Hi all, thanks to everyone thats replied so far. I need to clarify this is truly a switch, not a relay. It's pressure activated, but essentially only has the single set of contacts with no other electrical parts.
Sincerely, Derek Walton L F Research - 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 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from rly-de02.mx.aol.com (rly-de02.mail.aol.com [172.19.170.138]) by air-de05.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILINDE052-4bb48480a75200; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:47:19 -0400 Received: from alphaone.ieee.org (listserv.ieee.org [140.98.193.12]) by rly-de02.mx.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINDE026-4bb48480a75200; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:47:01 -0400 Received: from HOME (alphaone [140.98.193.12]) by alphaone.ieee.org (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m55CtGro021886; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:22 -0400 Received: by LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5) with spool id 591626 for [email protected]; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:22 -0400 Received: from leo.ieee.org (contour.ieee.org [140.98.193.29]) by alphaone.ieee.org (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m55FgMfi009540 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:22 -0400 Received: from gemini4.ieee.org (gemini4.ieee.org [140.98.193.189]) by leo.ieee.org (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m55FgMAK008266 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:22 -0400 Received: from hormel8.ieee.org (hormel8.ieee.org [140.98.193.231]) by gemini4.ieee.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64A5205072 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m22.mail.aol.com (imo-m22.mx.aol.com [64.12.137.3]) by hormel8.ieee.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m55FgGNc024189 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:16 -0400 Received: from [email protected] by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id 7.bec.23c49172 (34966) for <[email protected]>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.15.104] (64-135-221-129.foxvalley.net [64.135.221.129]) by cia-da07.mx.aol.com (v121.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADA073-88964848094f8f; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:42:08 -0400 Message-ID: <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:40:24 -0500 From: Derek Walton <[email protected]> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IEEE EMC Discussion Group <[email protected]> Subject: Switch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: [64.12.137.3] X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score -1, tokens from: @@RPTN) X-Spam-Score: -1.00 () [Hold at 10.00] SPF(pass,0),Bayes(0.0001,-1.0) X-IEEE-UCE-Filter-Settings: 80_DEFAULT (inherits from default) X-IEEE-UCE-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: IEEE UCE Filtering Service (uce . ieee . org) on 140.98.193.231 Sender: [email protected] Precedence: list List-Help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=EMC-PSTC>, <mailto:[email protected]?body=INFO%20EMC-PSTC> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Owner: <mailto:[email protected]> X-AOL-IP: 140.98.193.12 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: domain : alphaone.ieee.or ; SPF_helo = X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: domain : aol.co ; SPF_822_from = Hi All, I have been asked if there was a way to prevent testing a mechanical switch for EMI. The background is that the exact aircraft switch was not available at the time of the system EMI test, so a substitute was used. The suitability of the correct switch is now being questioned since it was not present during the EMI test. This is a mechanical switch with just electrical contacts. For immunity, it should be blatantly obvious, but not so at our final customer. For emissions, there is potentially a noise source during the few microseconds as the contacts touch or open. However, this is a low level signal, and similar contacts on the substitute device would have exhibited similar noise had it been an issue. If anyone has suggestions on building a case why not to test this mechanical switch I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Derek Walton L F Research - 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
