Re: Generic industrial EMC standards
I read in !emc-pstc that Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk wrote (in p05210611bb444ab1ee90@[192.168.1.22]) about 'Generic industrial EMC standards' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003: Could someone please explain the relationship between EN 50081-2 and EN 50082-2, and the newer standards EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4? In particular, how is it that the OJ listing published on 26 of March of this year (and the one before) lists EN 50081-2:1993 and gives no details of a superseding standard, Well, that what is technically known as a 'mistake'. yet the same list also contains EN 61000-6-4 against which EN 50081-2:1993 is listed as the superseded standard with a DOCOPOCOSS of 1.7.2004. That is so. For practical purposes, are the any differences between these standards, Yes: immunity requirements are introduced above 1 GHz. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Email contact for Italian Ministry of telecommunications
Charles, Try the following: http://www.ero.dk/ point at CEPT Administrations and click on national contacts. John Radomski Principal Engineer Schneider Electric Charles Blackham cblac...@airspan.comTo: emc-pstc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordom Subject: Email contact for Italian Ministry of telecommunications o.ieee.org 07/23/2003 08:58 AM Please respond to Charles Blackham Dear Group I'm sending around notifications under article 6.4 of the RTTE directive for equipment using non-harmonised frequency bands. I cannot find contact details on http://www.comunicazioni.it and the ones on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/spectr.htm are out of date. Does any one have an up-to-date email before I resort to snail mail. thanks Charlie Blackham Approvals Manager Airspan Communications Ltd. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Additivity of Conducted Emission
The worse case could be 20LOG(N), where N is the number of power supplies. It depends on the impedance of the source driving the 50 ohm LISN impedance. If the source impedance is high (like 500 ohms) the voltages can add linearly. If the source impedances are low (like 25 ohms) then voltage will not increase with additional power supplies. What will decrease the source impedance? Output capacitors will. If the LISN is being driven off inductors the output Z will be high. Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com [mailto:francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:01 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Additivity of Conducted Emission Hi all. Forgive me for the following (perhaps) silly question, but I'm not an expert in these topics. I need to perform conducted emission test (220Vac port) according to EN55011, on an industrial power driver (25 kHz Switch Mode Inverter). Depending upon the application, one to ten drivers can be paralelled on the same 220V line. Each driver is indipendent from the other (i.e. no sync is provided), output power and waveform can be equal or different. The switching frequency is obtained via a high frequency clock (20MHz), thus it will be very similar for all the drivers. Emission will be both Common and Differential Mode. If I measure the emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive the emission level when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)? If yes, how to do it? Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 6 dB for two driver, 20 dB for ten in the worst case - the noise from each driver has the same frequency and phase) ? Thanks in advance Francesco ing. Francesco Campedelli RD - HW Design ALSTOM FERROVIARIA s.p.a. via di Corticella, 75 40128 Bologna - ITALY This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Generic industrial EMC standards
Could someone please explain the relationship between EN 50081-2 and EN 50082-2, and the newer standards EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4? In particular, how is it that the OJ listing published on 26 of March of this year (and the one before) lists EN 50081-2:1993 and gives no details of a superseding standard, yet the same list also contains EN 61000-6-4 against which EN 50081-2:1993 is listed as the superseded standard with a DOCOPOCOSS of 1.7.2004. For practical purposes, are the any differences between these standards, or is this primarily a re-badging exercise to suite the tidy mind of someone in CENELEC? Regards Nick. This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Email contact for Italian Ministry of telecommunications
Dear Group I'm sending around notifications under article 6.4 of the RTTE directive for equipment using non-harmonised frequency bands. I cannot find contact details on http://www.comunicazioni.it and the ones on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/spectr.htm are out of date. Does any one have an up-to-date email before I resort to snail mail. thanks Charlie Blackham Approvals Manager Airspan Communications Ltd.
Re: Additivity of Conducted Emission
I read in !emc-pstc that francesco.campede...@transport.alstom.com wrote (in of3e02755c.a4628162-onc1256d6c.002b4...@transport.alstom.com) about 'Additivity of Conducted Emission' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003: If I measure the emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive the emission level when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)? If yes, how to do it? Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 6 dB for two driver, 20 dB for ten in the worst case - the noise from each driver has the same frequency and phase) ? Yes, the worst case is probably arithmetic addition. 'Probably', because there might be some subtle effect that gives a better or worse result. But the *expected* situation is probably root-sum-square addition, i.e. 10 dB for ten units. Of course, if these units are self-contained and marketed as individual items of commerce, with each being CE marked, there is no requirement to add up the emissions for regulatory purposes. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: NEW EMC Standards
Hi group, For people interested in the RTTE Directive, a new list is published on July 18th. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf Major change is the Date of Cessation of Presumption of Conformity of EN55022:1994. This standard can now be used till August 1rst, 2005 to show compliance to Art 3.1b of the RTTE Directive 1999/05. Previously it was Aug. 1rst, 2003. Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations, Kristiaan Carpentier Regulatory and Approval Engineer Thomson multimedia Broadband Belgium N.V., S.A. Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632 e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net www.speedtouch.com From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: woensdag 23 juli 2003 10:02 To: Gordon,Ian; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: Re: NEW EMC Standards Hi Ian Try here http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/release/nr2000/nr0800.htm Cheers Alan - Original Message - From: Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@bocedwards.com To: 'Alan E Hutley' nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards Alan et al I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? Ian Gordon -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42 To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: NEW EMC Standards Hi Group New list of EMC Standards in OJ. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf Cheers Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance journal www.compliance-club.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: NEW EMC Standards
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@bocedwards.com wrote (in E1BA0362B28ED211A1E80008C71EA3060206FD03@EXC_EAS01) about 'NEW EMC Standards' on Wed, 23 Jul 2003: I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? They are not 'notified' under the EMC Directive, because they are only about methods of measurement, and compliance with the Directive does NOT require that you have to use those methods, despite what some people will tell you. All that is required for the 'standards route' is that the limits in the standards that set limits are met. In addition, for either route, the practical requirements of Article 4 of the Directive must be met. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Additivity of Conducted Emission
Hi all. Forgive me for the following (perhaps) silly question, but I'm not an expert in these topics. I need to perform conducted emission test (220Vac port) according to EN55011, on an industrial power driver (25 kHz Switch Mode Inverter). Depending upon the application, one to ten drivers can be paralelled on the same 220V line. Each driver is indipendent from the other (i.e. no sync is provided), output power and waveform can be equal or different. The switching frequency is obtained via a high frequency clock (20MHz), thus it will be very similar for all the drivers. Emission will be both Common and Differential Mode. If I measure the emission for one driver, would it be possible to derive the emission level when two or more drivers are present (at least a worst case)? If yes, how to do it? Does the noise add up linearly (so that I have to add 6 dB for two driver, 20 dB for ten in the worst case - the noise from each driver has the same frequency and phase) ? Thanks in advance Francesco ing. Francesco Campedelli RD - HW Design ALSTOM FERROVIARIA s.p.a. via di Corticella, 75 40128 Bologna - ITALY This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: NEW EMC Standards
Ian You won't find the 61000-4-X standards on the OJ list because they are only methods with (typically) a range of test levels and pass criteria, from which the actual product requirements are then intended to be specifically chosen and referenced in teh product-specific standards. Regards John Allen, Technical Consultant EMC and Safety Engineering ERA Technology Ltd. Cleeve Road Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA UK Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct) +44-1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44-1372-367102 From: Gordon,Ian [mailto:ian.gor...@bocedwards.com] Sent: 23 July 2003 08:24 To: 'Alan E Hutley'; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards Alan et al I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? Ian Gordon From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42 To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: NEW EMC Standards Hi Group New list of EMC Standards in OJ. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf Cheers Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance journal www.compliance-club.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com * Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2003. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved. The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated in confidence. No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments. _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: NEW EMC Standards
Alan et al I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? Ian Gordon From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42 To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: NEW EMC Standards Hi Group New list of EMC Standards in OJ. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf Cheers Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance journal www.compliance-club.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: NEW EMC Standards
Hi Ian Try here http://www.iec.ch/news_centre/release/nr2000/nr0800.htm Cheers Alan - Original Message - From: Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@bocedwards.com To: 'Alan E Hutley' nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com; Emc-Pstc Discussion Group emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: RE: NEW EMC Standards Alan et al I had a look at the OJ link you sent to check that I had the latest versions of the standards I use. However, the document doesn't include the 61000-4-x EMC immunity standards. Are they listed elsewhere? Ian Gordon -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: 22 July 2003 16:42 To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: NEW EMC Standards Hi Group New list of EMC Standards in OJ. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2003/c_172/c_17220030722en00020015.pdf Cheers Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance journal www.compliance-club.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.mci.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
Apparently I didn't express myself clearly. Let me try again. If instead of leveling on the x^2+y^2+z^2 output of the field sensor(s) when you calibrate the quiet zone you instead verify that the desired field intensity appears in the one desired polarization/orientation at each point in the 1.5 meter square, then you are absolutely guaranteeing the establishment of a plane wave. Further, the coupling to a wire of any specific orientation is fully determined which nails down the threshold of susceptibility, if one exists at the field intensity established. The EN61000-4-3 antenna-quiet zone separation of 3 meters was determined for a lower frequency of 80 MHz. At that frequency, a 3 meter separation is greater than a half wavelength, which for a dipole radiator such as a biconical is sufficient to approach far field conditions. If you push the lower frequency to 27 MHz, two bad things happen, NEITHER OF WHICH IS TEST CHAMBER RELATED. The far field separation criteria is now greater than the antenna-quiet zone separation, although this is likely mitigated by the fact that the radiator has not increased in physical length as would a tuned dipole. Instead, the biconical has become electrically shorter, which means it appears to be a high impedance load on the rf power source and therefore not much current flows. The biconical at 27 MHz will radiate a near field that, relative to a plane wave has a higher electric and lower magnetic field intensity. This can and will have a dramatic effect on coupling to cables, especially shielded ones. Another effect is room-related, and that is that the absorber tile-lining is reaching its performance limit at 20 MHz, and it is not as absorbent at 27 MHz as at 80 MHz. But this has nothing to do with chamber dimensions either. All the above is classical electromagnetics, I don't think any of it will generate controversy. But this might. I can't see any justification for pushing the lower 80 MHz limit to 27 MHz, except when the test sample is physically large. Then you have an analogous situation to a large test sample on an OATS, which requires a 10 m site to get accurate readings. So if your company builds and/or tests large floor standing racks of equipment, and needs to test at 27 MHz, then you bite the bullet and build the larger chamber and buy the more powerful amps. From: neve...@comcast.net Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:01:05 + To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity Thanks Ken. I would expect that 300+ MHz isn't much of a problem. I know that lower frequencies are a problem, especially if you start at ~27 MHz in a small chamber. I am not sure how much the small chamber loads the antenna, and how it affects the distribution of BOTH (i.e., E and H) EM field components in the intermediate range, about 80-150 MHz. My concern is that the difference in the entire field distribution (E and H and their relation) between a small chamber and a large chamber is probably substantial up to some frequency, which depends in the first place on the characteristics of the chamber and the absorbers. Thus, the interfering EM field may be quite different in the two chambers, even though the E-field component is identical (within the E-field uniformity requirement). Knowing only the E-field seems not to be enough in case of non-plane non-uniform propagation. Ultimately, I believe that it may result in very different susceptibility thresholds in different chambers, when measured relative to the E-field only. It seems that there isn't much, if any, data published and available. Neven I made some measurements once in a 3 meter anechoic chamber built for EN61000-4-3. I was interested in the disturbance a wire causes in a field due to picking up the field, the resultant currents flowing in such a way as to cancel the field that caused them, etc. In order to assess the effect, I needed to monitor the undisturbed field. While EN61000-4-3 allows a x-y-z field sensor total output to represent the field intensity, I needed to measure the relative vector components. I found that in this tile-lined chamber, that the only vector of any magnitude was that parallel to the radiating antenna. I would say that given this kind of performance, a plane wave has been established. But I was working at 300 MHz. I am suggesting that this simple test could be performed at all frequencies of interest to assess the anechoic properties of the room. From: neve...@comcast.net Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 + To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: npis...@broadcom.com Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber sizes when performing the radiated immunity (-3) test at low frequencies (e.g., between 80 MHz and 100-150 MHz)? The field
Re: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity
Thanks Ken. I would expect that 300+ MHz isn't much of a problem. I know that lower frequencies are a problem, especially if you start at ~27 MHz in a small chamber. I am not sure how much the small chamber loads the antenna, and how it affects the distribution of BOTH (i.e., E and H) EM field components in the intermediate range, about 80-150 MHz. My concern is that the difference in the entire field distribution (E and H and their relation) between a small chamber and a large chamber is probably substantial up to some frequency, which depends in the first place on the characteristics of the chamber and the absorbers. Thus, the interfering EM field may be quite different in the two chambers, even though the E-field component is identical (within the E-field uniformity requirement). Knowing only the E-field seems not to be enough in case of non-plane non-uniform propagation. Ultimately, I believe that it may result in very different susceptibility thresholds in different chambers, when measured relative to the E-field only. It seems that there isn't much, if any, data published and available. Neven I made some measurements once in a 3 meter anechoic chamber built for EN61000-4-3. I was interested in the disturbance a wire causes in a field due to picking up the field, the resultant currents flowing in such a way as to cancel the field that caused them, etc. In order to assess the effect, I needed to monitor the undisturbed field. While EN61000-4-3 allows a x-y-z field sensor total output to represent the field intensity, I needed to measure the relative vector components. I found that in this tile-lined chamber, that the only vector of any magnitude was that parallel to the radiating antenna. I would say that given this kind of performance, a plane wave has been established. But I was working at 300 MHz. I am suggesting that this simple test could be performed at all frequencies of interest to assess the anechoic properties of the room. From: neve...@comcast.net Reply-To: neve...@comcast.net Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:35:08 + To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: npis...@broadcom.com Subject: 3m vs. 10m chamber for radiated immunity Has anyone investigated the difference in performance of different chamber sizes when performing the radiated immunity (-3) test at low frequencies (e.g., between 80 MHz and 100-150 MHz)? The field uniformity is calibrated in E-field, but I would expect the total EM field (E and H components) to have different distribution as a function of different chamber sizes. Specifically, keeping the distance between the antenna and the DUT constant at 3 m, I still expect different performances due to size (chamber loading the antenna and reflections/near field). Consequently, it seems that the interfering signal can be quite different in a small chamber vs. large chamber, with possibly large variations in the H-field components, even though they are both calibrated for the E-field uniformity, and both tests performed at the antenna distance of 3m. I know of a case in which testing in a smaller (3m) chamber makes product consistently fail at significantly lower level than in a larger, 10 m chamber (6 V/m vs. nearly 10 v/m). Fixing a product to pass the 10 V/m level (required by the customer) in the large chamber seems to be relatively easy and inexpensive, while fixing it to pass the same level in a small chamber may be very costly and time consuming. Is there any precedence like in case of the radiated emission, where 10m results prevail in case of a dispute? Any papers to support or dismiss my expectation from above? Thanks, Neven --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave
Copy of UL 2075 Draft for Public Comment request
Good Friends of the Forum, Can anyone send me a copy of the UL 2075 Gas Detectors and Sensors draft for public comment? I plan to buy a full version but as yet it is not available from UL. Regards, Alan Brewster, MIEE Senior Systems Safety Engineer Novellus Systems, Tualatin, OR This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Russian Translation for Battery Disposal Marking
Forum, Can anyone translate the following into Russian? Thanks Warning There is the danger of explosion if the battery is replaced incorrectly. Replace the battery only with the same or equivalent type recommended by the manufacturer. Dispose of used batteries according to the manufacturer's instructions. _ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder http://us.rd.yahoo. om/evt=10469/*http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
RE: NARTE safety engineer certification
Hello Peter, I believe the plan is to make the official announcement of the NARTE Product Safety Engineer Cert'n program at the IEEE EMC Symposium (Boston-August). Patience, Little Grasshoppre, Patience. I do agree that the earlier announcement may have been a bit premature (and perhaps NARTE was overwhelmed by the response). Best regards, Art Michael -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- |http://www.safetylink.com | || | The Safety Link is the most comprehensive collection | |of product safety and standards links on the WEB| || | Int'l Product Safety News | |(It's our 15th Anniversary 1988-2003 | | P.O.Box 1561 - WWW | |Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A. | | Phone: (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 | | email: i...@safetylink.com| -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- [ On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Peter L. Tarver wrote: I received what amounts to a courtesy response from NARTE this morning. It only took four weeks and as many weekly pleas for a response, including boosting the importance of the last e-mail. My confidence in the value of NARTE's program is uninspired. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: Peter L. Tarver Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:03 AM Out of curiosity, I wrote NARTE directly regarding the below, to see what benefit they believe NARTE certification would offer someone who already has experience in product safety and a PE Registration. It's been a week and they have not responded. Perhaps that's their answer. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: gr...@test4safety.com Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:48 PM It’s also worth noting that NARTE will begin the Grandfathering phase for their Certified Product Safety Engineer/Technician award: you can get more information by registering on the 501(c)(iii) (Charity) site of www.eGlobalEd.Org Best regards Gregg --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
AC Power variation standard
Hello, A little off-topic perhaps but ... I am currently writing an internal Hardware Quality Assurance standard and would like to find a reference standard which details AC line voltage variation. For operating ranges, we are currently using: - 90 to 125VAC on 100/120VAC nominal - 190 to 260VAC on 220/235VAC nominal And for Brown-out, we are using: - 80VAC for 100/120VAC nominal - 160VAC for 220/235VAC nominal I have no little idea why these numbers were chosen and would love to refer to some national or, preferably, international specification. For once, Google has left me high and dry. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Marko Marko Radojicic Nokia Internet Communications 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA 94043-2215 marko.radoji...@nokia.com (650) 625-2624 (desk) (650) 796-1131 (cell) This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: NARTE safety engineer certification
I received what amounts to a courtesy response from NARTE this morning. It only took four weeks and as many weekly pleas for a response, including boosting the importance of the last e-mail. My confidence in the value of NARTE's program is uninspired. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: Peter L. Tarver Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:03 AM Out of curiosity, I wrote NARTE directly regarding the below, to see what benefit they believe NARTE certification would offer someone who already has experience in product safety and a PE Registration. It's been a week and they have not responded. Perhaps that's their answer. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com From: gr...@test4safety.com Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:48 PM It’s also worth noting that NARTE will begin the Grandfathering phase for their Certified Product Safety Engineer/Technician award: you can get more information by registering on the 501(c)(iii) (Charity) site of www.eGlobalEd.Org Best regards Gregg This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: e-mark labeling
There are no standards under the Automotive EMC Directive: it contains its own requirements. All you should list is the Directive number itself. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Compliance Engineering Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No really. Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Binnom, Cyril A [mailto:binno...@ems-t.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: e-mark labeling Forum: I have an aftermarket product that has been approved under 95/54/EC. For specification literature purposes, (product or user's manual) I am not sure what compliance standards should be listed for reference. I do have a Type Approval # and a e-mark # required for the product. An example would be 89/336/EEC. I currently list EN55022:1998 and EN55024:1998 as the ITE product specific standards under the directive on the DoC and any literature. For 95/54/EC is there a standard that falls under the directive that I should list. As I am not familiar with the directive, I am not sure. Regards, Cyril A. Binnom Jr. EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240 (770) 447-6928 Fax binno...@lxe.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
