This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Thanks to everyone who replied off- and online. I am trying to look into the
TECHNICAL aspects of these standards, and unfortunately my conclusion is that
they still haven't been thoroughly examined by anyone who has much experience
with the details and issues related to differential high-speed multi-pair
interfaces, such as balance, conversion, and how to measure these parameters.
I spent a number of years in that area, and I am still not sure what
measurement method is better and more appropriate (it can depend on what you
are trying to see), and consequently what measured levels of balance and
conversion are "true" - as they depend on how they are measured. One thing
that appears evident is that a single-pair measurement is not appropriate as
e.g. 4-pair interface exhibits coupling between all 4 pairs (8 lines) and
relation between the common-mode and differential mode (i.e. conversion) when
only one pair is driven is not the same as when the whole cable is driven by
the !
common
mode (or all 4 pairs are driven by differential mode). The lack of the
appropriate measurement method for balance is the major reason why the levels
of LCL for SLCE ISN and the required balance for CDN cannot be properly
(realistically) defined, which in turn allows manufacturers of these devices
to build couplers with various characteristics that can easily cause apparent
failures.
That's one of the reasons why I find the currently available standards
inappropriate. I do not question the intent of the standards, as I believe it
is good, but as Ken Hall pointed out it appears there is positive voting going
on, without fully understanding the technical (and economic) implications. The
methods in the standards are plausible, i.e., they seem to make sense to
someone with general technical background in EMC, but at the detailed level of
the specific application, e.g. Ethernet, they do not take into account the
related issues, which make some methods (IMO) completely unsuitable. That’s
why I currently strongly prefer clamp-methods – they don’t affect the
cable characteristics.
I know many have observed considerable differences in results (SLCE and
Immunity) depending on the test method, as e.g. in the mentioned paper as well
as in numerous conversations I had with test-engineers as well as in my
first-hand observations, but I wish to draw attention of the EMC community to
things that I see as the root-cause of these effects and that I believe very
few people actually looked at the same level. Before they are thoroughly
understood I don’t think we are ready for the standards in question in their
current form and for CDN/ISN devices currently on the market.
I do not sit on these standards and I am in no way associated with the
committees. All my observations are coming from reading the standards and
papers, my personal experience with issues observed on many projects across
many companies worldwide, and from my lab work trying to measure and
understand these issues, especially conversion mechanisms and balance in the
Ethernet and other high-speed differential-signaling world.
Regards, Neven
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Grace Lin" <[email protected]>
> Hello Ken,
>
> Thank you for pointing out the paper. Sorry, I missed your presentation. I
> remember my friends discussed the topic after attending your presentation.
> I believe the concern they had were measuement instrument and necessity.
>
> I have a difficulty to understand the technical implications of telcom port
> requirement. I am not challenging the CISPR committee. I just need some
> help to understand the requirement/necessity. Telcom port measurement is
> through the conducted method. A telecom port does not directly connect to
> (interfere) public utility/power network. If it radiates, it should be
> covered by the radiated emission measurement.
>
> From a manufacturer point of view, telecom port measurement is not a big
> deal if products pass. Labs don't add additional fee for this test. For
> in-house testing, there is not much work to setup a test site (using the
> conducted emission site plus an ISN and adaptors).
>
> Best regards,
> Grace
>
> On 5/10/07, Hall, Ken <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Grace,
> >
> > This topic has been argued and discussed, multiple papers, in CISPR/I AND
> > CISPR/G since the early 80's. The problem may be/is political. However,
with
> > a few countries voting against the LCL requirements they ended up in the
> > standard because > 75% of the voting countries approved.
> >
> > We need to influence every countries voting membership to only vote
> > positive if they understand the technical implications of a standard.
> > Attached is a paper from IEEE EMC 2001.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > KEn
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Grace
> > Lin
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:00 AM
> > *To:* [email protected]
> > *Subject:* Re: ISN for Conducted Emission in accordance to CISPR 22 Ed 5.2
> > :2006
> >
> >
> > Hi Neven,
> >
> > Thank you for the detail comments. I suggest you write a paper to the
> > IEEE International Symposium on EMC. There are many EMC experts attending
> > this Symposium, including many equipment manufacturers, rule makers, and
> > government agencies. The Symposium record is distributed worldwide and
kept
> > forever. This is a good way to get attention and make friends.
> >
> > Grace
> >
> >
> > On 5/9/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Be careful if you want to use ISN for Cinducted Emission or Immunity
> > > testing of Ethernet or any other high speed differential-pair interface.
I
> > > just could not resist to reply, because of so poor specifications which
> > > allow the ISN to cause APPARENT failures, and can cost the industry
millions
> > > to "fix" problems that do not exist. I tried to talk with a major vendor
of
> > > these devices, offering help to make them actually appropriate for use
with
> > > high-speed diff-pair interfaces ( e.g. Ethernet), but there appears to
> > > be absolutely no interest. It appears there is too much politics and
> > > marketing, as opposed to engineering, that dictates how these devices are
> > > constructed (and specified). The cost is paid by the industry who is then
> > > forced to follow the standards. I have worked on many cases where after a
> > > reported emission failure, measured using ISN, the clamp-method ( e.g.
> > > VOltage and Current Clamp method) resulted in very different and passing
> > > result.
> > >
> > > So here are some of my thoughts on this topic.They are mostly based on
> > > the use of CDN/ISN for Immunity, but they really equally apply to both
SLCE
> > > and Immunity.
> > >
> > > • The most recent 6100-4-6 standard specifies the common-mode
(CM)
> > > impedance Zcm (Table 3) at the EUT-port of the coupling device
> > > • It also specifies that the Common-to-Differential mode
> > > conversion (defined by Longitudinal Conversion Loss or LCL) of the CDN
> > > should be better than the conversion of a cable or the equipment
connected
> > > to the cable, whichever conversion is lower, i.e. whichever LCL value is
> > > larger (Note in 6.2.1.2)
> > > • The standard recognizes that a given method and coupling device
> > > may not be appropriate for all types of devices under test, so it allows
for
> > > alternate test methods. Specifically, in 6.2 it says:
> > >
> > > "If CDNs are not suitable or available, other injection methods can be
> > > used".
> > >
> > > • The note in 6.2.1.2, regarding common to differential mode
> > > conversion, recognizes that the CDNs for multi-pair balanced lines (e.g.
> > > UTP) may not be suitable:
> > >
> > > "Often, clamp injection needs to be applied to multi-pair balanced
> > > cables,
> > > because suitable CDNs might not be available." *
> > >
> > > *What defines "suitable" can be the major limiting factor
> > >
> > >
> > > • Rules for selecting appropriate method are given in 7.1. The
> > > main deciding factor for selection of the method is (again): "are the
CDNs
> > > suitable?", which could result in a subjective decision
> > > • Conversion can be a problem with the currently available CDN
and
> > > can make it not-suitable for Ethernet lines
> > > • Relatively well designed RJ45/Ethernet devices can have
between
> > > -40 dB and -46 dB conversion (2%-1% impedance balance)
> > > • Ethernet devices, as well as other high-speed devices that
> > > utilize balanced differential pairs, are very sensitive to CM-DM
conversion
> > > • It is critical that the conversion characteristics of any
> > > coupling devices be at least the same if not better than the conversion
by
> > > the well-designed signal lines used for the application
> > > • In practice, on multi-pair balanced cables where all wires are
> > > coupled (e.g. 8 wires of a CAT5 UTP), it is not easy to:
> > > – specify how to measure conversion
> > > – measure conversion
> > > – specify required levels of conversion
> > > • Lack of clear and appropriate method for measuring conversion
> > > can also be a problem with currently pending draft CISPR22 emission
> > > standard.
> > > • The problem lies in the fact that the CDN/ISN is inserted into
> > > an otherwise well-balanced line. The design of the CDN/ISN is not
balanced
> > > (the standards lack realistic requirement and appropriate verification
> > > method) and it creates mode-conversion, which can create apparent CM
> > > emission and susceptibility. This condition does not resemble the
realistic
> > > situation were the cable is fairly balanced and uninterrupted
> > > • Conversion by the CDN/ISN can be well beyond the conversion
> > > characteristics of the cable. The currently specified test method for
> > > measuring conversion (or LCL) is not appropriate for multi-pair
interfaces.
> > > • Test equipment should not increase the conversion by
introducing
> > > imbalance considerably higher than that of the cable. Conversion by the
test
> > > equipment artificially increases the test levels beyond the
characteristics
> > > of the measured device and intended cabling, causing apparent failures
> > >
> > >
> > > • Therefore, unless better CDN/ISN devices are constructed
(and/or
> > > better-defined in the standards), I recommend methods using clamps (e.g.
> > > Voltage and Current Clamp method), which preserve integrity of the used
> > > cabling and allow testing in more realistic environment. The CM-impedance
> > > requirement that can be of some concern with the clamp-methods is not
hard
> > > to meet, at least for 4-pair differential interfaces, but that is another
> > > topic.
> > >
> > > I hope it helps make your decision.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, Neven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > > From: < [email protected]>
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this may be easier than you think (or wish).
> > > > To my knowledge there are only two manufacturers at the moment: Teseq
> > > > and Fischer.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ari Honkala
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/8/07, wendy <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My company intends to purchase the above mentioned. Will
> > > > someone recommend any brand/model that compiles to the latest
> > > > requirements?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Wendy Nya
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: <[email protected]>
> > > To: < [email protected]>
> > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 11:17:17 +0000
> > > Subject: RE: ISN for Conducted Emission in accordance to CISPR 22 Ed 5.2
> > > :2006
> > > Hi,
> > > this may be easier than you think (or wish).
> > > To my knowledge there are only two manufacturers at the moment: Teseq
> > > and Fischer.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ari Honkala
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/8/07, wendy <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My company intends to purchase the above mentioned. Will someone
> > > > recommend any brand/model that compiles to the latest requirements?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Wendy Nya
> > > > - ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
> > >
> > > -
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
-
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
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Ken,
Thank you for pointing out the paper. Sorry, I missed your presentation. I
remember my friends discussed the topic after attending your presentation. I
believe the concern they had were measuement instrument and necessity.
I have a difficulty to understand the technical implications of telcom port
requirement. I am not challenging the CISPR committee. I just need some help
to understand the requirement/necessity. Telcom port measurement is through
the conducted method. A telecom port does not directly connect to (interfere)
public utility/power network. If it radiates, it should be covered by the
radiated emission measurement.
>From a manufacturer point of view, telecom port measurement is not a big deal
>if products pass. Labs don't add additional fee for this test. For in-house
>testing, there is not much work to setup a test site (using the conducted
>emission site plus an ISN and adaptors).
Best regards,
Grace
On 5/10/07, Hall, Ken <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Grace,
This topic has been argued and discussed, multiple papers, in CISPR/I AND
CISPR/G since the early 80's. The problem may be/is political. However, with a
few countries voting against the LCL requirements they ended up in the standard
because > 75% of the voting countries approved.
We need to influence every countries voting membership to only vote positive
if they understand the technical implications of a standard. Attached is a
paper from IEEE EMC 2001.
Regards,
KEn
_____
From: [email protected] [mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]]
On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:00 AM
To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Subject: Re: ISN for Conducted Emission in accordance to CISPR 22 Ed 5.2:2006
Hi Neven,
Thank you for the detail comments. I suggest you write a paper to the IEEE
International Symposium on EMC. There are many EMC experts attending this
Symposium, including many equipment manufacturers, rule makers, and government
agencies. The Symposium record is distributed worldwide and kept forever.
This is a good way to get attention and make friends.
Grace
On 5/9/07, [email protected] < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]> wrote:
Be careful if you want to use ISN for Cinducted Emission or Immunity testing of
Ethernet or any other high speed differential-pair interface. I just could not
resist to reply, because of so poor specifications which allow the ISN to cause
APPARENT failures, and can cost the industry millions to "fix" problems that do
not exist. I tried to talk with a major vendor of these devices, offering help
to make them actually appropriate for use with high-speed diff-pair interfaces
( e.g. Ethernet), but there appears to be absolutely no interest. It appears
there is too much politics and marketing, as opposed to engineering, that
dictates how these devices are constructed (and specified). The cost is paid by
the industry who is then forced to follow the standards. I have worked on many
cases where after a reported emission failure, measured using ISN, the
clamp-method ( e.g. VOltage and Current Clamp method) resulted in very
different and passing result.
So here are some of my thoughts on this topic.They are mostly based on the use
of CDN/ISN for Immunity, but they really equally apply to both SLCE and
Immunity.
� The most recent 6100-4-6 standard specifies the common-mode (CM)
impedance Zcm (Table 3) at the EUT-port of the coupling device
� It also specifies that the Common-to-Differential mode conversion
(defined by Longitudinal Conversion Loss or LCL) of the CDN should be better
than the conversion of a cable or the equipment connected to the cable,
whichever conversion is lower, i.e. whichever LCL value is larger (Note in
6.2.1.2 <http://6.2.1.2/> )
� The standard recognizes that a given method and coupling device may not
be appropriate for all types of devices under test, so it allows for alternate
test methods. Specifically, in 6.2 it says:
"If CDNs are not suitable or available, other injection methods can be used".
� The note in <http://6.2.1.2/> 6.2.1.2, regarding common to
differential mode conversion, recognizes that the CDNs for multi-pair balanced
lines (e.g. UTP) may not be suitable:
"Often, clamp injection needs to be applied to multi-pair balanced cables,
because suitable CDNs might not be available." *
*What defines "suitable" can be the major limiting factor
� Rules for selecting appropriate method are given in 7.1. The main
deciding factor for selection of the method is (again): "are the CDNs
suitable?", which could result in a subjective decision
� Conversion can be a problem with the currently available CDN and can
make it not-suitable for Ethernet lines
� Relatively well designed RJ45/Ethernet devices can have between
-40 dB and -46 dB conversion (2%-1% impedance balance)
� Ethernet devices, as well as other high-speed devices that utilize
balanced differential pairs, are very sensitive to CM-DM conversion
� It is critical that the conversion characteristics of any coupling
devices be at least the same if not better than the conversion by the
well-designed signal lines used for the application
� In practice, on multi-pair balanced cables where all wires are coupled
(e.g. 8 wires of a CAT5 UTP), it is not easy to:
� specify how to measure conversion
� measure conversion
� specify required levels of conversion
� Lack of clear and appropriate method for measuring conversion can also
be a problem with currently pending draft CISPR22 emission standard.
� The problem lies in the fact that the CDN/ISN is inserted into an
otherwise well-balanced line. The design of the CDN/ISN is not balanced (the
standards lack realistic requirement and appropriate verification method) and
it creates mode-conversion, which can create apparent CM emission and
susceptibility. This condition does not resemble the realistic situation were
the cable is fairly balanced and uninterrupted
� Conversion by the CDN/ISN can be well beyond the conversion
characteristics of the cable. The currently specified test method for measuring
conversion (or LCL) is not appropriate for multi-pair interfaces.
� Test equipment should not increase the conversion by introducing
imbalance considerably higher than that of the cable. Conversion by the test
equipment artificially increases the test levels beyond the characteristics of
the measured device and intended cabling, causing apparent failures
� Therefore, unless better CDN/ISN devices are constructed (and/or
better-defined in the standards), I recommend methods using clamps (e.g.
Voltage and Current Clamp method), which preserve integrity of the used cabling
and allow testing in more realistic environment. The CM-impedance requirement
that can be of some concern with the clamp-methods is not hard to meet, at
least for 4-pair differential interfaces, but that is another topic.
I hope it helps make your decision.
Regards, Neven
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
> Hi,
> this may be easier than you think (or wish).
> To my knowledge there are only two manufacturers at the moment: Teseq
> and Fischer.
>
> Regards,
> Ari Honkala
>
>
> On 5/8/07, wendy <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> My company intends to purchase the above mentioned. Will
> someone recommend any brand/model that compiles to the latest
> requirements?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Wendy Nya
>
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- This
> message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> <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>
> 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
> Mike Cantwell
> [email protected]
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>
> Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald:
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
> web at:
>
> <http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc>
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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>
> 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] <mailto:[email protected]> David Heald:
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>
>
> <http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc>
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list. Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/>
> 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>
> Jim Bacher: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
> David Heald: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
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: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
<http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc>
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
From: < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
To: < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 11:17:17 +0000
Subject: RE: ISN for Conducted Emission in accordance to CISPR 22 Ed 5.2:2006
Hi,
this may be easier than you think (or wish).
To my knowledge there are only two manufacturers at the moment: Teseq and
Fischer.
Regards,
Ari Honkala
On 5/8/07, wendy <[email protected] > wrote:
Dear All,
My company intends to purchase the above mentioned. Will someone recommend any
brand/model that compiles to the latest requirements?
Regards,
Wendy Nya
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message
is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.
Website: <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc -
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
--- End Message ---
