Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 ps.  Old knowledge from old prior career experiences.
I use arc welding cables for connections, not 4 ga wire that takes a pipe 
bender to work into place.
Welding cables, are multi wire, and that means "multi" with a capital.
Very flexible and capable of very high amps.  It is for arc welding and 
flexible use !


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:10:22 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is 
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral 
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.
In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test these, I use a 3 
phase LISN rather than 3 individual LISN’s. It’s crazy to split the power cord 
to reach the mains terminal on each LISN.
Take care listening to sales guys….
My 10 cents,
Derek.


On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.  Current rating is 
whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers offering models 
designed for up to 16 A.   --   Ken JavorPh: (256) 650-5261     Hello and Happy 
Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 
3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 
50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but 
I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian From: Brian 
Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?  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...@listserv.ieee.ORGAll emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on 
the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.htmlFor help, send mail to 
the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: Linford@ieee.orgFor policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bacher@ieee.orgTo unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click 
the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 Long ago, the company had the budget, so we bought single phase for each line.
Thinking that we did not want any cross talk interference, which we had already 
experienced in the real world.
Then we also had built the various configurations for supply power that we 
used.  
In essence measuring sources and load responses !

Sales people, good for prices only.  cannot even get dimensions right.


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:43:31 PM EDT, T.Sato  
wrote:  
 
 On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT 
>needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only 
>slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone 
>remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 
>(one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
  

-

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-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Bill Owsley]

 we had a pre-compliance chamber, well correlated to compliance labs.
so our inside pre-compliance testing is easy.  a bit of capital to get there.
We make quick scan on about every variation to get idea of the worst.
Then the rest of our attention is on the version.
Our goal is not detectable, but running in the double KW range, we often find 
some higher freq emissions.
At least a 6 dB margin, preferably more, undetectable is goal.
Once Japan called us on a violation around 5.8 GHz.
They used peak hold over time.  We could not believe it, but yes peak hold 
overnight in a reverb chamber found the emissions. 
QP and average were near zero, except we knew what we were looking for.
Turns out the Japan authorities, or their contractors, did not know how to run 
the instruments nor what the standards required.  And so were a bit difficult 
to deal with.
After a few months of back and forth, a comment came back that after new 
testing, there is no concern.
Mexico was much easier !
Except that all their hires were fresh out of school, so it seemed.
A couple of months to coach them, and everything aligned !
ps. these are old stories, but get refreshed from the to time with new 
occurrences.


On Sunday, April 7, 2024 at 03:57:50 PM EDT, David Schaefer 
<12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 
For EMC if the concern is emissions it would be easy to do some quick scans – 
10 minutes on a peak run for each model would give you data to compare against 
each other to see how much the emissions profile changes due to the 
modifications. Immunity would take longer but the manufacturer should be able 
to do an engineering analysis and see what might make sense/
 
  
 
For radios it is significantly different. Certification of a product for FCC 
only applies to the product in the report and identical models as defined in 
2.908. Any modifications require evaluation. 
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
  
 
  
 
| 
| 
|  |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| David Schaefer |

 |

 |

 |

 |
| 
| Technical Manager |

 |
| 
| 
| Element Materials Technology |

 |

 |
| 
| 9349 W Broadway Ave |

 |
| 
| 
| Brooklyn Park |

 | 
| ,  |

 | 
| 
| MN |

 |

 | 
| 55445 |

 | 
| ,  |

 | 
| United States |

 |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| O +1 612 638 5136 |

 |

 | 
| ext. 10461 |

 |

 |
| 
| david.schae...@element.com |

 |
| 
| www.element.com |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
|  |

 | 
|  |

 | 
|  |

 |  |

 |

 |

 |

 |


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
 
  
 
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact the TOC if you are in any doubt about this 
email.
 
I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can 
produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.
 
On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
 

Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it 
would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst 
case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related 
issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory 
traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion would be to preform the 
simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous 
certification based on that knowledge.

Brent Dewitt 
Milford, MA 

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote: 


 

Hi folks, 

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too. 

Thanks, 

Derek Walton 
LFResearch/SSCLabs. 

- 
 
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 
toemc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[David Schaefer]

For EMC if the concern is emissions it would be easy to do some quick scans – 
10 minutes on a peak run for each model would give you data to compare against 
each other to see how much the emissions profile changes due to the 
modifications. Immunity would take longer but the manufacturer should be able 
to do an engineering analysis and see what might make sense/

For radios it is significantly different. Certification of a product for FCC 
only applies to the product in the report and identical models as defined in 
2.908. Any modifications require evaluation.

Thanks,


[cid:image503832.jpg@B3A1BD25.EF509806]
David Schaefer
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com
www.element.com
[cid:image331521.png@1036802E.8DDE4FC3]
[cid:image131821.png@E1E2F21A.B7D288C3]
[cid:image386740.png@C45961D1.A9A92D34]
[cid:image030442.jpg@E0856E40.335029BE]
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact the TOC if you are in any doubt about this 
email.

I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can 
produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.
On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it 
would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst 
case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related 
issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory 
traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion would be to preform the 
simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous 
certification based on that knowledge.

Brent Dewitt
Milford, MA

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions