date:20160523

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

2016-05-23 Thread Schaefer, David

It can be argued that AM would be as good as Pulse for finding susceptibility, 
but when using -4-3 methods you’re talking about nearly double the peak level – 
30 V/m versus 54 V/m.  That means a hell of a lot of amplifier power, 
especially if you want to do a 4 point uniform field. I think pulse makes much 
more sense. It is much closer to the actual threats out there, and other 
standards are already using it. IEC 60601-1-2:2014 has it in Table 9. ISO 13766 
and UN ECE R10.05 also have it for 800-2000 MHz susceptibility.  Annex A of 
-4-3 addresses the use of other modulations, but to me it reads like they 
decided AM was the best, then wrote the annex to support that conclusion.

Rob – whichever modulation they choose is going to require retesting. AM or 
Pulse, no one was previously doing spot checks at the freq. required in CISPR 
35.

Thanks,

David


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

There was a huge argument when the GHz tests were first introduced over whether 
the use of pulse modulation was justified. It seems that any differences from 
sine modulation are not large enough to matter, at least in some opinions.



From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Hi David,

I would have thought they would keep it at the 80% 1kHz AM modulation, so 
potentially 30V/m CW calibration, then apply the modulation on the test run, to 
give 54V/m peaks?

But as you said, pulse might make more sense as it replicates mobile phone/wifi 
devices better maybe.

This would open up a lot of re-testing on products that comply with the current 
standards.

Rob.

From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: 20 May 2016 16:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

There’s a separate question on CISPR 35 I would like answered – are they going 
to use pulse modulation for the spot frequencies?  As Rob mentioned, the 
requirement could be up to 30 V/m. If you’re intended to use the normal AM 
modulation of IEC 61000-4-3, that’s up to 54 V/m during your calibration. Pulse 
modulation makes more sense, but it isn’t in the draft.

David


From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Hi John,

So EN 55035 (CISPR 35) may not filter through to the OJ Harmonised list until 
end of 2019?

Up until that point, it will be a combination of EN 55032 and either EN 55024, 
55020 or 55103-2?

Thanks,

Regards
Rob.


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:16
To: Robert Dunkerley; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

It is most unlikely that 55035 will be brought into mandatory effect without at 
least 3 years transition. It appears that the CISPR FDIS is forecast for 
October 2016, and CENELEC will for sure need time to process it into an EN.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Hi,

I’m trying to plan ahead for the new EMC Standards coming in next year, in 
particular EN 55032 and EN 55035.

With EN 55035 still in draft form, are we likely to see that become compulsory 
the same time EN 55032 does? (ie 5th March 2017?)

In addition, do we know what the Radiated Immunity test changes are likely to 
be on the final version of the draft? I’ve seen that there is a new requirement 
for spot frequencies at 1.8GHz, 2.6GHz, 3.5GHz and 5GHz @ 3V/m. However, I have 
also seen talk of a ‘Protection Distance’ which could increase this 3V/m up to 
30V/m.

Best regards,

Rob.



This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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 
>

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.

Re: [PSES] IEC-60601-1-2: 2014 (4th Edition)

2016-05-23 Thread T.Sato

On Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:07 +,
  itl-emc user group  wrote:

> According to Clause 5.2.2.1 "Requirements applicable to all ME EQUIPMENT and 
> ME SYSTEMS", :
> "For all ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS, the technical description shall include 
> the following information:
> a) the compliance for each EMISSIONS and IMMUNITY standard or test specified 
> by this collateral standard, e.g. EMISSIONS class and group and IMMUNITY TEST 
> LEVEL;
> b) any deviations from this collateral standard and allowances used;
> c) * all necessary instructions for maintaining BASIC SAFETY and ESSENTIAL 
> PERFORMANCE with regard to ELECTROMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES for the EXPECTED 
> SERVICE LIFE."
> In IEC 60601-1-2: 2007, the above information was provided in the Guidance 
> and MANUFACTURER'S declaration - ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS tables.
> I did not find any similar tables in IEC 60601-1-2: 2014 .
> Any ideas on how to instruct clients to comply with Clause 5.2.2.1 a, b, c?

IEC 60601-1-2:2014 Annex A has some additional guide:

  Subclause 5.2.2.1 a), Compliance for each EMISSIONS and IMMUNITY
  standard

  This requirement replaces in part the requirements specified in
  Edition 3 to include tables of compliance levels and EMC guidance in
  the ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. While a MANUFACTURER can choose to put
  the information in such a format, this collateral standard does not
  mandate the format for this information. ...

Regards,
Tom

-

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 

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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

[PSES] Earth Line Choke in EMI inlet filter design

2016-05-23 Thread Amund Westin

Looking into the field of custom EMI inlet filter design, I see that some 
filter manufacturers make use of an Earth Line Choke.

Is this Earth Line choke typically a ferrite bead or an inductor, or …. ? 
Assume this Earth Line Choke is for reducing CM currents and even in series 
with PE-wire, it’s still within 60950-1.

 

 

Regards

Amund

 

 

 

 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

[PSES] IEC-60601-1-2: 2014 (4th Edition)

2016-05-23 Thread itl-emc user group

Hello,
According to Clause 5.2.2.1 "Requirements applicable to all ME EQUIPMENT and ME 
SYSTEMS", :
"For all ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS, the technical description shall include 
the following information:
a) the compliance for each EMISSIONS and IMMUNITY standard or test specified by 
this collateral standard, e.g. EMISSIONS class and group and IMMUNITY TEST 
LEVEL;
b) any deviations from this collateral standard and allowances used;
c) * all necessary instructions for maintaining BASIC SAFETY and ESSENTIAL 
PERFORMANCE with regard to ELECTROMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES for the EXPECTED 
SERVICE LIFE."
In IEC 60601-1-2: 2007, the above information was provided in the Guidance and 
MANUFACTURER'S declaration - ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS tables.
I did not find any similar tables in IEC 60601-1-2: 2014 .
Any ideas on how to instruct clients to comply with Clause 5.2.2.1 a, b, c?
Thanks in advance for any responses

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. LOD 7120101 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web 
www.itl.co.il

Fill out Customer Satisfaction 
Survey
Global Certifications You Can Trust
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, 
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you 
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message 
and its attachments to the sender.






-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

2016-05-23 Thread John Woodgate

There was a huge argument when the GHz tests were first introduced over whether 
the use of pulse modulation was justified. It seems that any differences from 
sine modulation are not large enough to matter, at least in some opinions.

 

 

 

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

 

Hi David,

 

I would have thought they would keep it at the 80% 1kHz AM modulation, so 
potentially 30V/m CW calibration, then apply the modulation on the test run, to 
give 54V/m peaks?

 

But as you said, pulse might make more sense as it replicates mobile phone/wifi 
devices better maybe.

 

This would open up a lot of re-testing on products that comply with the current 
standards.

 

Rob.

 

From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com] 
Sent: 20 May 2016 16:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

 

There’s a separate question on CISPR 35 I would like answered – are they going 
to use pulse modulation for the spot frequencies?  As Rob mentioned, the 
requirement could be up to 30 V/m. If you’re intended to use the normal AM 
modulation of IEC 61000-4-3, that’s up to 54 V/m during your calibration. Pulse 
modulation makes more sense, but it isn’t in the draft. 

 

David

 

 

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

 

Hi John,

 

So EN 55035 (CISPR 35) may not filter through to the OJ Harmonised list until 
end of 2019?

 

Up until that point, it will be a combination of EN 55032 and either EN 55024, 
55020 or 55103-2?

 

Thanks,

 

Regards

Rob.

 

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:16
To: Robert Dunkerley; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

 

It is most unlikely that 55035 will be brought into mandatory effect without at 
least 3 years transition. It appears that the CISPR FDIS is forecast for 
October 2016, and CENELEC will for sure need time to process it into an EN.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

 

Hi,

 

I’m trying to plan ahead for the new EMC Standards coming in next year, in 
particular EN 55032 and EN 55035.

 

With EN 55035 still in draft form, are we likely to see that become compulsory 
the same time EN 55032 does? (ie 5th March 2017?)

 

In addition, do we know what the Radiated Immunity test changes are likely to 
be on the final version of the draft? I’ve seen that there is a new requirement 
for spot frequencies at 1.8GHz, 2.6GHz, 3.5GHz and 5GHz @ 3V/m. However, I have 
also seen talk of a ‘Protection Distance’ which could increase this 3V/m up to 
30V/m.

 

Best regards,

 

Rob.

 

 

  _  

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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 
 >

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  >
Mike Cantwell  > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  >
David Heald  > 

 

  _  

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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 
 >

All emc-pstc postings are

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

2016-05-23 Thread Robert Dunkerley

Hi David,

I would have thought they would keep it at the 80% 1kHz AM modulation, so 
potentially 30V/m CW calibration, then apply the modulation on the test run, to 
give 54V/m peaks?

But as you said, pulse might make more sense as it replicates mobile phone/wifi 
devices better maybe.

This would open up a lot of re-testing on products that comply with the current 
standards.

Rob.

From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: 20 May 2016 16:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

There’s a separate question on CISPR 35 I would like answered – are they going 
to use pulse modulation for the spot frequencies?  As Rob mentioned, the 
requirement could be up to 30 V/m. If you’re intended to use the normal AM 
modulation of IEC 61000-4-3, that’s up to 54 V/m during your calibration. Pulse 
modulation makes more sense, but it isn’t in the draft.

David


From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 7:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Hi John,

So EN 55035 (CISPR 35) may not filter through to the OJ Harmonised list until 
end of 2019?

Up until that point, it will be a combination of EN 55032 and either EN 55024, 
55020 or 55103-2?

Thanks,

Regards
Rob.


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 19 May 2016 13:16
To: Robert Dunkerley; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

It is most unlikely that 55035 will be brought into mandatory effect without at 
least 3 years transition. It appears that the CISPR FDIS is forecast for 
October 2016, and CENELEC will for sure need time to process it into an EN.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@s-a-m.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Hi,

I’m trying to plan ahead for the new EMC Standards coming in next year, in 
particular EN 55032 and EN 55035.

With EN 55035 still in draft form, are we likely to see that become compulsory 
the same time EN 55032 does? (ie 5th March 2017?)

In addition, do we know what the Radiated Immunity test changes are likely to 
be on the final version of the draft? I’ve seen that there is a new requirement 
for spot frequencies at 1.8GHz, 2.6GHz, 3.5GHz and 5GHz @ 3V/m. However, I have 
also seen talk of a ‘Protection Distance’ which could increase this 3V/m up to 
30V/m.

Best regards,

Rob.



This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.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 
>

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

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Re: [PSES] IEC-60601-1-2: 2014 (4th Edition)

[PSES] Earth Line Choke in EMI inlet filter design

[PSES] IEC-60601-1-2: 2014 (4th Edition)

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

Re: [PSES] EN 55035 / CISPR 35

6 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information