Not to comment on the standard itself, but 10 V/M for a commercial environment is not much of a safety margin. You can get 10 V/M moderately close to a number of common sources (cell phone, CB, Ham). Considering the value of what an alarm system might be protecting, I would hope that a manufacturer would voluntarily verify proper performance to something a bit higher (if asked, I would suggest 50 V/M). Ed Price <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty
_____ From: Amund Westin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: SV: Immunity testing alarm equipment Theo, I do not recall EN50103-4 EN50136 in detail, but usually both radiated and conducted immunity tests are classified as Performance criteria A. That means that the EUT shall work as intended during the test and no damages or malfunctions are allowed. An alarm product shall be able to in alarm mode and exposed to 10V/m, without any malfunctions. That's the case for fire alam systems. Only my opinion. #Amund Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]På vegne av Theo Hildering Sendt: 21. mars 2007 23:34 Til: [email protected] Emne: 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 Consultant ______________________________________________________________________ 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
