Dear all, Just to inform you with the answer from Jonathan Steward. It seems that he didn’t succeed in sending his message to the group.
I am intended to support his answer. It is a good balance of arguments. Thanks Jonathan! Kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: [email protected] ============================ On 23-03-2007 01:27, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Theo, Interpretation #1 is completely wrong. It is a common mistake to make because the radiated and conducted immunity tests themselves are transient in nature; a frequency range is stepped or swept through incrementally, with discrete frequencies. Regardless, these tests are meant to simulate a condition that might always be present within the environment where the alarm system is installed. For instance, a field that is present due to a wireless internet installation in the house. The intruder alarm is a transient event (we hope) and so it would follow that if it occurred at all it could realistically occur at the same time as the radiated/conducted phenomenon. Interpretation #2 is pretty much correct, though I think the world would be a much safer place if intruders were just armed with portable radiators. EN 50130-4 is not actually all that vague about the criteria for compliance for radiated immunity (section 10.4). "There shall be no damage, malfunction or change of status due to the conditioning...no residual change in the EUT or any change in outputs, which could be interpreted by associated equipment as a change..." It is the same for the conducted disturbances. Interpretation #3 is correct in that the Telecom equipment within this system should meet the requirements specific to ITE equipment, probably EN 55024. But this would be IN ADDITION TO these alarm standards. Kind Regards, Jonathan Stewart EMC Manager Curtis-Straus, a Bureau Veritas Company Theo Hildering <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 03/21/2007 06:34 PM To [email protected] cc Subject Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Mozartlaan 4 45 6865GB Doorwerth, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Tel. +31 263790590 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
