| Brian, Very nice summary. I have had this discussions with design engineers about meeting the minimum requirements for emissions and immunity and often I hear that this is perceived as a high bar to get over. I prefer to say these levels are the bare minimum or the "floor" we stand on. âIt is best to build in some working margin. That said, it nearly always seems to be a struggle to achieve a minimum passing margin. While it possible or even probable that EMC assessments of the future will be different, I don't see this being driven by North American concerns. In recent years, cost cutting at every corner seems to be the way we are going. All the best, Doug Douglas E Powell Independent Consultant
As we all know, compliance to emissions and immunity standards do not guarantee electrical equipment wonât interfere will each other. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and the experts to-be has done so
with the goal of trying to minimize interference without over burdening the industry.
As a manufacturer you have to look not only at what is required to legally sell your product into different markets, but you have to look at the environments your products are used and how they are used. If interference
is likely then you must take that into consideration and design your products accordingly. This is why manufacturers are required to do both a âConformity Assessmentâ (what is required to meet the legal or market requirements) as well as an âEMC Compatibility
Assessmentâ (what is takes for you product to play well with EE in the environments and conditions your product is likely to be used). If such conditions requires your product to emit lower emissions or to be tested at higher immunity levels, then that is
what the manufacturer is required to do. I believe most (I hope) companies perform at least some of the EMC tests at stricter levels than what is required by the market for sales. It all depends on the product and what issues it might have in the environments
and conductions your products are used in. A good example is where the air conditioner blower motor controller interfered with the stereo system in a combine (yes, those farmers like their tunes). Individually, both systems passed the required EMC tests,
but when used in close proximity they interfered with each other. Who is to blame? Small hand held electronic devices can find themselves right next to other such devices in purses, backpacks, etc. but we still expect them to work correctly. Our company sells
products uses near coal mines which could be located hundreds of miles from the nearest city and often generate their own power. We test our power supplies at much strictly levels for surges, brown out, and drop out conditions. Safety wise, in such locations,
medical help could be hours if not days way, so additional design considerations are made to avoid injuries way beyond what is required by safety standards and local codes and regulations.
Bottom line, I believe that the future of EMC testing will be similar to Safety. Manufactures of EE will need to do an EMC Compatibility Assessment of their products and justify the EMC test levels their products
will need to be tested to based on environment and conditions of use. It is really like that now but most companies just test to whatever levels are required for the market. Most of the time, this is adequate but for those products where it is not, the current
system does addresses this. The Other Brian From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:[email protected]]
John, Good points and questions. Sounds like a good discussion for CISPR H. Without interference complaints being noted by regulators and reported to CISPR there would have to be a significant research project to
see if the existing limits are adequate. Iâm not aware of interference complaints due to inadequate limits in CISPR 22 or CISPR 32, but that doesnât mean that there arenât problems out there.
As far as immunity test levels are concerned, there are valid arguments calling for higher test levels for certain tests. I havenât seen any proposals for higher test levels in CISPR 24 or CISPR 35, but that
doesnât mean that such a push couldnât happen in the future. However, unless there are field failures due to perceived inadequate test levels, I donât see there being any significant efforts to raise the test levels. Do you have data that would impact this
work in the future? Ghery S. Pettit From: John Allen [mailto:[email protected]]
Oh, and one other thing, I sometimes ponder is whether some of the immunity withstand limits (especially for radiated and conducted RF) for Class B equipment are higher enough for the âmodern worldâ
,because: -
Modern dwellings, especially in Europe and the Far East, are much smaller and more closely crowded together than they were 30-40 years ago, and so emission/immunity limits based on 10m
(33 ft!) distances are now often totally unrealistic (many people live in dwellings where 10m is the distance to the next but one dwelling â
not the next)! -
There are vastly larger numbers of electronic products in many urban environments than there were then, and thus the cumulative electronic noise levels must be much higher now than then; -
The frequency spectra of those devices is much wider now (all the way up to 5GHz+ - and rising!) than it was then! âInformedâ opinions on the above would be interesting! W.London, UK From: John Allen [mailto:[email protected]]
On the issue of the âresidentialâ environment, I think that whole issue is now becoming very blurred in reality with the (at least in the UK) trend to using former industrial buildings for residential
use â as well as the more general diffusion of the physical barriers between residential and industrial premises, because what can now really be defined as one or the other now that businesses are being located in what would generally be considered as âresidential
locationsâ (at least in the âdevelopedâ countries)? Personally, I think that only equipment specifically intended for âtotally heavy industrial machinery/installationsâ should be Class A â and âeverything elseâ should be Class B. John Allen W.London, UK From: Ronald Pickard [mailto:[email protected]]
Hi Ian, The âresidentialâ environment is generally understood to be the household/domestic environments where humans typically âresideâ. With that said and further into EN 55032 clause 4, there is a subtle and a bit of a loose Class B definition:
âThe Class B requirements are intended to offer adequate protection to broadcast services within the residential environment.â Such residential broadcast services would typically include radio and television for personal consumption, and possibly including
Wi-Fi now-a days. And, Iâm not sure what âadequate protectionâ actually means in this case, but given Gheryâs statement below, I doubt that it will get any more definitive. Best regards, Ron Pickard From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:[email protected]]
Disclaimer â While I am the Vice Chairman of CISPR I, the following is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Chairman or other members of CISPR I, its working groups, national
committees or IEC HQ. That said⦠I donât recall seeing Gert at CISPR I meetings, nor CISPR I WG2 (emissions) or CISPR I WG4 (immunity) meetings (he isnât a member of either WG). If he were present, he would know that the reason such regulatory
statements are not in CISPR standards such as CISPR 22, 24 or 32 is that CISPR standards may not contain regulatory statements. Defining which products must meet Class A or Class B limits is up to regulators. There as even been discussion about the âlegalityâ
of the Class A warning label in CISPR 22 and 32. CISPR 32 does have language that gives guidance to help the user of the standard properly apply it, but a regulator is free to ignore or change this at their discretion. So, to say that CISPR I has been ânotoriousâ
is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. There has been no serious work done to have two different immunity levels in CISPR 24 or 35 as it has not been felt to be needed. Join your national committee (or contact it) and make a proposal if you feel
that such additional test levels would be warranted. A persuasive argument would be given a fair hearing. Be aware that any new requirements will take years to incorporate into a standard. Remember, CISPR I has been trying to get CISPR 35 published for
nearly 15 years as it is, but feel free to make a proposal for an amendment to add different test levels for Class A products. Just remember, weâve gotten along well with single limits in CISPR 24 since it was originally published in 1997, so a convincing
argument will be needed. Ghery S. Pettit Vice Chairman, CISPR SC I From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:[email protected]]
1. Independent of the standards, the EMC directive requires marking on typeplate and/or documentation if an equipment is non-residential. 2. Unwilling standards committees have been âreluctantâ in including the definitions in written in their standards.
CISPR I has been notorious in these for years, by not even defining Class A for immunity (CISPR 24). There are ample standards and EC documents giving an appropriate definitions, in general something like: If it is predominantly used for households or is connected to a residentially used power newtwork the equipment will be residential or often said âClass Bâ.
If connected to a private power network then it should be Industrial or âClass Aâ. One standard that comes to mind that gives a good description including examples is EN 61326-1:2013. An EC document
TC210/Sec0515/INF from 2007 addresses the topic in full and includes the recommendation to include a common definition in all harmonized standards. Gert Gremmen Van: Bill Stumpf [mailto:[email protected]]
Ian, There is no definition of "residential" environment in the standard or the EMC Guide. For reference, the FCC classifies products into consumer (Class B) and non-consumer (Class A) categories.
In Europe the manufacturer has a similar responsibility to make a product that meets the EMC requirements appropriate for the intended use of the product. For some products it is more or less up to the end user to determine if a Class A or Class B compliant
product is appropriate. You will find the Class A warning statement in the EN 55032 standard, Clause 7.
Class
A equipment
shall
have
the
following
warning
in
the
instructions
for
use,
to
inform
the user
of
the
risk
of
operating
this
equipment
in
a residential
environment:
W
arning:
This
equipment
is
compliant
with
Class
A of
CISPR
32.
In
a residential environment
this
equipment
may
cause
radio
interference. Bill Stumpf - Lab / Technical Manager D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc. 166 South Carter Street Genoa City WI 53128 Ph: 262-279-0210 From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:[email protected]]
Dear colleagues In the 2015 edition of EN 55032 an interesting statement in clause 4. "Equipment intended primarily for use in a residential environment shall
meet the class B limits. All other equipment shall comply with the Class A limits." If the product is Class A, is the warning notice still required? âWarning. This is a Class A product. In a domestic environment this product
may cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate measures.â This used to be a requirement in EN 55022. Many thanks in advance. Ian McBurney Design & Compliance Engineer. Allen & Heath Ltd. Kernick Industrial Estate, Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK T: 01326 372070 Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the company. - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to:
- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: - 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.----------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ For help, send mail to the list administrators: For policy questions, send mail to: | ||
- Re: [PSES] EN55032 definition... ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
- Re: [PSES] EN55032 defin... Ghery S. Pettit
- Re: [PSES] EN55032 d... Ronald Pickard
- Re: [PSES] EN550... Richard Nute
- Re: [PSES] E... John Allen
- Re: [PSES] EN550... John Allen
- Re: [PSES] E... McDiarmid, Ralph
- Re: [PSES] E... John Allen
- Re: [PS... Ghery S. Pettit
- Re:... Kunde, Brian
- Re:... Doug Powell
- Re: [PSES] EN55032 d... ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
- Re: [PSES] EN550... John Allen
- Re: [PSES] E... ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
- Re: [PSES] EN550... Ghery S. Pettit
- Re: [PSES] E... Brian O'Connell
- Re: [PS... McBurney, Ian
