I am going to slightly disagree with Chas. Optimizing cable set-up for emissions is limited to the set of frequencies originating in the equipment and emitted from the cables.
For 61000-4-3, the set of frequencies is all those covered by the standard, not a very limited subset. A reverb chamber solves the problem of aspect angles to cables, but EN61000-4-3 starts at 80 MHz. That¹s a big chamber. It seems to me, just hunch, that for 61000-4-3, the theoretical best bet for cable optimization is a dipole-like configuration with cables emanating from test sample enclosure 180 degrees from each other. That puts the test sample circuitry at the dipole center, picking up maximum currents on enclosure. However, with a 1.5 meter wide UFA, typical cables aren¹t going to be contained in that dimension if they emanate from the center. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: "Grasso, Charles" <[email protected]> Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:39:42 +0000 To: <[email protected]> Conversation: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test Subject: Re: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test This immunity set up problem seems like the exact likeness of an emissions problem. The (as you correctly state) complex problem of what to do with cable was eventually congealed in ANSI C63.4 with pictures on how to set up an emissions test. Given that the physics of emissions and currents on the shields of cables in immunity are analogues of each other could you not use an emissions test setup as a starting point? Perhaps you can find a friendly reverb chamber some place then the issue of cable placement is immediately resolved! Thanks! Charles Grasso W: 303-706-5467 From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:11 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: [email protected] Hello experts, I am performing some testing on a control panel with multiple cable connections and it has got me thinking about the radiated RF immunity testing. I know from the EN 61000-4-3 standard that ³1m of cable is exposed to the electromagnetic field² in the Uniform Field Area (UFA). What is not covered is: * Any required separation distance between separate cables/ports from the EUT? * If the cables are zig-zagged to fit in the UFA then what separation distance between the zig and the zag? Unfortunately my UFA isn¹t quite big enough to fit 1m of cabling laid straight out like I see many accredited test houses doing, often with little to no distance between the cables. I could always stretch out the cables over 1m and use partial illumination techniques but I¹d prefer not to have to double the amount of time I spend on one of the time consuming (and most boring) tests that I do. I can see in MIL-STD-461 that there is a 2cm gap recommended between the cables but it isn¹t clear if that is just for power cables or all cables. Is there any guidance available on this potentially very complex subject? How do you approach this problem? As always, your input is appreciated! Many thanks in advance James James Pawson EMC Problem Solver Unit 3 Compliance Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing / Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> -- 07811 139957 Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.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.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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.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.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 <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
