per decade. At 1% step size, there are 232 steps per decade. 667 seconds/232 steps = 2.87 seconds per step. Are there flaws in the above? Thanks in advance, Paul Scott ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list" ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
