There are two aspects to this: 1. What will satisfy the EU authorities?
2. What is the best that electrical science can do in this notoriously complex situation? I addressed the first question. It's obvious that if no emission can be detected at 3 m, the product passes the requirements, but a little more 'rationale' is required, to legitimize the proof measurements at 1 m. After all, the reason why no emission were measured at 3 m might be because the product wasn't working! The applicable standard doesn't cover the case of very weak emissions, but another similar standard does, so it's quite reasonable to use its extrapolation provision for the legitimizing statement. " If it's good enough for one harmonized standard, it's good enough for another." Others have attempted to answer the second question in several ways. Nothing wrong with that, except that nothing seems to be definite enough, or accessible enough, to convince a market surveillance officer that the product is acceptable. So it doesn't really help the enquirer. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 10:24 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor I've kept the 6 volume set of the EMC Handbook, by Donald White Consultants, for many years. It's a good reference. Some standards tell you what to do for correction at different measurements distances. If 3 metres still showed no signal, I'd use amplification and then carefully check for overloading. (esp if at an OATs or in situ) Ralph McDiarmid Product Compliance Engineering Solar Business Schneider Electric From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor Re Don White. That math was for an electrically short dipole: short relative to wavelength, and short relative to the separation between it and the point of observation. Neither of these criteria are obtained at one meter, and therefore the math is not useful. What I just said is what Gert said earlier, much more elegantly. And English is my first language... Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 ________________________________________ From: Ed Price <mailto:edpr...@cox.net> Reply-To: Ed Price <mailto:edpr...@cox.net> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 05:56:12 -0800 To: <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor As Gert points out, extrapolation is fraught with hazards of assumptions. If you absolutely must attempt to extrapolate data from extreme distances, like a 1-meter measurement to a 10-meter equivalent field, you should test the sanity of your extrapolation algorithm. For instance, it has been said that, at 10 meters, the emissions could not be measured (they were below the noise level of the detection system). The same was true at 3 meters distance. However, at 1 meter, signals were detected. My first thought is how certain are the 1 meter data? That is, were all measurements well above (maybe 6 dB) the noise level at 1 meter? However, let's assume this is true. Since nothing was observed at 3 meters, it's obvious that the field decay is greater than 6 dB over the 1 to 3 meter distance. It would greatly reinforce your claim of an accurate extrapolation algorithm if you had some empirical data to back up your scheme. For instance, could you show (and plot) the decay of the strongest emission, over the range of maybe ½ meter to 3 meters, at ½ meter increments? Once you have some field decay data, you could then try a regression to a formula for predicting decay. Since your emissions are likely not originating in a precisely defined antenna, the entire physical structure of your EUT is the antenna. Whatever extrapolation model you come up with will likely not be usable with other EUT's, but it will probably be better than just assuming 1/(r^2) or 1/(r^3). I believe that the White EMC Handbook series had a formula for extrapolating from very near fields to far fields. The decay in the very near field was 1/(r^3), rolling off to 1/(r^2) as the wavelength decreased. The critical parameters were the distance to the EUT at the close distance, the wavelength of the emission and the distance to the EUT at the extrapolated distance. Perhaps this model is discussed in more modern EMC texts also. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA -----Original Message----- From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:46 PM To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 302 195 Distance Conversion Factor In the close field area E-field/H-field varies with 1/(r^2) OR 1/(^3) depending on the source and nature of it. In addition at close distances similar fields may have an opposite vector polarity (close to EUT) and may partially cancel each other. In general it is not a good idea measuring close field components to draw conclusions on radiated emission components at greater distances, as these components do not actually radiate. That is why you won't find any conversion factors for frequencies below 30 MHz, at distances shorter than the close-far field transition zone. (lambda/2pi) Of course measurements in this area make sense about the EMI-level at the measurement point, and that is why some standards make measurements in the close field at a predefined distance. Changing that distance will make measurements incomparable. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen Approvals manager ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- - ________________________________ This message was scanned by Exchange Online Protection Services. ________________________________ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <emc-p...@ieee.org> 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/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
