Re: [PSES] What is a Test Plan?
Tony – If “Test Plan” is re: EMC, then in some cases there are requirements for content. Try this search result (2 pages) for some examples: http://www.everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-EMCS/ // Patrick pcon...@ball.commailto:pcon...@ball.com 303.533.7165 303.408.9904 (cell) Westminster, CO 80021 From: Anthony Thomson [mailto:ton...@europe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:56 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] What is a Test Plan? What is a Test Plan? What should a Test Plan contain? My questions are intentionally vague and I ask this Group in the context of the interests of this group. Thanks in advance for your input, Tony. - 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.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=78ad13272d7f96fd54cb1b36d5eab780d734110115ebf6d283a8ce30f9ae6379 Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=d92541dbc3e2fea6146f1a5bf5b9718bf9f4809b6d774e347c4f256445abb2c1 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=166d0017d264ef3dccd68e04a3a04c643fd58ec6c79e3ef542536711ef08738c Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=01578cd31614f3d03592db384efcdc19e7c84a899df5a699867c870122188ab3 List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=1GMYaKjmAz8SrwAdnQ9klA%3D%3D%0Ar=yjNQIICs56Eepm9PApdJRg%3D%3D%0Am=HvmUpBaPTrmlPz4Y2wFzGlIWNcOHLxPRjuH57%2Bvzf5M%3D%0As=88e7e03056ee3d649ef54e2654b8c340e489436a75f3597dac649d984a279eb5 For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful. Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages and enclosures sent to or from this email address. - 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] user's group ??
We are considering new automation tools for some of our MIL-STD-461 and DO-160 tests. I am hoping that there are user's groups or forums for some of the more popular software packages. Does anyone know of, or belong to, forums for TILE!, EMC Automation (TDK), RadiMotion (DARE!!), EMITest (CKC), or any other? Thanks in advance. // Patrick Conway pcon...@ball.com 303.533.7165 Wetmoor WMR1 Westminster, CO 80021 This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful. Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages and enclosures sent to or from this email address. - 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Light Bulb provokquium
q the industry wouldn't have ... if the ban hadn't been introduced q ...so, industry didn't build that, the gov't did? (weak attempt at election year humor) // Patrick -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:25 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Light Bulb provokquium In message CAByvTVPDdQ343GbF8=AxXZSgajd7cvH1Q=P2zp98Q+QHAD-=c...@mail.gmail.com, dated Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Doug Powell doug...@gmail.com writes: Make the alternative bulbs economically competitive and dump the legislation. Chicken and egg; the industry wouldn't have spend a lot of RD $$$ on CFLs and LED lamps if the ban hadn't been introduced. Prices are coming down, but not equal yet. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Instead of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total confusion. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com This message and any enclosures are intended only for the addressee. Please notify the sender by email if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or its contents or enclosures to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful. Ball reserves the right to monitor and review all messages and enclosures sent to or from this email address. - 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries
Another difference is tested vs. qualified. In the MIL world the emc testing of a stand-alone smart-battery *may be* used for qualification, depending on the procurement. In the commercial world the emc testing of a stand-alone smart-battery *cannot be* used for qualification, due to the lack of intrinsic function. // Patrick From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:02 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries The difference is that in the case of stand-alone batteries, they are qualified without connection to the equipment in which they are meant to be used... . Instead, they are connected to a generic load representative of in situ current draw, and a fixed potential charging source with fixed low output resistance. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com Reply-To: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:51:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Smart Batteries It must be in the syntax, but it seems these two just agreed on the subject. From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Smart Batteries Re: Smart Batteries That is simply not true in the general case. What about a 28 Vdc battery that backs up the essential bus on an aircraft? What about a MANPACK battery that is discharged while being worn, and connected to a mains or generated-powered charger after the mission is over. In the commercial world, what about a battery designed to be used in an UPS? I have purchased several replacement batteries designed to replace the OEM battery in same. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net Reply-To: k...@earthlink.net Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:58:15 -0400 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Smart Batteries Smart batteries are electronic subassemblies that don't work properly outside of the equipment in which they are meant to be used and must be tested in it. Cortland Richmond On 8/22/2012 1243, rehel...@mmm.com wrote: Can someone tell me if there are any EMC standards for the so-called smart batteries? These are batteries that communication with the charger or EUT for charge rates, time left, overheating, etc. Thanks, Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 - 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.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 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.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 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:
Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries
q It was like testing fuses q Exactly! Most smart-batteries have non-resettable fuses designed to be tripped by over-temp. Originally thought to protect the chemistry from reaching ignition temps. But as Ed found, also a very good one-time RF detector! // Patrick -Original Message- From: Ed Price [mailto:edpr...@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:21 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries At my previous employer, we began using smart batteries around 6 years ago. These batteries were mounted into a soldier-worn fabric harness, and were the power source for both the optical detectors signal processing equipment, plus the pulsed 20 Watt peak RF data transceiver. Batteries were charged in a shop environment, then plugged into the soldier harnesses and used in the operational environment for a few days (either before the training scenario ended or a fresh battery was installed). Thus, MIL-STD-461 dictated testing in two environments; the stringent operational environment (imagine a squad hopping on a helicopter, with all transceivers chirping away and subject to the airborne RF environment) and the much less stringent charging environment (imagine the corner of a storage shed, with a few dozen batteries sitting in charging trays). The first time I encountered these batteries, I didn't realize that they had built-in microprocessors that never turned off. In addition to the normal user noise problems, I now had what had always been considered to be a passive device contributing its own EMC problems. One interesting thing was that these smart batteries had a rather long-period, short duration mode in which the battery brains would call for a capacity test that created a quick noise burst. Another problem was that the battery manufacturers were (initially) very EMC naive; no shielding, long internal sensor leads that acted like little antennas and fed directly into microprocessor inputs, apparently no history of ever doing any previous component-level EMC investigation. So these batteries had emission and immunity problems all by themselves, and we had to adopt several less-than perfect fixes in order to use them. We went through powerline filtering, discrete harness pouch shields, wrapping foil around the batteries, and even to conductive fabric harness pouches. And then, after we got happy with our fixes, we suddenly began having many field failures, dead batteries everywhere! It seems that we had changed battery vendors, and the new vendor had an internal design that was an extremely good RF detector. Batteries could be killed with only a few V/M (you could get 10 V/M from a cell phone at 6-foot separation, and anyway, 461 defined a 50 V/M requirement)! Investigation revealed that the batteries were also very position and polarization sensitive; they might survive 50 V/M from the front, but roll them 90 degrees and expose the back, and the microprocessor goes to silicon heaven in microseconds. The culprit turned out to be the wiring for inter-cell temperature sensors; these fed the RF directly into the microprocessor. During the course of one investigation, I was directed to expose 25 batteries to varying positional and RF level exposures; not one battery was alive by the time I was up to 20 V/M. It was like testing fuses. We got that problem under control by going back to the old vendor, and fortunately, since the batteries were designed to be easily replaceable, there was no major field-fix problem. Since that was over 5 years ago, I would hope that smart battery vendors would have become much more familiar with RF techniques and have hardened their designs to withstand the commercial and military environments. OK, this turned into a war story, but the lesson is that a smart battery now has every EMC vulnerability itself, and has to be tested in every operational and support mode associated with your product. Ed Price El Cajon, CA USA -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:47 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Smart Batteries Ken, For MS461, did you test the batteries as a seperate item, or as part of a charger or the end-use unit? Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 10:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Smart Batteries Not what you personally are looking for, but in the military world MIL-STD-461 applies to such batteries just as to any other item that contains electronics. I have tested them and found them susceptible, albeit at field intensities much higher than required in the commercial world. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: rehel...@mmm.com Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:43:03 -0500 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Smart Batteries Can someone tell me if there are any EMC standards for the so-called smart batteries? These
Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD
Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test technique? In my opinion, your technique legitimate. I observe that the entire world of ESD testing is centered around a defined stimulus of current and voltage. Any time a zap deviates from this then it is not part of a test. This has two effects on testing of a floating apparatus. The first effect is with the second ZAP. Without a bleed of charge the second ZAP no longer conforms. It is no longer a X kV ZAP. The display on the ESD gun reads X volts, which is between ESD gun tip and ground. But since the apparatus is no longer @ ground potential, the X voltage reading is invalid. And the same is true for the third, fourth, etc. The second effect is the one discussed in this thread- where the bleed happens with a strap. The wave shape of current during that event is undefined. Any response from the apparatus during the bleed event is not part of the test and cannot be considered in the pass/fail criteria. My opinion only... // Patrick -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD For automotive stuff (ISO10605), I have to be careful about bleeding charge after each iteration because test level = 25kV. I use a 470k Resistor attached in series with a short braid that is screwed into the ref plane, and touch the UUT. The strap is used for discharge only and is not attached during testing. I have seen the commercial CISPR25 labs do similar. I have not seen the discharge create additional problems - perhaps I have just been lucky. Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test technique? Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:53 PM To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD This is a classic test problem. I've seen this several times. For this setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps. So, how to discharge between zaps? The easy answer is to briefly connect a strap from apparatus to ground. But that casues lots of problems, including false failures. The reason? The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is uncontrolled. If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is not bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge. The problem is that the waveform will not be representative of the human-body-model. Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns. They must conform to an exact waveshape. But the zero-Ohm ground strap has none of the circuit elements to shape the curve. So there is a likelyhood of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc. All things that no longer represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the appratus it cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not HBM. Check with your customer on how they are testing. If the appratus survives the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the strap, then you have the asnwer. The easy solution for Test is to place the bleed resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the appratus survives. The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and certainly not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM standards. On the other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or your product needs testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap discharge, then that is a perfectly good test. // Patrick Different question about ESD. I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. What does the standard say about the VCP and HCP? Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer // Patrick From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks handling new products being introduced now or in the very near future? Just got a quote back
Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD
I do have one story from the trenches, involving a laptop, ESD and non-standard testing. ...back in the day, at a previous company... we had a customer complaint about a mysterious lockup. There is a side-story about sales, management, pressure, schedule, cost and all that noise. But sparing that, the lockup could only be duplicated by floating the laptop and discharging to the MODEM connector several times. No bleed-off between zaps. Eventually a secondary discharge was heard inside the laptop. Apparently the MODEM circuit has some floating circuits due to TELCO hi-pot requirements. The circuit did fine under TELCO testing, which I recall went to 3kV. But if the stored charge in the MODEM circuit got to about 7 kV, then there was a secondary arc to another circuit and havoc ensued. It was an interesting lesson for me about the (negative)virtues of isolated circuits inside an apparatus. As far as I know, this type of test was never adopted by any standards body, but it became a regular part of my internal engineering testing. // Patrick -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD For automotive stuff (ISO10605), I have to be careful about bleeding charge after each iteration because test level = 25kV. I use a 470k Resistor attached in series with a short braid that is screwed into the ref plane, and touch the UUT. The strap is used for discharge only and is not attached during testing. I have seen the commercial CISPR25 labs do similar. I have not seen the discharge create additional problems - perhaps I have just been lucky. Opinions whether this is a 'respectable' test technique? Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Conway, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:53 PM To: McInturff, Gary; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD This is a classic test problem. I've seen this several times. For this setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps. So, how to discharge between zaps? The easy answer is to briefly connect a strap from apparatus to ground. But that casues lots of problems, including false failures. The reason? The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is uncontrolled. If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is not bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge. The problem is that the waveform will not be representative of the human-body-model. Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns. They must conform to an exact waveshape. But the zero-Ohm ground strap has none of the circuit elements to shape the curve. So there is a likelyhood of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc. All things that no longer represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the appratus it cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not HBM. Check with your customer on how they are testing. If the appratus survives the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the strap, then you have the asnwer. The easy solution for Test is to place the bleed resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the appratus survives. The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and certainly not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM standards. On the other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or your product needs testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap discharge, then that is a perfectly good test. // Patrick Different question about ESD. I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. What does the standard say about the VCP and HCP? Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer // Patrick From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks handling new products being introduced
Re: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD
This is a classic test problem. I've seen this several times. For this setup, there is no place for the charge to dissipate between zaps. So, how to discharge between zaps? The easy answer is to briefly connect a strap from apparatus to ground. But that casues lots of problems, including false failures. The reason? The discharge created when using a zero Ohm strap is uncontrolled. If you remove the bleed resistor, then the discharge is not bleeding slowly, it becomes another form of an ESD discharge. The problem is that the waveform will not be representative of the human-body-model. Designers of ESD equipment go to a lof trouble designing those ESD guns. They must conform to an exact waveshape. But the zero-Ohm ground strap has none of the circuit elements to shape the curve. So there is a likelyhood of a faster rise time, more ringing, etc. All things that no longer represent the HBM.If ths waveshape causes upset in the appratus it cannot be considered a failure since the waveform is not HBM. Check with your customer on how they are testing. If the appratus survives the zap from the gun, but is upset when they discharge with the strap, then you have the asnwer. The easy solution for Test is to place the bleed resistor back into the discharge strap and see if the appratus survives. The zero Ohm ground strap is not a real-world HBM scenario, and certainly not in conformance with EN61000-4-2 or any of the HBM standards. On the other hand, if your product is not subject to HBM, or your product needs testing to a user-scenario that includes a strap discharge, then that is a perfectly good test. // Patrick Different question about ESD. I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. What does the standard say about the VCP and HCP? Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer // Patrick From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 12:37 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Safety cost and ESD Given the implementation differences between US/Canada(?) and EU on the medical 60601-1 standards. EU the June, US June 2013. How are folks handling new products being introduced now or in the very near future? Just got a quote back and the US certifier wants to charge me twice once for the 2nd edition and then to transition to the 3rd edition. I anyone else running aground on this. Seems like this should be happening on both sides of the pond - since a CB report to 3rd edition would run into the second edition enforcement in the US (and maybe Canada - I don't know their implementation date). To be fair - I get good service once I get past the sticker shock and don't have any complaints from that standpoint. In fact I enjoy the engineering staff I work with. Different question about ESD. I have a component we tested on the normal 55024 directed ESD table for a table top mounted device. Worked fine, problem is that the customer places this on a large metallic roll around pedestal on rubber wheels. When they send it to a lab and test it this way there is a problem. I don't have the pedestal so I'm trying to simulate with my table and removing the 1 mohm bleeder resistor. Between discharges to the table, I ground a braided strap attached to the table top to my reference plane below. I get very similar results then. What should the braid really look like - should it just be a short, should it have some bleed resistance in it. I chose none since the discharge is going to be people touching the pedestal or other furniture that is grounded. What does the standard say about the VCP and HCP? Gary McInturff Reliability/Compliance Engineer Esterline Interface Technologies Featuring ADVANCED INPUT, MEMTRON, and LRE MEDICAL products 600 W. Wilbur Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815-9496 Office:208-635-8306 Cell: 509 868 2279 Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X 1238 gary.mcintu...@esterline.com mailto:brian.s...@esterline.com www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies http://www.esterline.com/advancedinput Technology, Innovation, Performance... -
RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs
That comment makes me think of the interference possibility from different TX waveforms. I am curious- has anyone seen correlation between levels or quantity of interference vs the two phone types: CDMA and GSM ? In a non-lab environment, the actual interference from GSM is orders of magnitude larger than CDMA. But what about in the lab environment? Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com 281-514-2259 From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:46 PM To: ieee Subject: RE: Mobile Phones in EMC Labs Similar problem in our lab. The signal path between the cell tower and the cell phone is so weak that the output from the cell phone is near max (my cell phone battery drains pretty quickly as a result) which makes it easier for the analyzer to pick it up. Better quality cables have helped, but I always turn off my cell phone when making radiated scans. I've never seen a problem with any other tests. Bob Richards, NCT. --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com wrote: We used to pick up the cell phones, but then we fixed the cables and connectors and now no more problems. We routinely use cell phones while testing and they are good indication when something is broken. . - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.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 emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN
...circling back to an old thread: What would happen if we placed 8 access points in a circle around some popcorn? YouTube here we come! Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:00 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN Recently we added two new food blasters to the lunch room and noted that some office areas no longer had reliable network connect. Installed some isolation transformers between building mains and the food blasters - no more complaints from the sales/accounting dweebs, or whatever they do. Also noted that some of the power to the lunch room does not have a separate ground wire - uses the metal conduit, which probably does not help much. As for the specific ID of these iso transformers, hmmm... we no longer make this particular model. But I am going to upgrade my tin-foil hat, as I very much suspect that the space aliens are using the 2.4GHz carrier to link our brains to the NSA computers... luck, Brian From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of don_borow...@selinc.com Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:27 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: brian_ku...@lecotc.com Subject: Re: Microwave Oven Interference with 2.4Ghz Wireless LAN Except for rebuilding the break rooms with foil-lined dry wall, metal flooring, screened windows, filtered power, waveguide-beyond-cutoff ventilation grills, and RF tight doors, I don't know there is much for a solution. I was told that in one major Boeing plant, communications as 2.4 GHz is all but impossible -- there are microwave ovens scattered around the various break rooms running off of all three phases of the electrical power (120/208 volts Y); and due to variety of manufacturers, generating RF during both polarities of each phase. In other words, continuous 2.4 GHz RF. Except for specialize industrial units, I don't think you will find microwave ovens running at any other frequency. Don Borowski Schweitzer Engineering Labs Pullman, WA, USA Kunde, Brian brian_kunde@leco tc.com To Sent by: emc-pstc emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject 10/06/2008 01:02 Microwave Oven Interference with PM2.4Ghz Wireless LAN I have just received and interesting call from our IT guys in our production facility. They have installed a 2.4Ghz wireless LAN system in our production and stock room areas, which is a huge area, and which includes 13 Access Points and a couple dozen wireless devices such as bar code readers, computers, and printers. They discovered that they are having a major interference problem which they have narrowed down to the Microwave Ovens in the two break areas. Evidently, Microwave Ovens run at 2.45Ghz. It would be very difficult to remove the ovens or to move the break areas. Have any of you experts have experience with this issue? Any suggestions? Are new ovens better then older ones? Are the microwave ovens that run at a different frequency? Would it help to try and shield the ovens better? Please help. The Other Brian LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE
RE: FM Modulator Information
A family member forwarded the below email. (I'm pleasantly surprised that they remember my field of work !) Does anyone on this list subscribe to XM? It would be interesting to know the details of the interference problem. Best Regards, Patrick Conway, NCE. Hewlett-Packard Co. p.con...@hp.com 281.514.2259 281-514.5473(fax) ~~ From: XM Radio [mailto:xmra...@xmradio.chtah.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:11 AM To: Subject: FM Modulator Information Dear XM Subscriber, The FCC has notified XM that some of our older receiver models (generally, those purchased before August, 2006) may not operate in the manner required by the FCC and may cause interference to nearby FM radio users depending on how the XM radio is installed or used. The receiver models include the Roady2(r), SKYFi2(r), MyFi(r), Airware(r), Tao, RoadyXT(r), Xpress(tm), Sportscaster, XR9-XCX9, Jensen JXR9, inno(r), Helix(tm), and Nexus(r). Please note this notice does not apply to you if your new car came installed with an XM receiver. If you do have one or more of the receivers mentioned above and use it with the wireless FM option or you have had the receiver professionally installed, then we have several options available at no cost to you to alleviate this possible interference. Please visit our website at www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4 or call us toll-free at 866-410-0096 to choose one of the following three options: Option A: We will send you ferrite beads to attach to your XM antenna and power adaptor cables. (Ferrite beads are typically placed on the end of data cables to reduce interference.) Option B: We will send you a replacement cassette adapter to use with your XM radio. Only choose this option if your car radio has a cassette player. Option C: If your car does not have a cassette player, we will provide you with ferrite beads and an installation kit, with hardware, to use in connection with a professional installation of your radio along with a coupon redeemable at no charge for professional installation. Please visit the following website, www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4 for more information and to select your option. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may call 866-410-0096 for information on how to alleviate this possible interference. To help expedite your order, please have your 8-digit Radio ID (found on Channel 0 of your XM radio) and your FCC ID (found on the back, the bottom, or under the battery of your XM radio), available when you start this process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best Regards, XM Management Note - If you are using your XM radio's FM modulator to send the XM signal to a home or car stereo, your radio will work best if you use an unused FM frequency. Go to www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/vacant http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm5 to find the best FM frequencies to use in your area. Please do not reply to this email. This is a service email from XM Satellite Radio. Please note that you may receive service email in accordance with your XM Satellite Radio Customer Agreement, whether or not you elect to receive promotional email. XM Satellite Radio Inc., 1500 Eckington Place NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. Copyright 2008 XM Satellite Radio. All rights reserved. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
FW: EE Contract Opportunity
Posting this as a favor to an outsider. This is not connected to me or my employer. Please contact the recruiter directly using the info at the bottom of the page. Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: Jennifer Bingham [mailto:jbing...@americancontractgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:39 PM To: p.con...@ieee.org Subject: EE Contract Opportunity ... wanted to let you know about a 6 month + E.E. (EMI) position in the Chicago, IL area. Our client is looking for a U.S. citizen with a BSEE. Following is a description of the job. Please contact me if you’re interested and available. An updated version of your resume would be much appreciated! Description: “Under the general supervision of the Director of Electrical Engineering and the Project Engineer, this lead electrical engineer will have responsibility for design and test work relating to system level electrical architecture, power, thermal, shock, vibration, and EMI design for our next generation and current products. The candidate must be able to work effectively as part of a team that designs electrical and electro-electrical systems and work with other engineers. Good communication skills are required to interact effectively as part of a technical team, integrating mechanical, software, and electrical designs.” More specifically, this is what they’re looking for: * BSEE * 10-15 years related experience, at least 5 on DoD or equivalent government contracts * Ability to develop and support electrical and electronic concepts from design through production * Capability to conduct product design analysis and verification * Experience with Military Specifications and Standards * Strong verbal and written communication skills *US Citizen able to obtain DoD security clearance Jenn Bingham American Contract Group 591 North Ave ,Suite 4, 2nd Floor Wakefield MA, 01880 Toll Free Phone 877-723-9087 Ext 308 Phone 781-245-9000 Fax 781-245-9009 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical
This is great information. Thank you for providing some details. The comment: had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W). is informative. It indicates that the RFID was not the only transmitter in the proximity of the medical EUT. This RFID reader adds another parameter that requires control and investigation during the test. continuing the list of possibilities: f) is it possible that the RFID tag has much less effect than that of the RFID reader? Would be informative to find out if the RFID reader, in the absence of the tags themselves, can duplicate any of the EUT problems. Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Dean Gerard (Medical Physics) Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:48 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: FW: EMC in the news: RFID Medical Just nominal power outputs and separation distances between interfering and susceptible equipment. Output info given is - The passive RFID system selected for this study (OBID, Feig Electronic, Weilburg, Germany) had an 868-MHz reader (2-4 W). The active RFID system (Eureka RFID, Avonwood, England) had a 125-kHz reader (68_10E-3 µT at 1m) that forces tags to transmit in its proximity. The active RFID tag had an operational frequency of 868 MHz at 2 µW Interference effects were provoked at separation distances ranging from 5 - 600cm, depending upon equipment affected. Ged Dean Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
[SPAM] RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical
Gert- You mention one possible reason for the test results is that the EUT's have immunity deficits. I agree, that is one possibility. here are a few other possibilities: (BTW- not affiliated in any way with medical devices nor with, all comments OOO ) b)Could it be a systemic testing error? Was a shield room used? Were the ambients controlled and eliminated? Were the devices connected to a patient simulator? Did the test engineer have his personal GSM phone OFF? etc. (...crazier things have happened.) c)Maybe the EUT are old. Through outdated design specs perhaps RFID proximity was not a consideration during their design. And yet, in today's hospitals, the two types of devices may be in close proximity. If this is the case then the study has done a great service to the community by uncovering a problem that was unknown. d)Maybe the EUT are old (not a repeat) Through many years of use perhaps once immune equipment has lost some of their designed immunity? Again- if this is the case this study may have uncovered a previously unknown problem. e)Is it possible for an RF ID device to overwhelm the immunity levels of the EUT? If a medical device is tested at 10 V/m and an RFID device TXout is in the mW range- is it possible for a RFID mW transmitter to generate 10 V/m? Perhaps. For instance- since an RFID device operating at 125 kHz in not transmitting in the classic sense, then there may be near-field resonant effects that are not previously understood in the medical device immunity requirements? It seems that we, as professionals in this field, have the unique ability to analyze these reports like no other community can. I wonder if we will find the answers to the large number of questions raised by the article. All comments OOO. Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:administra...@ce-test.info] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:57 AM To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical The report was produced by TNO, a Dutch private organization (http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context marktencontent=markt_persberichtlaag1=189item_id=200806250026Taal=2) and some results are available here: http://www.amc.nl/?pid=5266 Manufacturers name and equipment type included. Please note that the energy levels of RFID are in the milliwatt range, so all problems are to be categorized as immunity deficits. It is astonishing that the security of healthy persons (like car drivers) is taken much more seriously (by car manufacturers for example ) as the security of people with bad health like in hospitals. Most medical equipment is tested at 10 V/meter or less. where critical car parts must be tested up to 200V/m. Cars are to be sold at low prices (relatively) , medical equipment at sky-high costs. It seems that emc quality is the inverse of the costs of equipment. Where much attention is given to reliability and electrical safety of medical equipment, emc is still neglected. Note that this investigation was made in a Dutch University Hospital; On European soil , where immunity requirements have been virtually law since 1996 The lack of EMC care might be related to the fact that medical accidents are easy to cover up, (more easy then car accidents) and liability of medical staff is difficult to prove, let alone the liability of a medical equipment manufacturer. See the discussion on the Therac-25. Gert Gremmen Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Conway, Patrick R (Houston) Verzonden: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:08 PM Aan: Rudd, Adam; emc-p...@ieee.org Onderwerp: RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical ...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn. :) Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC in the news: RFID Medical “The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the effect of holding both passive and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and pacemakers. A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced an incident in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were deemed either significant or hazardous. In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical ventilators, completely stopped the working of syringe pumps, caused external pacemakers to malfunction, and halted dialysis machines. The device did
RE: EMC in the news: RFID Medical
...and if you put four of them in a circle, you can pop corn. :) Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rudd, Adam Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC in the news: RFID Medical “The latest research, conducted at Vrije University in Amsterdam, tested the effect of holding both passive and powered RFIDs close to 41 medical devices, including ventilators, syringe pumps, dialysis machines and pacemakers. A total of 123 tests, three on each machine, were carried out, and 34 produced an incident in which the RFID appeared to have an effect - 24 of which were deemed either significant or hazardous. In some tests, RFIDs either switched off or changed the settings on mechanical ventilators, completely stopped the working of syringe pumps, caused external pacemakers to malfunction, and halted dialysis machines. The device did not have to be held right up to the machine to make this happen - some hazardous incidents happened when the RFID was more than 10 inches away.” --http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7471008.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7471008.stm Best Regards, Adam Rudd Electrical Engineer (EMC) NCR Corporation, RHSS Duluth, GA (770) 495-2825 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Proposed EuP directive?
Kristiaan, Thank you. And thanks to all list members that replied. Best Regards, Patrick. p.con...@hp.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Carpentier Kristiaan Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:52 PM To: lauren_cr...@amat.com; Conway, Patrick R (Houston) Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Proposed EuP directive? 2 major Implementation measures are under discussion: - External Power Supplies (EPS). The EPS IM measure is a Vertical IM Product specific. Limits are actually taken over from Energy star V2. Implementation expected from H2 2009. - Off Standby mode losses. The latter is a Horizontal Implementation measure affecting a broad range of products, including ITE equipment; it requires that products go automatically in Standby or Off mode with limits down to 1 or 2 Watt even lower values a few years later. Implementation expected from H2 2009. These requirements are legal requirements and will have to listed on the EU DoC of the product. Best regards, Kris Carpentier Regulatory Approvals From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2008 23:13 To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston) Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Proposed EuP directive? Check out http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/eco_design/index_en.htm The EuP (Energy Using Products) directive has been out for a while and already has three product sectors in scope (ballasts, refrigerators,and water heaters). There have been recent consultation efforts and proposals to expand the list of products that fall under EuP (which happens to be a CE marking directive). Regards, Lauren Crane (Mr.) Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] -External Use- Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Conway, Patrick R (Houston) p.con...@hp.com Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 06/11/2008 11:32 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Proposed EuP directive? List-members. I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power usage in the EU. Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Patrick Conway, NCE. Hewlett-Packard Co. p.con...@hp.com 281.514.2259 281-514.5473(fax) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p
Proposed EuP directive?
List-members. I hear there are some proposed regulations for future mandate of power usage in the EU. Does anyone have any pointers to the proposed or draft regulations? Thanks in advance. Best Regards, Patrick Conway, NCE. Hewlett-Packard Co. p.con...@hp.com 281.514.2259 281-514.5473(fax) - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Ferrite clamps
Gherry- Thanks for the response. I was very interested in knowing what the responses were at the committee level to those basic questions. From your report it seems the basics of non-interference were brought up but other factors weighed heavier in the argument. If I worked for a test lab or for a test equipment manufacturer I think I'd be happy about the adoption of A1:2000. But since I work for neither of those I'm still not sure how this helps my employer get non-interfering product to market. But, as you say- these points are no longer important. The DOW approaches. So- now I have to go buy some clamps. Anyone know where I can get some of these magic clamps? Anyone started using these in their testing yet? Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE StorageTek EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:05 PM To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps Patrick, You make a number of valid points. They are, however, mute. A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was published in 2000 and is being adopted around the world. As a result, if regulatory bodies do not adopt it, we get to perform radiated emissions tests twice on products, which will have a substantial cost impact on the ITE industry. The whole purpose of the clamps is to improve repeatability between labs. The impact on the measured emissions levels was pointed out during the discussions within CISPR SC G with no effect. We're stuck with them, for better or worse. We need the FCC to allow them to reduce duplicate testing. The FCC is well aware of the dual testing that their not approving the clamps will cause. I have personally pointed that out to them in meetings. We'll see what happens. Ghery -Original Message- From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:12 PM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps Gherry- It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on this topic. The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the original intent of the laws. I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain: Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15 Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from the noise generated by digital devices. The original limits and test methods were widely scrutinized over the years. They have also been updated and adjusted as necessary. As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those licensed services from interference. So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking: if it isn't broke, why fix it (my words, not theirs!!). Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease* emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this change may break it) Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product. How does the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this? I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have agreeable measurements with another lab. It's good business for him to say he can agree with any one else. However- if the foundation for the rules is to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community) a little off-base on this one ? Maybe I'm missing some important details here. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps Patrick, The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability between labs. I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies accept the ferrite clamps. Not a good thing. I am working through an industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them. I've been working on this for 2 years. Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Hello Ghery- Thank
[no subject]
All- I'd like to know if there are any opinions about... It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the use of ferrite clamps during RE tests of table-top equipment. Has anyone started using these devices during their testing? Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the use of these devices? Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE StorageTek EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) --- 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: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Ferrite clamps
Gherry- It will be interesting to see if ITI are successful with the FCC on this topic. The ferrite clamp devices seem to be counter productive to the original intent of the laws. I may be *way* off base here but I'll explain: Point #1- It seems to me that the original intent behind the Part 15 Unintentional Radiator requirements was to protect licensed operators from the noise generated by digital devices. The original limits and test methods were widely scrutinized over the years. They have also been updated and adjusted as necessary. As Jim Bacher pointed out in an earlier email on this thread, the limits and methods have been shown to protect those licensed services from interference. So- I'm sure the FCC will be asking: if it isn't broke, why fix it (my words, not theirs!!). Point #2- Since data exists showing that the clamps *decrease* emissions during a test, couldn't the use of a clamp let a product into the market that could potential *cause* interference? (it isn't broke- but this change may break it) Point #3- For as long as I can remember, if a ferrite bead is put on a cable during testing then that *exact* cable with that *exact* ferrite bead has to be delivered to the customer along with the product. How does the floor mounted ferrite get an exception to this? I can understand the motivation of a lab owner wanting to have agreeable measurements with another lab. It's good business for him to say he can agree with any one else. However- if the foundation for the rules is to decrease interference problems then aren't we (the compliance community) a little off-base on this one ? Maybe I'm missing some important details here. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:30 PM To: Conway, Patrick R; Pettit, Ghery; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Ferrite clamps Patrick, The whole reason for A1:2000 to CISPR 22:1997 was to improve repeatability between labs. I agree with your concern about it causing double testing for radiated emissions from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz until all regulatory bodies accept the ferrite clamps. Not a good thing. I am working through an industry association (ITI) to get the FCC to accept them. I've been working on this for 2 years. Nothing so far, other than some work in ANSI C63 that might result in the clamps being added to C63.4, maybe in 2004. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:42 AM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Hello Ghery- Thank you for the information. To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a bit contentious. Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote counts AT LEAST once. There wasn't any hanging chad during that CISPR vote, was there? But- back to A1:2000: The data you report indicates that the emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps. This is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite clamp at their facility. 2nd: if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to pass after the DOW. 3rd: since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test. This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to market in Europe. Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation? Was it to increase repeatability at test sites? Was it to reduce the number of interference complaints from ITE installations? Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE StorageTek EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Patrick, I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US vote. I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and others may go up when you add the clamps. You will need to re-test products for Europe as you can't predict what the change will by just
RE:
Hello Ghery- Thank you for the information. To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the CISPR voting process but I do recognize that any election with a 1 vote margin must be a bit contentious. Unless of course you live in Florida where every vote counts AT LEAST once. There wasn't any hanging chad during that CISPR vote, was there? But- back to A1:2000: The data you report indicates that the emission profile will change with the addition of the ferrite clamps. This is bothersome for (at least) three reasons- 1st: if the ferrite clamp reduces the emissions from a frequency or two then I can achieve compliance but a customer may experience an interference problem due to the fact that they do not install the ferrite clamp at their facility. 2nd: if the ferrite clamp increases emissions from a frequency then a product that now achieves compliance may have to be redesigned in order to pass after the DOW. 3rd: since the FCC doesn't presently allow the use of the ferrite clamps then I have to test each product one more time- this adds cost and time delay- especially if a failure arises due to this test. This could be a major headache for people who deliver product to market in Europe. Can anyone tell us the driving reason behind this regulation? Was it to increase repeatability at test sites? Was it to reduce the number of interference complaints from ITE installations? Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE StorageTek EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:09 PM To: Conway, Patrick R; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Patrick, I performed some A/B comparison measurements several years ago when this was still working its way through CISPR to aid in the determination of the US vote. I found that some emissions go down (some by a bunch) and others may go up when you add the clamps. You will need to re-test products for Europe as you can't predict what the change will by just by inspection. BTW, this amendment to CISPR 22 passed by 1 vote. The US voted no as the clamps were not adequately defined in the proposal. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Conway, Patrick R [mailto:conw...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: All- I'd like to know if there are any opinions about... It is my understanding the CISPR 22 A1:2000 will require the use of ferrite clamps during RE tests of table-top equipment. Has anyone started using these devices during their testing? Has anyone seen a difference in their test results with the use of these devices? Best Regards, Patrick Conway NCE StorageTek EMC Advisory Engineer 303.661.6391 303.661.6717 (FAX) --- 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: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
