I routinely measure the same, but I have not been able to establish that there
is any requirement for a direct measurement.  In general, if the EMI from the
DC cables causes a problem it will show  in the usual required tests.  A test
on the DC cables just focuses on the problem area and helps with debug
efforts, but I have not been able to claim that it is required by CISPR 22 (or
related standards)  ps. Some of the DC cables are much longer than any
standard one normally used and so come fall under some of the immunity tests,
so by quantum leaps in logic, we apply the emissions test to them.  But when
it comes time to ship, no problem...

- Bill
Indecision may or may not be the problem.

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Pettit, Ghery <[email protected]> wrote:



        From: Pettit, Ghery <[email protected]>
        Subject: RE: CISPR 22-2005: testing on interconnecting DC cables?
        To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, 
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
        Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 2:25 PM
        
        
        Pat,
        
        Annex C deals exclusively with telecommunication ports.  This is clear 
in the
first sentence of the annex.  If a port isn't used for telecommunications (see
article 3.6 in CISPR 22:2008 for the definition) then Annex C doesn't apply. 
And while the term "mains" isn't defined in the standard, it commonly is taken
to mean the low voltage distribution network in a building that is supplied
>from the public power supply.  Thus, the mains port is the port that plugs
into the wall socket.  I don't see how the DC output port on your power supply
is either a telecommunications port or a mains port, so this test by your
customer doesn't make sense to me, at least not as a 'requirement' in CISPR
22.  
        
        I hope this helps.
        
        Ghery S. Pettit
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
        Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:48 AM
        To: [email protected]
        Subject: CISPR 22-2005: testing on interconnecting DC cables?
        
        Good Friday morning all,
        
        We have a customer who is measuring conducted emissions on the DC 
output 
        of our external switching power supply (laptop-style power supply), 
        claiming it is required by CISPR 22.  As I read through CISPR 22-2005 
for 
        rebuttal material, the phrase telecom port was defined and the 
measurement 
        details looked clear.  Until I got to Annex C.
        
        Clause C.1.5 is titled 'Flowchart for selecting test method', and says 
the 
        flowchart in Figure C.6 is applied to different ports.  The flowchart 
has 
        a decision block at the top based on whether the port is a telecom 
port. 
        If not, no testing is necessary. 
        If the port is a telecom port, you choose between 4 methods:
        - Unscreened pairs
        - Screened or coaxial
        - Mains
        - Other
        
        Certainly, Mains ports need testing regardless of whether the EUT has 
        telecom ports, so the flowchart has logic errors. 
        But does the port choice 'Other' mean you must test any port not 
already 
        covered?  Can a single statement in a flowchart define testing 
        requirements not detailed elsewhere?  BTW, the flowchart says 'Other' 
        ports must meet the telecom test limits.
        
        Pat Lawler
        EMC Engineer
        SL Power Electronics Corp.
        
        -
        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
        
        All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
        http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
        Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL.
        
        Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
        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]>
        
        -
        ----------------------------------------------------------------
        This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
        
        All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
        http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
        Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to 
that URL.
        
        Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
        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]>
        


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
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]> 


Reply via email to