Re: [PSES] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[Paolo Roncone]

Agree, but that would be a bit too clear...I think there's an office
somewhere within IEC whose mission is to maximize the intricacy of
something already intricate
An alternative, but maybe too simple and easy, would be to add peak limits
for conducted EMI, higher than QP and Average..

Best regards,
Paolo

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:42 PM, John Woodgate  wrote:

> I still say that the wording of 3.3.3 is not as rigorous as it should be.
> It should read something like: "discontinuous disturbance, the amplitude
> of which, measured with the QP receiver, exceeds the quasi-peak limit for
> continuous disturbance, the duration of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and
> which is separated from a subsequent disturbance by at least 200 ms,...".
> Without that clarification, if the amplitude exceeds the limit for however
> short a time, the disturbance is a click.
>
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2017-11-10 12:30, Paolo Roncone wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I see only an upper duration limit (200 msec), because clicks are
> referenced/measured only with a QP detector. See CISPR 14-1 sec.C2.2 "The
> amplitude of the clicks shall be measured with a receiver having a
> quasi-peak detector according to Clause 4 of CISPR 16-1-1:2015."
> So clicks shorter than 1 ms would not be picked up by a QP detector or at
> least never charge it high enough to reach the QP limit...that's my guess.
>
> Best regards,
> Paolo
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, John Woodgate  wrote:
>
>> I think the 1 ms attack time ensures that the click is detected. But
>> there is an issue with the wording. It appears that a 0.5 ms pulse above
>> the QP  limit is a click as defined , but is too short compared with the QP
>> rise-time to show  as exceeding the limit. I think there should be a lower
>> limit of duration as well as the 200 ms upper limit.
>>
>> But this probably doesn't help.
>>
>> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
>> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
>> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>>
>> On 2017-11-10 10:37, Paolo Roncone wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Question:
>> IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under the
>> CISPR 14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when measured with a
>> CISPR 16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click procedure/assesment
>> deemed to be complied with, or not?
>> In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go through the
>> very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4, Fig.6 (Flow diagram)
>> and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining, analyzing, measuring and
>> assessing compliance of clicks ?
>>
>> Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
>> Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed WHEN
>> they exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
>> Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the amplitude
>> of which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the
>> duration of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which is separated from a
>> subsequent disturbance by at least 200 ms,..."
>>
>> Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP receiver =
>> 1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec (see click examples in
>> Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP limit might NOT be picked up by
>> the QP receiver during a standard mains conducted EMI measurement..here is
>> the origin of my doubts.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any feedback
>> Paolo
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site
>> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
>> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>>
>> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Scott Douglas 
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher 
>> David Heald 
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-

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 

Re: [PSES] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[John Woodgate]

I still say that the wording of 3.3.3 is not as rigorous as it should 
be. It should read something like: "discontinuous disturbance, the 
amplitude of which, measured with the QP receiver, exceeds the 
quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the duration of which is 
NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which is separated from a subsequent 
disturbance by at least 200 ms,...". Without that clarification, if the 
amplitude exceeds the limit for however short a time, the disturbance is 
a click.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2017-11-10 12:30, Paolo Roncone wrote:

Hi John,

I see only an upper duration limit (200 msec), because clicks are 
referenced/measured only with a QP detector. See CISPR 14-1 sec.C2.2 
"The amplitude of the clicks shall be measured with a receiver having 
a quasi-peak detector according to Clause 4 of CISPR 16-1-1:2015."
So clicks shorter than 1 ms would not be picked up by a QP detector or 
at least never charge it high enough to reach the QP limit...that's my 
guess.


Best regards,
Paolo


On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, John Woodgate > wrote:


I think the 1 ms attack time ensures that the click is detected.
But there is an issue with the wording. It appears that a 0.5 ms
pulse above the QP  limit is a click as defined , but is too short
compared with the QP rise-time to show  as exceeding the limit. I
think there should be a lower limit of duration as well as the 200
ms upper limit.

But this probably doesn't help.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associateswww.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2017-11-10 10:37, Paolo Roncone wrote:

Hi all,

Question:
IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under
the CISPR 14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when
measured with a CISPR 16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click
procedure/assesment deemed to be complied with, or not?
In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go
through the very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4,
Fig.6 (Flow diagram) and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining,
analyzing, measuring and assessing compliance of clicks ?

Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed
WHEN they exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the
amplitude of which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous
disturbance, the duration of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and
which is separated from a subsequent disturbance by at least 200
ms,..."

Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP
receiver = 1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec
(see click examples in Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP
limit might NOT be picked up by the QP receiver during a standard
mains conducted EMI measurement..here is the origin of my doubts.

Thanks in advance for any feedback
Paolo
-


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 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), 

Re: [PSES] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi John,

I see only an upper duration limit (200 msec), because clicks are
referenced/measured only with a QP detector. See CISPR 14-1 sec.C2.2 "The
amplitude of the clicks shall be measured with a receiver having a
quasi-peak detector according to Clause 4 of CISPR 16-1-1:2015."
So clicks shorter than 1 ms would not be picked up by a QP detector or at
least never charge it high enough to reach the QP limit...that's my guess.

Best regards,
Paolo


On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:06 PM, John Woodgate  wrote:

> I think the 1 ms attack time ensures that the click is detected. But there
> is an issue with the wording. It appears that a 0.5 ms pulse above the QP
> limit is a click as defined , but is too short compared with the QP
> rise-time to show  as exceeding the limit. I think there should be a lower
> limit of duration as well as the 200 ms upper limit.
>
> But this probably doesn't help.
>
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2017-11-10 10:37, Paolo Roncone wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Question:
> IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under the CISPR
> 14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when measured with a CISPR
> 16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click procedure/assesment deemed to
> be complied with, or not?
> In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go through the
> very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4, Fig.6 (Flow diagram)
> and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining, analyzing, measuring and
> assessing compliance of clicks ?
>
> Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
> Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed WHEN
> they exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
> Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the amplitude
> of which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the
> duration of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which is separated from a
> subsequent disturbance by at least 200 ms,..."
>
> Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP receiver =
> 1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec (see click examples in
> Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP limit might NOT be picked up by
> the QP receiver during a standard mains conducted EMI measurement..here is
> the origin of my doubts.
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback
> Paolo
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>
>
>

-

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] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[T.Sato]

Paolo,

When QP level didn't exceed the QP limits (if our client wish to
have some minimum margin in the test, QP limits minus the margin)
for continuous disturbances, we will not evaluate discontinuous
disturbances.

As you said, the standard says "Discontinuous disturbances shall be
assessed WHEN they exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."

Also, discontinuous disturbances will be measured with the same
QP detector and higher QP limits will be applied (clause 4.4.2,
C.2, etc.), so the EUT should never exceed the discontinuous
disturbance limits in this case.

Regards,
Tom


On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 11:37:27 +0100,
  Paolo Roncone  wrote:

> Question:
> IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under the CISPR
> 14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when measured with a CISPR
> 16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click procedure/assesment deemed to
> be complied with, or not?
> In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go through the
> very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4, Fig.6 (Flow diagram)
> and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining, analyzing, measuring and
> assessing compliance of clicks ?
> 
> Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
> Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed WHEN they
> exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
> Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the amplitude of
> which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the duration
> of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which is separated from a subsequent
> disturbance by at least 200 ms,..."
> 
> Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP receiver =
> 1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec (see click examples in
> Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP limit might NOT be picked up by
> the QP receiver during a standard mains conducted EMI measurement..here is
> the origin of my doubts.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any feedback
> Paolo

-

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] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[John Woodgate]

I think the 1 ms attack time ensures that the click is detected. But 
there is an issue with the wording. It appears that a 0.5 ms pulse above 
the QP  limit is a click as defined , but is too short compared with the 
QP rise-time to show  as exceeding the limit. I think there should be a 
lower limit of duration as well as the 200 ms upper limit.


But this probably doesn't help.

John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2017-11-10 10:37, Paolo Roncone wrote:

Hi all,

Question:
IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under the 
CISPR 14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when measured with a 
CISPR 16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click procedure/assesment 
deemed to be complied with, or not?
In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go through 
the very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4, Fig.6 (Flow 
diagram) and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining, analyzing, 
measuring and assessing compliance of clicks ?


Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed WHEN 
they exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the 
amplitude of which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous 
disturbance, the duration of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which 
is separated from a subsequent disturbance by at least 200 ms,..."


Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP receiver = 
1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec (see click 
examples in Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP limit might NOT 
be picked up by the QP receiver during a standard mains conducted EMI 
measurement..here is the origin of my doubts.


Thanks in advance for any feedback
Paolo
-


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 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] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[Paolo Roncone]

Hi all,

Question:
IF the EUT Mains conducted emissions Quasi-peak levels are under the CISPR
14-1 Quasi-peak limit (CISPR 14-1 Table 5), when measured with a CISPR
16-1-1 compliant EMI receiver, is the click procedure/assesment deemed to
be complied with, or not?
In other words, is there in a PASS case still the need to go through the
very complicated procedures detailed in sections 4.4, Fig.6 (Flow diagram)
and Annex C of CISSPR 14-1 for determining, analyzing, measuring and
assessing compliance of clicks ?

Going through CISPR 14-1 (2016 ed.):
Section 4.4.1 says: "Discontinuous disturbances shall be assessed WHEN they
exceed the limits for continuous disturbances,.."
Click definition in sec.3.3.3: "discontinuous disturbance, the amplitude of
which exceeds the quasi-peak limit for continuous disturbance, the duration
of which is NOT LONGER than 200 ms and which is separated from a subsequent
disturbance by at least 200 ms,..."

Now, the charge/discharge times of a Band B (150k-30M) QP receiver =
1msec/160msec, so a click lasting less than 160msec (see click examples in
Fig.2 of CISPR 14-1) yet exceeding the QP limit might NOT be picked up by
the QP receiver during a standard mains conducted EMI measurement..here is
the origin of my doubts.

Thanks in advance for any feedback
Paolo

-

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: