RE: GTEM Stuff
The GTEM is a guided wave device and usually we tend to think of polarization in terms of free space (unguided waves). Being a TEM transmission line, the direction of the field in the cell is between the inner and outer conductor, the way most GTEM's are constructed and given the location where the EUT is located you could describe it as vertical polarization Vicente Rodríguez, Ph.D., E.I.T. RF/Electromagnetics Engineer ETS-Lindgren (an ESCO Company) P.O.Box 80589, Austin TX 78708-0589 phone 512.835.4684 x648 fax 512.835.4729 vicente.rodrig...@emctest.com http://www.emctest.com http://home.austintx.com/~vicenter -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [SMTP:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:02 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: GTEM Stuff Here is another specific question dealing with GTEM - OATS correlation. Is a GTEM cell horizontally or vertically polarized? Thanks for your help, Mat Mathew Aschenberg Agency Engineer EchoStar Technologies Corporation 90 Inverness Circle East Englewood, CO 80112 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Basic Standards
Colleagues, I can find references on the web to harmonized standards, but I have not found a reference to a list of basic standards, such as EN 61000-4-x. I am trying to find a source that will indicate what the latest acceptable revision is. I am sure it's out there -- I just keep missing it. Can someone point me to such a source? Best regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic Electronics Corporation --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Agilent Support, A14 EN 61000-3-2
I challenged Agilent concerning the impact of their decision to discontinue certain harmonic test systems and not support the A14 amendment. A14 is especially important for commercial/industrial equipment previously identified as Class D. Agilent responded positively by committing to support A14. See the response below. From: celeste_jenk...@agilent.com[SMTP:celeste_jenk...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 11:00 PM To: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com Cc: wo...@sensormatic.com; gary_rap...@agilent.com; roger_nur...@hp.com Subject: RE: 6843A upgrade for A14 Donald J. Umbdenstock Senior Principal Engineer Compliance Engineering Sensormatic Electronics Corporation Dear Mr. Umbdenstock, Thank you for taking the time to so eloquently express your concern regarding our recent announcement to discontinue the Agilent 6843A Regulatory Testing Solution and associated software, and to share the sentiments of others in your industry. This decision was very difficult for us to make as we recognize the impact to our customers. Our true intention was to inform our customers of this decision as quickly as possible, with the understanding that the existing EN 61000-3-2 regulation would remain applicable through 2004. In addition to receiving your letter, I have personally read or listened to feedback from other customers. Quite frankly, we misjudged the timeframe within which our customers would need to test their equipment according to Amendment 14 of EN 61000-3-2 and have inadvertently created the perception that Agilent is reneging on a commitment. We do value our customers and our reputation as a respectable and leading supplier of test and measurement equipment. Any perception contrary to this is certainly unacceptable to our company. Please know that at Agilent Technologies, we do listen to our customers and take your inputs very seriously. Although our decision to discontinue these products remains unchanged, we will provide an upgrade for A14 of EN 61000-3-2. Currently, we are assessing how quickly we can make this upgrade available and will subsequently be communicating this plan to all of our customers. As you may have guessed, my preference would have been to communicate a support strategy that met the expectations of our customers with the initial announcement of the discontinuance of Agilent's 6843A Regulatory Testing Solution and software. However, I sincerely hope that our revised plan to include an upgrade of this solution will help us regain the respect from our customers that we continually work so hard to earn. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Celeste Jenkins Product Marketing Manager Agilent Technologies Power Products Generation Unit --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Al, It relaxed the limits for almost all products except ITE, TV's, etc. I do not remember all the details since I have not had to apply it yet. Essentially the harmonic current limits are no longer relative based on the power consumption of the device but based are on absolute values as if the product was drawing 15A(not sure of this exact #). But essentially anything will pass now. You can purchase A14 on the IEC web site at www.iec.chThere is also a 75 watt exemption. Products less that 75 watts automatically comply. Best regards, Jim' Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 2:53 PM To: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)'; 'jc...@shore.net' Subject:RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. In a nutshell how did A14 change 61000-3-2. I don't have a copy of A14 yet. Jim Allan Manager, Engineering Services Milgo Solutions LLC 1619 N Harrison Parkway Sunrise, FL, 33323 E-mail james_al...@milgo.com Phone (954) 846-3720 Fax (954) 846-5693 -Original Message- From: Jim Conrad [SMTP:jc...@shore.net] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:09 AM To: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)' Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance. Just be sure to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
In a nutshell how did A14 change 61000-3-2. I don't have a copy of A14 yet. Jim Allan Manager, Engineering Services Milgo Solutions LLC 1619 N Harrison Parkway Sunrise, FL, 33323 E-mail james_al...@milgo.com Phone (954) 846-3720 Fax (954) 846-5693 -Original Message- From: Jim Conrad [SMTP:jc...@shore.net] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:09 AM To: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com; 'emc-pstc (E-mail)' Subject: RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance. Just be sure to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN 60439-1 ???
What I remember about the last time I used this standard, is that it if focused on safety of energy distribution systems i.e. control gear having a power INPUT and OUTPUT , the latter possibly a motor control or a whole building or whatever one may imagine. Many of the clauses in this standard are to prevent the control-gear to catch fire in case of overload or short circuit at the LOAD side. This is very well possible, as switchgear may consist of wire and switches only and one cannot predict what will happen in that case. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) Ce-test, qualified testing == Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ == -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Canio Dichirico Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:33 PM To: IEEE EMC List; Mike Cantwell Subject: Re: EN 60439-1 ??? Hi Mike! EN 60439-1 applies to to low-voltage (up to 1000 VAC and 1500 VDC) switchgear and controlgear assemblies. Coming to diesel-generator sets, IMO it applies to all the assemblies (cabinets) that contain switching devices (circuit-breakers, switch-disconnectors, fuses, etc.) and/or controlgear and that are a part of the set. IEC 439-1 (a direct ancestor of EN 60439-1) is enfoced by (constitutes provisions of) the Part 4 - Controlgear and switchgear of the International Standard ISO 8528 Reciprocating internal combustion engine driven alternating current generating sets. I hope this help. Regards. Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel./Fax +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-3200 6694 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org -- - Original Message - From: Mike Cantwell michael.cantw...@flextronics.com To: emc-pstc (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 16:41 Subject: EN 60439-1 ??? All, EN 60439-1 is titled Low-voltage switchgear and control gear asemblies - Part 1: Type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies and is listed as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. Does any one know the scope of this standard ??? If you know the scope, does it apply to diesel - generator sets (or maybe some of it's controls) ?? As always, trying to determine what it is prior to buying it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Michael Cantwell, PE, NCE ...OLE_Obj... EMC Laboratories 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 Tel: (919) 554-0901 Fax: (919) 556-2043 Cell: (919) 815-4067 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
RE: [Fwd: RED PC info]
The issue comes up occasionally, and this used to be the case albeit a long time ago. The color red can be used as long as their is no confusion with a safety hazard. This is clearly identified in the last line of UL 60950 on page B50 section 1.7.8.2 Colours Where safety is involved, colours of controls and indicators shall comply with IEC 60073. Where colours are used for functional controls or indicators, any colour, including red, is permitted provided that it is clear that safety is notinvolved. This same section is found in EN60950, Ul 1950 and others. - All of this dealing with ITE by the way. Gary. -Original Message- From: acar...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:acar...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:04 AM To: emc Subject: [Fwd: RED PC info] -- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Chicago Chapter IEEE EMC Meeting Announcement - Jan 17, 2001
You are all invited to our next IEEE EMC Chicago Chapter meeting. List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday January 17, 2001 Time: 7:30 pm (Social time 7:15 pm) Location: Lucent Directions from I-88 and Naperville Rd. Go North on Naperville Rd to Warrenville Rd. Go West ( Left) on Warrenville Rd, and turn right on the first street. The building is on the right, and is the new facility of Lucent. Topic: Introduction to Measurement Uncertainty for Radiated and Conducted Emissions Presenter: H. R.(Bob) Hofmann, Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL Abstract: This talk will be an introduction to the topic of measurement uncertainty in radiated and conducted emission measurements. It will use simple mathematics to show how the various components used in making measurements add to the total measurement uncertainty of the final results. Biography - Bob Hofmann has been with Bell Labs for 43 years, working on EMC issues for the past 22 years. He is the head of the Lucent/Bell Labs Corporate EMC Committee. He represents Lucent on ANSI accredited EMC Committee C63 and various C63 subcommittees, and is the Lucent representative to and vice-chair of ECMA EMC committee TC-20. He was the lead editor of ANSI C63.12-1999 and contributing editor to ANSI C63.4-1991, 1992, and 2000. Or, see our website http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/chicago/ Frank Krozel, fr...@electronicinstrument.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Site Correlation
Interesting... we are gojng to set-up a pre-compliance semi-anechoic chamber for 3 m measurements (mainly radiated emissions) on telecom products and we'll need to correlate it with a 10m full-compliant chamber. Our DUT's are typically sub-rack or 2m+ high telecom racks. Your idea of considering a fully anechoic vs semi-anechoic chamber sounds pretty interesting to me. We are limited in height to about 2 m (chamber internal space) so we are not able to maximize with a limited antenna height scanning. So rotating the EUT and adding 6 dB for the missing in-phase floor reflection sounds reasonable... unless I'm missing something I heard some time ago about a correlation study btw fully- and semi-anechoic rooms performed by CISPR subcommittee A and if I remember well they came up with disturbing increased uncertainties / variancies related to cables layout due to missing coupling between cables and ground floor (image theory and stuff...). Anyone who can fill me in more with this would be welcome ! Regards, Paolo Roncone At 10:37 AM 1/11/01 -0500, David Heald wrote: Hello all There are a few variables that need to be addressed to answer this question. The first is the nature of the chamber. My reply will assume that this is a fully anechoic chamber (walls, floor, and ceiling all lined with absorber material). Otherwise, all bets are off due to the unpredictable reflections from the surfaces in the chamber. In a chamber this size, I will also assume that the antenna height is fixed, or at least not very adjustable. Given a fully anechoic room and a fixed antenna height, theoretically you should be able to extrapolate (about 10 dB from 1 to 3 meters antenna distance and another 10 dB from 3 to 10 meters) with only about 6 dB of uncertainty. In practice this is usually accurate but real world conditions have slightly more uncertainty so 10 dB is a fairly safe margin to use. A few things to keep in mind: if the chamber is only semi-anechoic (walls and ceiling lined) you will have more uncertainty due to possible cancellation due to floor reflections. At this point, relative change or frequency identification is about the only thing the chamber is good for. Also, near field readings can be significantly different from far-field readings. If you come up with marginal near field readings, be prepared for the worst when you take 10m readings. Finally, be sure to check BOTH antenna polarities. I hope this helps Usual employer disclaimer . . . David Heald Senior EMC Engineer/ Product Safety Engineer Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Safety, and Telecom Voice:978.486.8880x254 Fax:978.486.8828 http://www.curtis-straus.comwww.curtis-straus.com Tudor, Allen wrote: Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: mailto:allen_tu...@adc.comallen_tu...@adc.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org! with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: mailto:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.comjim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:mailto:pstc_ad...@garretson.orgpstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: mailto:ri...@ieee.orgri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
GTEM Stuff
Here is another specific question dealing with GTEM - OATS correlation. Is a GTEM cell horizontally or vertically polarized? Thanks for your help, Mat Mathew Aschenberg Agency Engineer EchoStar Technologies Corporation 90 Inverness Circle East Englewood, CO 80112 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Yes, A14 may now be employed for compliance with EN 61000-3-2. -Original Message- From: brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com [mailto:brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RTTE Directive
Our inductive SRD equipment operates in a non-harmonized frequency band. In reply to our notification to the spectrum authorities, one state replied that they will not authorize operation because the frequency is not authorized for inductive use. According to Article 7.2 of the RTTE Directive, Member States may restricted putting into service of radio equipment only for reasons related to the effective use of the spectrum, avoidance of harmful interference or matters related to public health. Has anyone successfully fought a reply such as this and won on the basis that the state had not proven that rejection was based upon one of these three reasons? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
[Fwd: RED PC info]
-- Andrew Carson - Product Safety Engineer Xyratex Engineering Laboratory Tele 023 92496855 Fax 023 92496014 ---BeginMessage--- To News group Does anyone know of a requirement within Europe for a warning of data loss shown on a PC screen not to be in a RED box, IE does warning information have to follow the same convention for colour coding as defined by IEC 204 IE red for hazardous condition only. Thanks Graham. -- Graham Durrant Xyratex Product Safety Officer Phone 44-(0)23-92496857 Fax44-(0)23-92496014 ---End Message---
Re: Site Correlation
Greetings again. I received some questions about this off list and there has been more discussion in this direction, so I thought I would throw my other two cents in. For small fully anechoic chambers with little room for antenna height adjustment, you should be able to have uncertainty of about 6dB or so (10dB is much safer realistically) when you apply correction factors for a 10m site. The reason for this is, as John Barnes pointed out, the absence of reflected waves being received in addition to the direct waves. The key importance to a fully lined chamber (including the floor) is that destructive waves are not present. With a reflective floor, destructive waves can lower your readings by more than 30dB. Add this to the 6 dB or so of uncertainty for additive waves and your total error could be enormous. With an absorber lined floor, the influence of the destructive waves is eliminated or reduced, so a correlation of 6dB (again 10dB is safer) should be achievable (this simply accounts for the absence of constructive interference). Another important factor to ensure you don't have any surprises when moving from precompliance to a compliance run is to manipulate the cables during testing (oh, how much easier our job would be without cables). Large signal strength changes can be achieved just by moving cables a few inches. I also have to agree with Gert's and Ken's comments on far field measurements. I mentioned this in my original message, but didn't elaborate at all. These are very important considerations that can greatly affect any expected correlation to a 10m OATS. -- David Heald Senior EMC Engineer/ Product Safety Engineer Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Safety, and Telecom Voice:978.486.8880x254 Fax:978.486.8828 www.curtis-straus.com Tudor, Allen wrote: Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Yes, you can use the A14 for the January 1, 2001 compliance. Just be sure to add 61000-3-2 A14 to your DOC. Best regards, Jim Jim Conrad P.O. Box 25 Hamilton, MA 01936-0025 USA jc...@shore.net Phone #: 978-468-3909 FAX #: 978-468-3909 -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of brett_sand...@snellwilcox.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 7:43 AM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject:EN61000-3-2 Amendments. Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Japan
Has anyone had any experience with a Japan MITI law that requires a minimum insulation resistance between primary circuitry and ground? I am advised that a minimum of 0.1 Mohm is required for equipment up to 150V and 0.2 Mohms for equipment 150V up to 300V. Best regards, Charlie Bayhi CPSM Corporation
Re: EN 60439-1 ???
Hi Mike! EN 60439-1 applies to to low-voltage (up to 1000 VAC and 1500 VDC) switchgear and controlgear assemblies. Coming to diesel-generator sets, IMO it applies to all the assemblies (cabinets) that contain switching devices (circuit-breakers, switch-disconnectors, fuses, etc.) and/or controlgear and that are a part of the set. IEC 439-1 (a direct ancestor of EN 60439-1) is enfoced by (constitutes provisions of) the Part 4 - Controlgear and switchgear of the International Standard ISO 8528 Reciprocating internal combustion engine driven alternating current generating sets. I hope this help. Regards. Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel./Fax +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-3200 6694 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org - Original Message - From: Mike Cantwell michael.cantw...@flextronics.com To: emc-pstc (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 16:41 Subject: EN 60439-1 ??? All, EN 60439-1 is titled Low-voltage switchgear and control gear asemblies - Part 1: Type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies and is listed as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. Does any one know the scope of this standard ??? If you know the scope, does it apply to diesel - generator sets (or maybe some of it's controls) ?? As always, trying to determine what it is prior to buying it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Michael Cantwell, PE, NCE ...OLE_Obj... EMC Laboratories 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 Tel: (919) 554-0901 Fax: (919) 556-2043 Cell: (919) 815-4067 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Site Correlation
Joe, If the transmitting antenna (your product) and the receiving antenna were in free space, you pretty much could assume that the radiation falls off at 1/r^2, and thus use a 10.5dB correction factor between 10m and 3m measurements. (You might have to worry about near-field effects and antenna interaction at low frequencies.) But Radiated Emissions measurements for equipment are done over a ground plane. Thus the receiving antenna sees: * Direct radiation from the equipment. AND * Radiation that has bounced off the ground plane. Because of the difference in path lengths, these signals may sum anywhere from exactly in-phase to exactly out-of-phase, depending on the frequency and antenna heights. For horizontal antennas this turns out to be just a small disturbing factor, less than 1dB or so. But vertical antennas can see anywhere from 200% to 0% of the free-space voltage for that same position of the antennas. Because the FCC and CISPR regulations require you to vary the receive antenna height between 1m and 4m, you will see lobes in the vertical pattern because of this constructive/destructive interference. After having some of our products pass easily in our 3m chamber, and then fail miserably on a 10m test site, our EMC folks came up with an additional correction for: * Transmitting antenna height of 1m (tabletop product on 0.8m high table). * Receive antenna height of 1-1.75m in our 3m chamber. * Receive antenna height of 1-4m on a 10m site. * Frequencies from 30MHz to 1GHz. This Vertical Correction Factor (VCF) is: * About 1dB at 30MHz. * About 7dB at 200MHz. * About 1dB at 1GHZ. Thus, if I am testing a product in our 3m chamber, and want to be sure that it will pass the official tests at 10m, at 200MHz I had better see vertical emissions no higher than 3.5dB (10.5dB for 1/r^2 minus 7dB VCF) above the 10m limit. Because of Murphy's Law, and to protect us from slight variations in production, our EMC folks like us to have 4dB margin against this corrected limit. If we are within 2dB of this corrected limit, we may pass Radiated Emissions tests on the initial units, but will have to rerun A-B Radiated Emissions tests in our 3m chamber for *any* contemplated changes to the product, and may have to test production units regularly to make sure that we stay legal. This is not a fun way for us Design Engineers to spend our time... Thus we tend to overdesign the products, which adds cost. We have had a 10m Open Air Test Site (OATS) here for a number of years. But because of Kentucky weather, we could only count on being able to use it about 5-6 months per year. For another couple of months per year we could hope/pray for a warm day to run 10m tests, but expected to have to travel to a closed-in 10m test site. But, in late October we started construction of a new lab building that will have a completely-equipped 10m semi-anechoic/anechoic chamber. It's supposed to be completed in late summer. Yeehah! John Barnes Advisory Engineer Lexmark International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN61000-3-2 Amendments.
Does anybody know if the amendments made it into EN61000-3-2 for its January 2001 compliance date? As a manufacturer of products that only use switch mode power supplies, the amendments are of great importance to me. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Site Correlation
I'd say either a comb generator, or a sweep generator but use them to excite a test object of the same general size as the equipment you wish to test. The smaller your chamber, the more it will be affected by the size of an EUT sitting in it. If you can be pretty sure what you will test, add its cables, too. And no, I'd give the same answer for both. That's my two-cents worth, anyway. Cortland == Original Message Follows (Headers snipped) What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EMI Receiver rental
Hi Group, Does anybodfy have a good adress to rent an Rohde Schwarz EMI receiver(s) from 150 kHz -2 GHz? Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Bluetooth, BQB, Competent Body Cetecom Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: +1 (408) 586 6214 Fax: +1 (408) 586 6299 attachment: Lothar_Schmidt.vcf
