Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[John Woodgate]

--

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



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but 
it is rather costly.


On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:
After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just 
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 
what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

than tools are not needed to make it being 
disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for 
controller to be excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the 
same situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common 
to everyone.


What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts 
collected by my mail program for few years.


-

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


-

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

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[John Woodgate]

Thank you.

On 2024-04-28 06:27, Boštjan Glavič wrote:

Hi John

After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not 
apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of 
Annex G.


See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have 
to simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate 
requirements



Similar as limited current circuit in 60950-1.


I hope this helps.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ Ljubljana


Poslano iz Outlook za Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>


*Od:* John Woodgate 
*Poslano:* sobota, april 27, 2024 4:18:41 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Zadeva:* [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.



It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 
(Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances 
and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at 
a point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in 
series. Please advise.



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free.www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 





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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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




--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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

[PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[John Woodgate]

It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 
(Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances 
and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at a 
point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in series. 
Please advise.



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

[John Woodgate]

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



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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

[John Woodgate]

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 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

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

[John Woodgate]

I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the 
insulation quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the 
insulation does break down; the result might be 'safe' but destructive.  
At that point, high-voltage spikes on the AC input have to be taken into 
account. It looks as though changing the PCB would be a simpler solution 
than trying to prove that it's already OK or than adding a piece of 
insulating material and checking that it is still there.


On 2024-03-11 17:13, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello Group,

We are assessing a system that uses class Y1 capacitors for EMC 
filtering. Because of space constraints, they are laid down 
horizontally on the PCB.


This is causing a problem (at least in my mind) where the capacitor 
body is now resting on top of the AC input trace. The side of the 
capacitor connected to PE is the side closest to the AC mains input trace.


​jpg icon y-cap-body-insulation-question.jpg 
<https://unit3compliancecouk-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/g/personal/james_unit3compliance_co_uk/EaXJSK9bMYRItCXbdutLJKsBORjTOA5_7Kh0bpPXDC5taw?e=aT7pfK>


One of those pieces of received wisdom that has been passed down to me 
is that “the body of components is not considered to be insulating” 
for the purposes of assessing creepage and clearance.


Common sense says “danger danger Will Robinson” and to change the PCB 
and/or to add some insulating material, but some technical back up 
would be welcome.


All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports

[John Woodgate]

How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates 
associated with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did 
Amazon cite an authority for their rejection?


On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small 
rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the 
following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian 
platform:


  * CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20;
  * IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017;
  * UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020.

The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past 
the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as 
to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in 
order to be valid.


I seek the collected wisdom of the group please.

Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
<mailto:jriu...@celestron.com> I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
<http://www.celestron.com/>Icon Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.instagram.com_celestronuniverse=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mp6OgNq_McWjXY2YQYjZ9Dk6_XzP1VPvIEe8C8zj56A=>A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_Celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=VPySibohtehHWHpC8d5rHDIovgyX-KLLxjtWSiblJGI=>A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_celestron=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=mFMWx391BWGOZRSQd2VOWpQ8frezSjy2nYeDDPQcxtg=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_user_CelestronDotCom=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=ziJj_dfd_78luGSUUH4AfwmPyhD40fdDd46c8oL7bcc=>Icon 
Description automatically generated 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_celestron-2Dllc-2D=DwMFaQ=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM=x40qV4DM3u4JrqHl_FVpxdOqkHDBo3f6BvwvAwIWGH8=B6fIOBUaG50CeATRoPrGe3aQoHBGiKZFSBIu-ovu97c5RZhLW5JAVauCDQwYc3UQ=dXknLUOcxSuYfVZ7A71XexAkwNhfOYqmzp9HADpQfIk=>




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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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-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] MTBF Calculations / testing

[John Woodgate]

I can't resist asking if you have left a 'p' off the last but one word?

On 2024-02-26 17:58, Brian Gregory wrote:
Can anyone recommend a lab or company to help us run some MTBF 
calculations for a N. American residential appliance?

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

-

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] 61010-1 hazardous live classification

[John Woodgate]

I think you analysis is correct.

On 2024-02-26 13:38, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello all,

I hope this safety question is a fairly simple one for you, it being 
Monday after all…


 1. A piece of equipment with a power supply output for driving a
lamp. It has two modes, DC and pulsed.
 2. Both of the output voltage connections are on accessible terminals
(checked using finger probe)
 3. Classifying voltages as per EN 61010-1 clause 6.3.1 (limit values
for accessible parts, normal operating conditions)
 4. DC mode runs at 46Vdc maximum. This is less than 60Vdc so is not
Hazardous Live
 5. Pulse mode runs at 46Vdc pulsed (frequency up to 1kHz, duty cycle
can vary down to 0.01%) which is an AC waveform greater than 42.4V
peak so is Hazardous Live
 6. The output from the equipment is low impedance so is more than
capable of sourcing the required 0.7mA through the IEC 60990 body
model.

Quick sketch attached to illustrate the concept. I even ran a SPICE 
simulation to make sure I wasn’t getting something wrong.


I would appreciate the sanity check!

**

All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk <http://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/> | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk>


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk <mailto:he...@unit3compliance.co.uk> or 
call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are 
typically 4-5 weeks./




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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

-

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] shielded probes do not work in the near field

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Doug. That's very interesting. I wonder if there would be a 
resonance effect if the gap in the shield were adjacent to the connector 
instead of being in the centre of the opposite side.


On 2024-02-06 00:22, doug emcesd.com wrote:


Hi All,

The following three articles and the referenced paper from my website 
show that, contrary to popular belief, shielded magnetic field probes 
do not work in the near field. The E-field shielding in magnetic field 
probes only work in the far field or for fields that are symmetrical 
about the center line of the probe. Take a look at the articles:


  * June 2008, The Square Shielded Loop - Part 2, Parasitic Coupling

(Electric Field Shielding of Magnetic Loops is Not Always Effective!)
  * July 2008, The Square Shielded Loop - Part 3, Parasitic Coupling
Between Unshielded Wire Loops 
  * August 2008, The Square Shielded Loop - Part 4, Coupling to a PCB

(From Shielded and Unshielded Magnetic Loops)
  * Signal and Noise Measurement Techniques Using Magnetic Field
Probes  *(~600K)*
  o (1999 IEEE EMC Symposium paper)

Doug



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



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

-

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] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[John Woodgate]

I am a very insignificant part of TC108: The big guns are mostly in USA 
and some lurk here.


On 2024-02-02 17:07, Douglas Nix wrote:

Hey John,

If you are part of TC 108, you might want to suggest to the 
appropriate convenor(s) that they reach out to TC 199 about this 
potential JWG. There might be some powerful synergies to be had there.


Doug Nix
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
d...@mac.com
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Feb 2, 2024, at 11:35, John Woodgate  wrote:

Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC 
TC108 is also interested in this subject, because its scope includes 
large equipment that can be entered and may have moving parts.


On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote:

Hi John,

You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO 
Directives Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly.


The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking 
at ISO Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the 
intervening years, it went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. 
The data included represents the state of the art. The WG is 
resolving the last of the comments from the CD ballot, and I think 
they will be recommending to TC 199 that the document proceed 
directly to stage 50 and on to publication in short order.


Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG 
with ISO/TC 299 to develop a document entitled "/Safety of machinery 
- Test methods to validate safe physical contacts between moving 
machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons.”/ This logical 
next step will allow the test methods and equipment described in 
ISO/TR 15066 and the data from ISO/TR 21260 to come together in an 
IS that will be useful to both the robotics sector and the general 
machinery sector. The project has not been formally proposed yet, 
and considering that the JWG has not been formed, there is no 
timeline for developing that document yet.


As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that 
the WG members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am 
only peripherally involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror 
Committee, and I am aware of the work that some Canadian experts are 
doing in that WG.


Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  wrote:

Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you 
know, you can consult anyone in private communication who can 
contribute to the work. It is a Technical Report, and recent rules 
changes closely restrict what a TR can include. It is more or less 
confined to statements of fact. Not even recommendations are 
permitted.


On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:

List members,

There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, /Safety 
of machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts 
between moving machinery or moving parts of machinery and 
persons./ This document has a planned publication date that has 
already slipped by. The importance of this document is high, so I 
don’t think there is any likelihood of the work being lost, but 
the development of the document has taken a lot more time than was 
originally foreseen.


Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I 
can’t share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public 
review stage, that will change.


I think this document will prove to be very important.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  wrote:

That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the 
part contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.


This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures 
- both are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within 
acceptable range.


For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by 
their manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector 
when tested for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm 
they are collaborative in that specific application.


In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.

However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced 
with a needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be 
dangerous and guarding would be required.


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


 Original message 
From: Douglas Powell 
Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the 
established ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am 
familiar. I do recall another standrd some years ago, mentioning 
contact surface area when I was looking into finger crush as well 
as sharp edges. And the original question was solely about speed, 
so that's how I responded.


All the best,  ~ Doug


Douglas E Powell
La

Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[John Woodgate]

Thanks, Doug. I understand your position. It seems to me that IEC TC108 
is also interested in this subject, because its scope includes large 
equipment that can be entered and may have moving parts.


On 2024-02-02 16:29, Doug Nix wrote:

Hi John,

You are correct, of course, about the content of a TR. The ISO 
Directives Part 1, clause 3.3 lays it out very clearly.


The work on 21260 has been going on for quite a few years. Looking at 
ISO Documents, I can see the original NWIP in 2016. In the intervening 
years, it went from an IS to a TR for several reasons. The data 
included represents the state of the art. The WG is resolving the last 
of the comments from the CD ballot, and I think they will be 
recommending to TC 199 that the document proceed directly to stage 50 
and on to publication in short order.


Their plenary meeting report shows that they are proposing a JWG with 
ISO/TC 299 to develop a document entitled "/Safety of machinery - Test 
methods to validate safe physical contacts between moving machinery or 
moving parts of machinery and persons.”/ This logical next step will 
allow the test methods and equipment described in ISO/TR 15066 and the 
data from ISO/TR 21260 to come together in an IS that will be useful 
to both the robotics sector and the general machinery sector. The 
project has not been formally proposed yet, and considering that the 
JWG has not been formed, there is no timeline for developing that 
document yet.


As for consultation with other experts outside the WG, I think that 
the WG members who are actively involved have that in hand. I am only 
peripherally involved in the WG, as I chair the Canadian Mirror 
Committee, and I am aware of the work that some Canadian experts are 
doing in that WG.


Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 31, 2024, at 18:37, John Woodgate  wrote:

Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, 
you can consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to 
the work. It is a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely 
restrict what a TR can include. It is more or less confined to 
statements of fact. Not even recommendations are permitted.


On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:

List members,

There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, /Safety of 
machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts between 
moving machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons./ This 
document has a planned publication date that has already slipped by. 
The importance of this document is high, so I don’t think there is 
any likelihood of the work being lost, but the development of the 
document has taken a lot more time than was originally foreseen.


Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I 
can’t share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public 
review stage, that will change.


I think this document will prove to be very important.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  wrote:

That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the part 
contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.


This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures - 
both are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within 
acceptable range.


For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by 
their manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector 
when tested for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm 
they are collaborative in that specific application.


In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.

However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced with 
a needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be 
dangerous and guarding would be required.


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


 Original message 
From: Douglas Powell 
Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the 
established ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am 
familiar. I do recall another standrd some years ago, mentioning 
contact surface area when I was looking into finger crush as well 
as sharp edges. And the original question was solely about speed, 
so that's how I responded.


All the best, ~ Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)


On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute  wrote:


Hi Doug and Brian:


I thought I would offer my (radical) point of view on the issue
of “speed of moving parts.”


Consider moving aluminum foil and moving aluminum block, both
at the same speed.  The aluminum foil has very little mass,
while the aluminum block has

Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

[John Woodgate]

Indeed, you can't share it with the list, but, as I expect you know, you 
can consult anyone in private communication who can contribute to the 
work. It is a Technical Report, and recent rules changes closely 
restrict what a TR can include. It is more or less confined to 
statements of fact. Not even recommendations are permitted.


On 2024-01-31 23:02, Doug Nix wrote:

List members,

There is currently a draft in development, ISO/TR 21260, /Safety of 
machinery — Mechanical safety data for physical contacts between 
moving machinery or moving parts of machinery and persons./ This 
document has a planned publication date that has already slipped by. 
The importance of this document is high, so I don’t think there is any 
likelihood of the work being lost, but the development of the document 
has taken a lot more time than was originally foreseen.


Unfortunately, the document is in the Committee Draft stage, so I 
can’t share anything with the list now. When it gets to the public 
review stage, that will change.


I think this document will prove to be very important.

Best regards,

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704




On Jan 29, 2024, at 19:50, sgbrody  wrote:

That standard is ISO 15066 which is Collaborative Robots.  After 
measuring force and then determining the surface areas of the part 
contacting whatever, you can determine the pressure.


This standard provides tables for allowable forces and pressures - 
both are needed - to determine if the robot 'crash' is within 
acceptable range.


For example, I have two clients using robots which are billed by 
their manufacturers as collaborative, but it is the end effector when 
tested for the 'crash' force and pressure, that will confirm they are 
collaborative in that specific application.


In both cases they were confirmed collaborative.

However, if the flat surface of the end effector was replaced with a 
needle,  they would not be collaborative.   They would be dangerous 
and guarding would be required.


Thanks,




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device


 Original message 
From: Douglas Powell 
Date: 1/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

All valid points; however, I was taking my information from the 
established ISO/IEC standards for machinery, with which I am 
familiar. I do recall another standrd some years ago, mentioning 
contact surface area when I was looking into finger crush as well as 
sharp edges. And the original question was solely about speed, so 
that's how I responded.


All the best,  ~ Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)


On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:41 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

Hi Doug and Brian:

I thought I would offer my (radical) point of view on the issue
of “speed of moving parts.”

Consider moving aluminum foil and moving aluminum block, both at
the same speed.  The aluminum foil has very little mass, while
the aluminum block has relatively high mass.  The foil is not
likely to cause injury, while the block may cause injury.

Consider an aluminum needle and an aluminum block, both having
the same speed and mass. The needle is likely to cause injury,
while the block is not likely to cause injury.

Consider the time of contact with a moving part.  If the time is
long, then injury is not likely.  If the time is short, then
injury is likely.

So, in addition to speed, we must consider mass of the block,
contact area, and duration of the contact in predicting injury.

In other words, energy per area (mv^2 per area in this case)
whether mechanical, thermal, radiant, chemical, or electrical,
transferred to a body part for a (usually short) period of time,
causes injury.  The same energy magnitude transferred over a long
period of time is not likely to cause injury.

An injury occurs only when energy per contact area of sufficient
magnitude and duration is imparted to a body part.  Both the
safety science article and the IRSST paper discuss energy of
moving parts and area, but do not address the other parameters. 
Both introduce (to me) the concept of “force” on various body
parts.  I’m not sure of how this fits into this safety discussion.

Consideration of speed alone is over-simplification.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:* Doug Nix 
*Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2024 11:16 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Reduce Speed of Moving Part to Reduce Risk

Hi Brian,

In the machinery sector, 250 mm/s has long been used as the
threshold for avoidability. This figure comes from the robot
standards and has been used for about 30 years. Studies done at
the Polytechnique de Montréal [1] and IRSST [2] have shown that a
speed closer to 140 mm/s is more 

Re: [PSES] ANSI 63.10 2020 Clause 7.6.3 Pulsed Emissions

[John Woodgate]

Microvolts/m requires 20*log( ), like anything based on voltage or 
current. Your example of a transmitter is based on power.


On 2024-01-23 16:24, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


Hello All,

Maybe this is not the correct forum and I should put in an inquiry 
into the ANSI C63.10 committee directly, however before I did that I 
wanted to get some help here.


In the 2020 edition of the ANSI 63.10 standard they have added a 
calculation example page for pulsed emissions in Clause 7.6.3.


In a nutshell the example shows a duty cycle of ~36% (25 mS on time / 
70 mS off time). The readings are taken in dBuV/m peak values and then 
a duty cycle correction of 20 * log (on time / total time) is applied 
or -8.9 dB to determine the average value of the emission.


Here is where it falls apart for me. If you are taking measurements in 
dBuV/m wouldn’t the duty cycle correction factor be determined with 10 
* log (on time / total time). Let’s take an example of a transmitter 
being on 10 % of the time, isn’t that a 10 dB reduction? If the device 
is on 1% of the time isn’t that a 20 dB reduction?


Or for some reason because it is a pulsed emission you are allowed to 
use 20 * log and have a 20 dB reduction for a 10% duty cycle or less 
because anything greater than 20 dB is the maximum allowable 
correction / reduction for a pulsed emission?


Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
*/Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the 
World!/*
*/FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - 
Product Safety/*

357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com 


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible 
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or 
deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this 
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise 
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email 
for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information 
in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm 
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.




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



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
John M Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

-

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] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

[John Woodgate]

I agree with your interpretation of the enquiry. I think it is necessary 
to watch out for the legs. if they are frames (or some more complex 
construction) rather than single pillars, becoming resonant loops at 
some frequencies. I suppose single pillars could also resonate.


On 2023-12-28 22:00, Ken Javor wrote:


Ken et al,

I think the query was just the opposite. The tabletop is wooden, but 
do the legs need to be wooden as wel?   The FCC paradigm (AFAIK) 
places the test sample 80 cm above ground, thus /limiting/ parasitic 
capacity. My gut response is they should be fine with metal legs, as 
long as the tabletop is thick enough to limit stray capacity. If one 
had OCD tendencies, one could measure the capacity between a piece of 
metal laid on the tabletop and the ground plane, and as long as the 
capacity were suitably low (single-digit picofarads?) that would suffice.


--

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

*From: *Ken Wyatt 
*Reply-To: *Ken Wyatt 
*Date: *Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 3:53 PM
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] Metallic table for conducted emissions?

Hi Brian,

The answer is yes and no. Yes, you can get a general idea, but no, you 
really need a ground plane to conduct the CM currents back to the 
LISN, which needs to be bonded to the plane. Just find a metal supply 
store and buy enough aluminum to cover one of your benches. In a 
pinch, and for quick troubleshooting, I just tape down heavy duty 
aluminum foil and copper tape the LISN to the foil.


You’ll see examples of the technique in my Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the 
trilogy.


Cheers, Ken


___

I'm here to help you succeed! Feel free to call or email with any 
questions related to EMC or EMI troubleshooting - at no obligation. 
I'm always happy to help!



Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services LLC
56 Aspen Dr.
Woodland Park, CO 80863

Contact Me!  New Books! 




cid:21BD2970-4E44-4FA4-874C-64DCA741AD24cid:9D7F9D64-3831-499F-B78B-7CBD3B19A06Dcid:456D35E9-DD3B-442C-AD08-69664B07C2A2

Web Site  | Blog 
The EMC Blog (EDN) 

Subscribe to Newsletter 


Connect with me on LinkedIn 



On Dec 28, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Brian Gregory
 wrote:

 Hello fellow experts,

we're looking to build a conducted emission pre-compliance test
station to FCC Part 15 Subpart B requirements (residential
applications).

Is a non-metallic table a necessity for reasonable accuracy?

We have a number of lab benches with wood tops and metal legs that
would fit far better than jamming an all wooden, non-folding table
into our modest space.

thanks all and Happy New Year,

Colorado Brian



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
web at:
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 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 

Re: [PSES] Very Small Product; Many Certification Marks

[John Woodgate]

I'm sure you will never get a definitive answer, and in any case it 
depends on whether you look at the symbols in rows or columns. I would 
prioritize the Bluetooth logo and then US and European marks, assuming 
the product is for those markets. But if it needs the CE mark, that 
probably won't fit, so put it on the tag.


On 2023-11-15 23:45, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

I’m seeking guidance please on what the best practice is for handling 
a very small electronic product (a Bluetooth key fob) that holds many 
certifications. There simply isn’t room on the body of the unit for 
all of the marks that apply. Is there an order of precedence that 
should be followed, after which all additional marks are placed on a 
tag or in the manual?


Many thanks in advance,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
 I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
Icon Description automatically generated 
A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
Icon 
Description automatically generated 
Icon 
Description automatically generated 





This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Class 1 appliance

[John Woodgate]

I put some comments below.

On 2023-11-06 14:08, Scott Xe wrote:
Last week, we received a sample of an induction hob from a supplier. 
The unit is fitted with a 3-core power card and does not have a class 
II symbol. The earthing core is terminated at a small copper pad on 
the printed circuit board with a protective ground symbol (IEC 60417 - 
5019) next to the terminal.  It is shocking to note that the copper 
pad is standalone and not connected to the unit circuitry.  We made an 
inquiry to the supplier and replied that the product was designed by 
the engineer who left the company.
/JMW: That alone should indicate that you should have nothing to do with 
the product, unless you are a test house, paid for assessing its safety./


I have two questions regarding the appliance. Firstly, can it be rated 
as a class 1 appliance?


/JMW: If it passes all the safety tests for a Class 1 appliance, it is a 
Class 1 appliance. But it remains a suspect design./


Secondly, what are the main purposes of installing a 3-core power 
cable that has no obvious functionality?


/JMW: There is a strong temptation to do that if it's too difficult to 
meet the Class II requirements./



Additionally, while examining the PCB layout, I noticed punched holes 
for a resistor and two capacitors connected in series, with the 
capacitors connected in parallel first. Currently, there are no 
components present in those holes. I would like to know if these 
components are necessary for EMC compliance.


/JMW: There is no way anyone can advise you on that, even if we could 
see where the 'missing' components appear in the schematic. You have to 
test it as it is and see whether it meets the EMC requirements./



Your advice is appreciated!


Thanks and regards,


Scott






This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

[John Woodgate]

There is an article here on the new European safety law: 
https://digital.incompliancemag.com/issue/november-2023/


On 2023-11-02 10:24, Glyn Payne wrote:


There is always the RoHS Directive that demands the CE Mark even if no 
other Directives apply.


Glyn Payne

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 01 November 2023 20:20
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety 
Directive (GPSD)


Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the 
CE mark if *no* Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the 
product.


On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that
you cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR.  The
proviso that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but
cannot CE mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official
website of the EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD.  Perhaps it’s just
well hidden.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


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

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 
<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 

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] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

[John Woodgate]

Somewhere in all the Byzantine rules, there is a ban on applying the CE 
mark if *no* Directive or Regulation that demands it applies to the product.


On 2023-11-01 19:58, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
Furthermore, I have not found anything document which says that you 
cannot CE mark a product having a DofC listing the GPSR.  The proviso 
that you can issue a DofC against Directive 2001/95/EC but cannot CE 
mark the product is not stated anywhere in the official website of the 
EU (Europa.eu) or in the GPSD.  Perhaps it’s just well hidden. 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

[John Woodgate]

Precisely. It's utter folly not to carry out, and document, appropriate 
safety tests.


On 2023-11-01 18:35, Ted Eckert wrote:


Hello Amund,

The GPSR is not a CE-marking Directive, and products that fall under 
the GPSR can be placed on the market without safety information on the 
Declaration of Conformity if they do not fall under any other 
Directive that requires a declaration for safety. However, that is 
only related to what is on the Declaration of Conformity, affecting 
the ability to properly import a product into the EU.


However, regulations on the import of products are not the only 
regulations affecting product safety requirements. Product liability 
law exists in the 27 EU member states. If you have a professional 
product meeting the requirements you propose, and there is some 
allegation of a safety issue, the customer can seek remedies from the 
importer, distributor, and/or manufacturer. Your ability to defend 
your company in court will be significantly diminished if you have no 
documentation showing that a safety analysis has been done.


In general, all of the economic actors involved in selling products 
carry the responsibility of making sure the products they sell meet 
legal requirements. It will be up to your legal department to 
determine the risk of placing a product on the market without a safety 
evaluation. The need for producing safety documentation might not be 
limited only to the RED, LVD, or GPSR.


Best regard,

Ted Eckert

/The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer./


*From:*Amund Westin 
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:41 AM
*To:* Ted Eckert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* SV: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

Thanks Ted,

As I read your comments and take they into an example - … consider a 
professional electronic product, which can’t be bought or even used by 
consumers, will not under any circumstances be covered by GPSD/GPSR. 
Right?


And if product is low powered (not within LVD), then maybe only EMC 
apply. Then the product could be put on the market without any safety 
related tests …. Is that correct?


BR
Amund

*Fra:*Ted Eckert
*Sendt:* 31. oktober 2023 16:10
*Til:* Amund Westin >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 


*Emne:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

Hello Amund,

The GPSR has these definitions. I recommend you use them as the basis 
to determine if you are providing “consumer products” as covered by 
the scope of the GPSR.


“‘product’ means any item, whether or not it is interconnected to 
other items, supplied or made available, whether for consideration or 
not, including in the context of providing a service, which is 
intended for consumers or is likely, under reasonably foreseeable 
conditions, to be used by consumers even if not intended for them”.


“’consumer’ means any natural person who acts for purposes which are 
outside that person’s trade, bushiness, craft or profession”.


There is no clear line drawn between consumer and professional 
equipment, and the GPSR is intended to cover professional equipment 
that is likely to be purchased for personal use by some consumers. 
Products that fall into this grey area may need to be reviewed on a 
case-by-case basis. I would recommend that if you determine a product 
is not within the scope, your technical file include a clear 
explanation of why it is out of scope.


Best regard,

Ted Eckert

/The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect 
those of my employer./


-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)

General Product Safety Directive ... Do I interpret correct that GPSD 
only apply to consumer products? Not for any professional products?


And the new General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) do the same?

BR

Amund

-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-archive.com%2Femc-pstc%40listserv.ieee.org%2F=05%7C01%7Cted.eckert%40microsoft.com%7C82a5efa6086f42d6b47408dbda213cd3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638343608539495156%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=GuUoKfcLXvrJyMAlwC4ppBfGXqIA3K0rhanBtbC1XF4%3D=0 



Website: 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] User manual by accompanying documents or via affixed QR

[John Woodgate]

No. I don't see so many EU documents as others here do, and it is very 
difficult, as you know, to find a document when you don't know a 
document title to look for. I am remembering information posted here 
quite a long time ago.


On 2023-08-13 17:56, Amund Westin wrote:


Yes, I was thinking that a short paper guide would help. URL link is 
important as you say, and QR are actually for advanced mobile users.


Have you seen this issue been discussed in “Blue Guide” or other EU 
documents?


*Fra:*John Woodgate
*Sendt:* 13. august 2023 18:43
*Til:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Emne:* Re: [PSES] User manual by accompanying documents or via affixed QR

I believe that in Europe, it is not allowed. Current practice seems to 
be to include with the product a short  'User Guide' or similar, which 
includes the safety information required by the relevant safety 
standard, and the DOC(s), together with a text link of the URL of the 
full User Manual. You could include a QR code in addition, but not 
instead of the text link, because about 15 % of people don't have a 
smart phone or don't know much about using it for anything but calls, 
text messages and the camera.


On 2023-08-13 16:57, Amund Westin wrote:

To avoid a lot of paper use, it is possible to leave a short
instruction with the product to enter a web site or use affixed QR
code (on product) to get access to the User manual and other
relevant documentation?

Should such a symbol Link
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7000:3500  also be attached
when using QR code?

Best regards

Amund



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
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
<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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


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

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 
<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 

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] User manual by accompanying documents or via affixed QR

[John Woodgate]

I believe that in Europe, it is not allowed. Current practice seems to 
be to include with the product a short  'User Guide' or similar, which 
includes the safety information required by the relevant safety 
standard, and the DOC(s), together with a text link of the URL of the 
full User Manual. You could include a QR code in addition, but not 
instead of the text link, because about 15 % of people don't have a 
smart phone or don't know much about using it for anything but calls, 
text messages and the camera.


On 2023-08-13 16:57, Amund Westin wrote:


To avoid a lot of paper use, it is possible to leave a short 
instruction with the product to enter a web site or use affixed QR 
code (on product) to get access to the User manual and other relevant 
documentation?


Should such a symbol Link https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:grs:7000:3500 
 also be attached when using QR code?


Best regards

Amund



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] thoughts on ESD test lab problems

[John Woodgate]

I really hope not. See my story 'How to lose half a million dollars':

/April 2 2014
From: Compliance (JH)
To: MJ54 Team Leader (BB)
Subject: MJ54 tests
Not good news. Model for testing (MFT) failed several EMC tests, and 
there are safety issues as well. Details in a following message. Can we 
discuss?

May 30 2014
From: BB
To: JH
Subject: MJ54 tests
cc: Manager, R
I regret the delay in our discussion due to our incompatible schedules.
Your proposals for MJ54 are simply unacceptable; a $5 on-cost and a 
redesign of the PC board and enclosure to accommodate the larger EMI 
filter compromise both the costing and the time-scale already submitted 
to Marketing and approved. In addition, the bandwidth reserve of stage 1 
has been reduced to such an extent that conformity with specification 
cannot be assured in production.

July 31 2014
From: Manager, Compliance
To: Manager, R
Subject: MJ54
After investigation, I confirm that the measures requested by JH are 
fully justified and essential. I also consider it most regrettable that 
both JH and BB are under suspension as a result of an altercation 
admittedly instigated by BB.

September 29 2014
From: VP Marketing
To: VP R
cc: President
Subject: MJ54
The increased cost and revised time-scale that you have submitted make 
the product unviable. In addition, our original request to include BGQQ 
compatibility if possible, which you declined to fulfil, is no longer an 
option. Acme and two other competitors now have products with full BGQQ 
compatibility at prices 10% lower than your original costing indicated.


/


On 2023-08-13 16:47, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:
I wonder why industry is spending so much on EMC compliance.  Is it 
because the development teams are leaving this work to the final phase 
of the design, where changes are expensive and schedules slip ? 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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] thoughts on ESD test lab problems

[John Woodgate]

But crossing t's and dotting i's is exactly what is required by 
competence standards, including the several ISO 170XX series. 
Furthermore, standards specify performance of test equipment, if 
possible, and only if that is not possible, they specify design. If that 
is not possible, they specify construction, and indeed many CISPR and 
other standards specify test set-ups with elaborate drawings.


EMC testing is DIFFICULT. It does involve extensive experience and it is 
costly. Management systems are/should be in place to catch errors. Daily 
and weekly verifications are required. In many cases, running tests on a 
known sample are OK, but that's dodgy for ESD, because repeated testing 
WILL cause damage.


On 2023-08-12 03:25, Ken Javor wrote:


No way am I jumping in the middle of this debate, but it is extremely 
useful in another way.


A few observations:

ESD is by its very nature a chaotic event (air discharge more so than 
contact).


It is not entirely surprising that someone who has spent decades 
working on something would find examples of non-idealities in the work 
of technicians doing rote work following canned test procedures.  A 
test facility isn’t going to make a profit employing a septuagenarian 
devoted to crossing every “t” and dotting every “i.”  (Written by 
someone pushing that age bracket pretty hard).


IFF (if and only if) Mr. Smith’s observations are correct, that is an 
indictment of the test requirement/method. That is, it is the 
responsibility of the standards committees to write these such that 
they can be adequately performed by the average test facility and 
personnel. If it takes someone with five decades of experience, and 
they must spend an inordinate amount of time ($$$) to get it right, 
then the standard is a failure.


--

Ken Javor

(256) 650-5261

*From: *"doug emcesd.com" 
*Reply-To: *"doug emcesd.com" 
*Date: *Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:26 AM
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] thoughts on ESD test lab problems

I didn’t say most labs are bad. Errors do happen and for me 
almost every lab I have used has made a mistake. These errors are rare 
but do happen and the effect of a single error can be very costly.


One lab made an especially bad mistake for a small company that 
engaged me that cost the company a lot of money, has since improved 
their game by instituting quality procedures they should have had 
anyway. The lab gave the company passing data but in fact the plot 
looked like the technician forgot to plug the antenna in, noise level 
of the instrumentation!


Based on that, the company signed a contract for price and delivery 
for a million units of their  product. The ultimate fix needed was a 
different core design of an inductor that cost them US $0.30. $300k is 
a lot of money for a small company.


I can give many more examples. Usually the problem causes a product to 
fail when it actually should have passed. I have many examples that 
happened to me over the last 40 years in both private and commercial labs.


The errors are still rare, but do happen. Over enough testing a 
person, like myself, will encounter an error with any given lab.


Of the errors I have encountered, three were the result of the staff 
in the lab not being competent (over a span of 40 years), the rest 
were just simple mistakes, maybe another dozen or so. Again, this was 
over decades, so rare, but many millions of dollars were at stake in 
each case.


In two cases, the lab personnel became a bit belligerent when I gently 
suggested they performed the test incorrectly. In both cases, the labs 
relented and retested after we examined the test standard and they 
realized they were testing incorrectly.


A lab client needs to keep an eye out to make sure such an error 
does not happen to them.


On the other hand, I have seen a lot of great labs. One, in Silicon 
Valley, I consider to be the best in the industry! But they did make 
one mistake on a test for me years ago, minimal impact at the time and 
it can't happen again.


Doug Smith

Sent from my iPhone

IPhone: 408-858-4528

Office: 702-570-6108

Email: d...@dsmith.org

Website: http://dsmith.org

----

*From:* John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 07:02
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] thoughts on ESD test lab problems

That's right. It is good to call attention to problems that may well 
be deeply hidden or not recognized as a possibility, but it is 
necessary to concentrate on the facts and leave out peripheral matters 
that don't help to deal with the issue.


On 2023-08-11 14:28, Larry K. Stillings wrote:

You could certainly word this in a different way that doesn’t
generalize how “most” test labs are bad and/or incompetent. How
about in the future you find a different way to word things.



This message is f

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[John Woodgate]

I seem to remember this subject being extensively discussed about two 
years ago. The bans on 'alien' cords are indeed enforced, and some 
authorities were extremely unhelpful in finding solutions, e.g. not 
allowing products to be shipped without cords, which were added in the 
country of destination.  Some contributed solutions for specific 
countries that were found to work.


On 2023-08-11 15:52, Douglas Powell wrote:

I believe you are correct.

Simply shipping the wrong cord types to certain locations is actually 
prohibited, and in general, including incorrect types could be viewed 
as endorsement of their use in other areas. A thing that should be 
simple, now gets complicated.


On occasion, I've heard manufacturers say things like "/I've heard of 
this but have no official knowledge that it's true/", as a way to side 
step liability. I'm not certain this is considered a valid argument, 
should someone be injured.


While it's convenient and sometimes cost effective to make shipping 
kits more generic, I usually recommend including in BOMs some 
indicator of the ISO Alpha-2 or ISO Alpha-3 country code and make kits 
so the correct materials are included for the location involved.


I find that, although seemingly simple, it's very easy to get tripped 
up over such matters. I've also had difficulty in the past with 
multi-language labeling, i.e. combined language labels. In certain 
countries people become offended if the wrong language is on products 
along side their own language. In this case I'm thinking of a 
4-language label I once used.


Best regards, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 8:27 AM Chas Grasso  wrote:

Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for
bringing it up!
As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package
spreads the incorrect
conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get
that right?


On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell 
wrote:

*

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
doug...@gmail.com

*

All,

I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords
to various countries around the world and how some do not
allow the incorrect cords within a shipment while others do.
Brazil, as far as I know, does not permit incorrect cordage.
Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all mutually
exclusive. South Africa and India are mutually exclusive.
Japan, Taiwan, and the United States are all mutually
exclusive. If not prohibited, it is frequently cheaper to
include multiple cords rather than create multiple regional
SKUs when products are in low-volume production.

That said, apparently the China market often likes to use
US-style receptacles (types A or B), even though they use 220
V (). The US-style plug has better density (twice as many
receptacles in the same space as the China receptacle (Type C,
or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are many more
aftermarket cable options available.  So I suppose that's my
question: "Is this usage typical in China?"

Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for
the higher voltages, even though historically some people may
say it works.  I even fouind a website that shows this,
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm

I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the
use of the US plug in this manner, which appears to be common
practice. And I usually advise that this type of usage should
never be described, recommended, or mentioned in any manuals,
brochures, or other written material produced by a company,
either externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an
investigation reveals agreement with this usage, the company
may be held liable.

Thoughts??

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived
and searchable on the web at:
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] thoughts on ESD test lab problems

[John Woodgate]

That's right. It is good to call attention to problems that may well be 
deeply hidden or not recognized as a possibility, but it is necessary to 
concentrate on the facts and leave out peripheral matters that don't 
help to deal with the issue.


On 2023-08-11 14:28, Larry K. Stillings wrote:
You could certainly word this in a different way that doesn’t 
generalize how “most” test labs are bad and/or incompetent. How about 
in the future you find a different way to word things.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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] Necessary Lab accreditations, class 2 permissible change

[John Woodgate]

What are you changing about the Y-caps? If it's just a new supplier and 
the caps conform to the required component standard, there is no 
degradation. Reducing he capacitance would be a degradation for EMC but 
not for safety.


Who determines the class is the person who has all the necessary data. 
The test house of surveillance authority check the decision.


On 2023-08-09 23:20, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hello EMC experts,
A question came up today about filing new results to FCC for our 
legacy product.
1.  If the filing is only for FCC, then the lab providing the report 
does not need A2LA accreditation,
2.  If the filing is for a safety report, then the lab does need A2LA 
accreditation.

Have I got that right?
We're filing some small board changes, including Y-caps and can't 
figure out if this is a Class 2 permissible change, defined as:  
" includes those modifications which degrade the performance 
characteristics as reported to the Commission"
3.  How or who determines if our change is Class 2 (degraded 
performance) or Class 1?
We think the results are better, but it's not like we got uniformly 
more margin across the board.

Thanks!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Hazard warning labels on panel doors where COTS UPS installed?

[John Woodgate]

You could decide not to search, just put a label on anyway. I looked at 
the Preview of IEC 60947-1, but did not find anything. There is a 7th 
edition in preparation.


On 2023-08-02 22:24, Doug Nix wrote:

Colleagues,

I have a client who has installed a COTS UPS in an industrial control 
panel. The UPS is being used to keep the HMI alive in a power outage 
or if the disconnecting device is switched off.


I have scoured the resources that I have, and I can find nothing that 
requires a label on the outside of the panel to indicate that there is 
a UPS inside. EN 60204-1:2018 does not address this. I have a copy of 
EN IEC 62040-1, and it does not require a hazard warning label anywhere.


Any guidance you might offer is appreciated.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] UK extends CE mark recognition indefinitely

[John Woodgate]

An unusually sensible decision. If it happens in the future that the 
European requirements for a particular product family become 
unacceptable in UK, an exception can be made just for those products, 
leaving CE valid for everything else.


On 2023-08-01 10:41, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ukca-marking-conformity-assessment-and-documentation

Reporting: 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/01/uk-eu-safety-mark-brexit-climbdown 
- the funny bit here is that the original article was accompanied by a 
picture of a non-compliant CE logo, as per the final note “The image 
accompanying this article was changed on 1 August 2023, to one of a CE 
mark that adheres more closely to EU guidance on how it should be 
reproduced”


The [UK] government intends to extend recognition of the CE marking 
for placing most goods on the market in Great Britain, indefinitely, 
beyond December 2024. These updates apply to the 18 regulations that 
fall under the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). These are:


  * toys
  * pyrotechnics
  * recreational craft and personal watercraft
  * simple pressure vessels
  * electromagnetic compatibility
  * non-automatic weighing instruments
  * measuring instruments
  * measuring container bottles
  * lifts
  * equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres (ATEX)
  * radio equipment
  * pressure equipment
  * personal protective equipment (PPE)
  * gas appliances
  * machinery
  * equipment for use outdoors
  * aerosols
  * low voltage electrical equipment

Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] BBC news article re Li-ion batteries...

[John Woodgate]

The charity is often none too strong on technicalities, except for the 
articles by electrically-qualified people. The big problem with 
third-party testing is the legal exposure of the test houses to actions 
for damages. The premiums could be enormous and unsustainable. However, 
the position stated is not accurate; manufacturers have to declare 
conformity with regulations, and bear total responsibility, but that 
effectively means that the batteries DO have to be third-party tested 
(few manufacturers can do their own in-house testing, and those that do 
have to have their facilities vetted), but the test house is not widely 
exposed to legal action, except action by the manufacturer.


On 2023-07-28 10:10, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:


I thought this news article that was on the BBC TV broadcast bulletins 
27^th July might be of interest.


“Batteries for e-bikes should be regulated in the same way as 
fireworks, heavy machinery or medical devices because of the fire risk 
they pose, a charity [UK based Electrical Safety First] has said”


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66304564

Disclaimer:​ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

[John Woodgate]

The EM field exposure limits are not always in standards: in Europe they 
are in a European Council document based on Commission-funded research 
(ICNIRP). I don't recall any limits as low as 10 V/m.


On 2023-07-27 19:07, Richard Nute wrote:


I’m a product safety engineer.  This discussion is based upon a safety 
standard specifying a limit for the accessible electric field strength.


Doug Smith said:

“These days we think 10 V/m is dangerous.“

See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3553569/

This article (with scholarly research annotated) essentially says that 
we don’t know the effects of electric and magnetic fields on the 
body.  It cites 0.4 uT (>100 V/m) as a potential limit for children.  
Doug goes on to cite his experience with exposure to 100 times 100 V/m 
with no ill effects.


I wonder how the standards writers came up with limiting field 
strength when there is no definitive bodily injury? Probably BOGSAT.


Best regards,

Rich

ps: Field strength conversion calculator:

https://www.compeng.com.au/field-strength-calculator/



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Clearances >30 kHz

[John Woodgate]

Remarkable difference between 29.9 kHz and 30.1 kHz!

On 2023-07-25 23:39, Ryan Jazz wrote:


Dear Members,

Hope you can help me understand the requirement for the clearance 
needed between the bottom PCB of power supply to metal chassis.


Looking up UL 62368-1 Third Edition, and using the ‘Voltage up to an 
including peak’ of _2000 V_ for overvoltage category II Table 10 for 
_<30 kHz_.


I see the clearance is 1,27 mm.

Going over to Table 11 _>30_ kHz this clearance value jumps to 13,2 mm.

Am I doing this correctly? Or should I be using the ‘working voltage’ 
of the power supply, Primary to Earthed Dead Metal 392 Vpk, Primary to 
Secondary 520 Vpk.


100-240 Vac, 100 W, _90 kHz_ switching frequency, AC power supply with 
a 2x3 inch footprint.


End product is, overvoltage category II, pollution degree 2, material 
group III.


Indoor audio music processor, Class 1.

All guidance would be appreciated.

If this 13,2 mm value is indeed correct, I may need to use an 
insulator under the power supply.


Any recommendations for a UL rated insulator type?

Thank you,

Ryan Jazz

Ryan Jayasinghe

Regulatory Compliance Engineer

rjayasin...@line6.com

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" 
- Aldous Huxley


LINE6

26580 Agoura Road

Calabasas CA 91302

818.575.3711

line6.com

ampeg.com



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

[John Woodgate]

While the vehicle is on charge or vey near a charger?

On 2023-07-24 23:12, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote:
John, I have transmitter that transmits on a VHF Frequency about 2 
minutes after I shut the car off. A number of setups allow a person to 
use a hand held device to access a higher powered transceiver that is 
in the car. It's fairly common setup for highway patrol vehicles, due 
to distance from the control points.


Jim



On July 24, 2023 6:04:13 PM John Woodgate  wrote:

There are, but 20 V/m still is a very high value. One wouldn't expect 
a transmitter to be used in a car while it is on charge.


On 2023-07-24 22:57, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote:
Wi-Fi and cell phones are not the only transmitters near cars. There 
are police, fire and ham radio transceivers in cars. Some of which 
are on gain antennas and can be remotely accessed to transmit. Not 
to mention hand held transceivers that might walk by.


Jim, WB8VSU


On July 24, 2023 5:51:27 PM Brian Gregory 
 wrote:


The reference for 20 V/m to EV chargers comes from UL 2231-2.  This 
is not a medical standard, but Annex A does call out the medical 
standard 60601-1-2 as a reference, as well as CENELEC 50204.  We 
can't figure out why;  cell phones produce less than half that, and 
our WiFi transmitter is probably representative, and is rated well 
under 1 W.  I could see a higher immunity standard as needed for 
commercial environments, say in a bank of 4-5 chargers.
Following along in 61000-4-3, we agree with John that residential 
applications are clearly best matched to the definition for Class 2 
environment, and the table in Clause 5 says the limits for Class 2 
equipment is 3 V/m. 20 V/m does not show up in Clause 5 
of 61000-4-3 for any class.
So, I've should to reach out to a UL standards group and find out 
if this is really necessary for residential applications.   Our 
local lab can't do more than 10, and an overseas affiliated lab is 
similarly limited.  I'd like to know were this requirement comes 
from.  This is more a question for EV Charging safety than 
a mainstream EMC question.
As a backup, I could request a comment to Ken's point is if they 
define the peak of the modulation as 20 V/m.  I don't know where 
these are defined.

Thanks for all the detailed replies!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate 
To: Brian Gregory 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:05:59 +0100

61000-4-3 is a Basic Standard. It does not specify test levels but 
indicates possible test levels. You need to look in detail at 
Clause 5, but look at these words:


/Product committees shall select the appropriate test level for 
each frequency range //needing to be tested as well as the 
frequency ranges./


The residential environment is usually designated Class 2 (see 
Annex E of the standard), which calls for 3 V/m.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I 
understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)

On 2023-07-21 17:44, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hello colleagues,
We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just
US) and one of the safety applicable standards is UL
2231-2.  It calls out  IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing
parameters, which states a requirement for a field strength of
20V/m.  Our EMC expert says typically testing is "done at 3
Vrms, which is standard for most products in residential
environments."   He can only test up to 10V, and we're hearing
the same from an overseas lab to whom our manufacturer refers.
Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field strength we can cite?
 Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition
of what the 20V/m represents?
I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial
applications, aka charging stations, so we probably need an
exception for residential.
Thank you!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to  All emc-pstc
postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
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)
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
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 Ba

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

[John Woodgate]

There are, but 20 V/m still is a very high value. One wouldn't expect a 
transmitter to be used in a car while it is on charge.


On 2023-07-24 22:57, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote:
Wi-Fi and cell phones are not the only transmitters near cars. There 
are police, fire and ham radio transceivers in cars. Some of which are 
on gain antennas and can be remotely accessed to transmit. Not to 
mention hand held transceivers that might walk by.


Jim, WB8VSU


On July 24, 2023 5:51:27 PM Brian Gregory  
wrote:


The reference for 20 V/m to EV chargers comes from UL 2231-2.  This 
is not a medical standard, but Annex A does call out the medical 
standard 60601-1-2 as a reference, as well as CENELEC 50204.  We 
can't figure out why;  cell phones produce less than half that, and 
our WiFi transmitter is probably representative, and is rated well 
under 1 W.  I could see a higher immunity standard as needed for 
commercial environments, say in a bank of 4-5 chargers.
Following along in 61000-4-3, we agree with John that residential 
applications are clearly best matched to the definition for Class 2 
environment, and the table in Clause 5 says the limits for Class 2 
equipment is 3 V/m.  20 V/m does not show up in Clause 5 of 61000-4-3 
for any class.
So, I've should to reach out to a UL standards group and find out if 
this is really necessary for residential applications.   Our local 
lab can't do more than 10, and an overseas affiliated lab is 
similarly limited.  I'd like to know were this requirement comes 
from.   This is more a question for EV Charging safety than 
a mainstream EMC question.
As a backup, I could request a comment to Ken's point is if they 
define the peak of the modulation as 20 V/m.  I don't know where 
these are defined.

Thanks for all the detailed replies!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


-- Original Message --
From: John Woodgate 
To: Brian Gregory 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:05:59 +0100

61000-4-3 is a Basic Standard. It does not specify test levels but 
indicates possible test levels. You need to look in detail at Clause 
5, but look at these words:


/Product committees shall select the appropriate test level for each 
frequency range //needing to be tested as well as the frequency ranges./


The residential environment is usually designated Class 2 (see Annex 
E of the standard), which calls for 3 V/m.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)

On 2023-07-21 17:44, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hello colleagues,
We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US)
and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It
calls out  IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which
states a requirement for a field strength of 20V/m.  Our EMC
expert says typically testing is "done at 3 Vrms, which is
standard for most products in residential environments."   He can
only test up to 10V, and we're hearing the same from an overseas
lab to whom our manufacturer refers.
Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field strength we can cite? 
 Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition of
what the 20V/m represents?
I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial
applications, aka charging stations, so we probably need an
exception for residential.
Thank you!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send
your e-mail to  All emc-pstc postings are
archived and searchable on the web at:
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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
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 All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the 
web at:

ht

Re: [PSES] Order of attenuators

[John Woodgate]

6, 3, 20. The calculations are left as an exercise for thereader. 

On 2023-07-24 20:14, doug emcesd.com wrote:


Hi All,

Here is a puzzle. I have a signal source of average power less than 10 
mW and I want to put three attenuators on the output, 20 dB, 6 dB and 
3 dB.  All are two Watt attenuators. What order should I put them on 
to minimize the chance of burning some of them out? This is a 
situation I encounter during my circuit troubleshooting.


Doug



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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 

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] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

[John Woodgate]

I suggest that a suitable source for evaluating the shielding 
effectiveness of a BLS is a multivibrator (square-wave source), with 
attention to rise and fall times: not too slow and not ridiculously 
fast. It's more representative of emitting sources than a canned antenna.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-21 20:38, Chas Grasso wrote:

Hello experts and gurus!!

I need to simulate the performance of a BLS (board level shield) and I 
am considering
using the IEEE Std 2716-2022 IEEE Guide for the Characterization of 
the Effectiveness of Printed Circuit Board Level Shielding document. 
This document is however an adaptation of
the methods of evaluating gaskets rather than a focused guide on BLS 
performance.


Question: Does anyone have experience using this Guide as intended for 
a BLS solution evaluation?


Another Question: Would someone guide me to a paper or experiment that 
shows
a decent correlation of a simulated source in a BLS versus actual 
measurements ?


Here's my concern: The problem of how to internally  source a signal 
for simulation and
measurement seems deceptively simple. Just put an antenna on the 
inside of the
shield - right? Well, no. My concern is that the addition of the 
shield compromises
the antenna characteristics and so inadvertently this results in 
better (or worse) results.


With eager anticipation and appreciation for your help with this!!
--

Charles Grasso

Dish Technologies

 (c) 303-204-2974

(w) 303-706-5467

(h) 303-317-5530

(e ) charles.gra...@dish.com

(e2) chasgra...@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 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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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 

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] Immunity test field strength, residential setting

[John Woodgate]

Well, obviously 60601-1-2 doesn't apply, unless some clown claims that 
EV chargers are medical devices. The higher limits in 60601-1-2 for home 
healthcare are probably due to the expected absence of immediate 
intervention when a medical device misbehaves.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-21 20:30, Scott Aldous wrote:

Hi Brian,

The UL standard actually references IEC 61000-4-3 only for the test 
method. Per the UL standard, the test level, 20 V/m, comes from EN 
60601-1-2, which is the CENELEC EMC standard for medical devices.


Per this article 
<https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-central-differences-between-3rd-4th-edition-saeed>, 
at least the base standard, IEC 60601-1-2, references broad spectrum 
testing at 3 V/m for professional healthcare facility environment and 
10 V/m for home healthcare environment. Test levels from 9 to 28 V/m 
at specific frequencies are referenced to simulate proximity to fields 
due to wireless communications. IMO, the UL standard doesn't make 
clear if the actual test levels (and frequencies) from EN 60601-1-2 
are intended to be used, or just the 20 V/m test level called out.


On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:57 AM  wrote:

Hi Brian,

Just for your information, in Europe residential EV chargers  (for
charging an EV with AC voltage), typically needs to fulfill the
requirements of EN 61851-21-2  (product standard for off-board EV
chargers).  In this standard you will find the applicable test
levels for immunity testing.  One of the tests that needs to be
performed is the radiated immunity test according EN 61000-4-3. 
(This is the basic standard which specifies how a radiated
immunity test should be performed, in this test standard you find
typical test levels, however in this case the product standard is
where you should look to find the applicable test level.

If the charger will be located solely in a residential
environment, a fieldstrength of 3V/m is applicable.  For locations
other than residential 10V/m is required. (modulation used: 80% AM
1kHz in both cases).

Typically testing is performed in two operational modes:

 1) the charger is in charging mode

 2) the charger is in waiting mode.

20V/m is more than needed  (which is of course allowed, but not
typically done by manufacturers)

FCC  (for the US region) does not require immunity testing to be
performed. So in FCC part 15B, you’ll only find emission limits.
So, not related to your question.

I hope it helps.

Greetings,

Bart

*From:*Brian Gregory 
*Sent:* vrijdag 21 juli 2023 18:44
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting

 Hello colleagues,

We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US)
and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls
out  IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a
requirement for a field strength of 20V/m.  Our EMC expert says
typically testing is "done at 3 Vrms, which is standard for most
products in residential environments."   He can only test up to
10V, and we're hearing the same from an overseas lab to whom our
manufacturer refers.

Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field strength we can cite? 
 Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition of
what the 20V/m represents?

I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial applications,
aka charging stations, so we probably need an exception for
residential.

Thank you!

Colorado Brian
720-450-4933 



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the
web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
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://l

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting

[John Woodgate]

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)





 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: [PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:05:59 +0100
From:   John Woodgate 
Organisation:   J M Woodgate and Associates
To: Brian Gregory 



61000-4-3 is a Basic Standard. It does not specify test levels but 
indicates possible test levels. You need to look in detail at Clause 5, 
but look at these words:


/Product committees shall select the appropriate test level for each 
frequency range //needing to be tested as well as the frequency ranges./


The residential environment is usually designated Class 2 (see Annex E 
of the standard), which calls for 3 V/m.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-21 17:44, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hello colleagues,
We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US) and 
one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls 
out  IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a 
requirement for a field strength of 20V/m.  Our EMC expert says 
typically testing is "done at 3 Vrms, which is standard for most 
products in residential environments."   He can only test up to 10V, 
and we're hearing the same from an overseas lab to whom our 
manufacturer refers.
Does FCC Part B have guidelines for field strength we can cite?   Can 
some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition of what the 
20V/m represents?
I'm guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial applications, aka 
charging stations, so we probably need an exception for residential.

Thank you!
Colorado Brian
720-450-4933


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:

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) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>

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 

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] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

[John Woodgate]

I agree that your procedures are what is necessary.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-18 21:06, Bansi Patel wrote:


John:

In this case I would ask manufacturer (thru your purchasing channel) 
regarding marking requirements agreed as a certification requirement 
from the UL. That should be condition of acceptability. Have that 
letter or document available at time of UL inspection.


Other way, I handed was to ask for certificate (or document) of 
acceptance (CofA or DofA) of shipment form your supplier, stating 
quantity part number order number meets UL component marking 
requirements. And store it with incoming inspection.


Best Regards and Be Safe

Bansi Patel

BRP Consultants

PSES BoG at large 2020-2023

PSES Vice President of Conferences 2020-2024

bansipate...@gmail.com

M: 909-260-9403 

Please plan to attend (Face-2-Face event):

ISPCE 2024 , May 2024 (Dates to be determined soon); Chicago Area, 
Illinois, USA


_https://2024.psessymposium.org_

*From:*John Allen 
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2023 9:41 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

Hi guys,

We are having a heck of time proving a button cell is actually UR - 
CR2354.


UL IQ says it’s UR.  The Battery is not marked.  The Guide Card allows 
the marking to be on “packaging”.  Our customer purchases the CR2354 
on-line.  The packaging it comes in is not marked.  Is it possible the 
UR mark is on the Bulk packaging that the on-line supplier would have?


Best Regards and Be Safe,

John

John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.

Your Outsourced Compliance Department®

630-238-0188, Cell: 630-330-3145

social_facebook_box_blue for signature 
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Safety-Consulting-Inc/97306850917>social_twitter_box_blue 
for signature 
<http://twitter.com/SafetyTesting>social_linkedin_box_blue for 
signature 
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/productsafetyconsultinginc>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A 
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A>

www.productsafetyinc.com <http://www.productsafetyinc.com/>

IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

President Elect 2023, President 2024-2025, Past President 2026

President 2016-2019

Compliance 101 Technical Committee Chairman

IEEE Senior Member

/Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and 
Compliance/


https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html 
<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html>


Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this 
e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection 
software.  It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it 
is virus free.  PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss 
or systems damage arising in any way from its use.  This message is 
confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to 
which it is addressed.  If you are not the intended recipient or 
addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this 
message is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have been sent 
this message in error, please do not read it.  Please immediately 
reply to sender that you have received this message in error.  Then 
permanently delete all copies of the message.


Thank you.



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web 
at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>


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

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 
<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. T

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[John Woodgate]

Quite right. We don't need to add uncertainty to EMC measurements, 
because they are uncertain enough already.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-12 21:17, Elliott Martinson wrote:


A fun thing to do if you have access to a semi-anechoic chamber is use 
lots of duct tape to make sure /absolutely/ /nothing/ changes between 
measurements other than a certain design change--one accepted long ago 
that already went into production, which cost $$$ (cable ferrites, 
wrapping cables multiple times through ferrites, various black 
magic/witchcraft-based ideas)--and end up with evidence that a pass at 
a compliance lab years ago was misattributed to an expensive design 
change instead of a new test setup. Even all the duct tape in the 
world, however, doesn’t bring the uncertainty to 0.


The standard  almost addresses this as you’re supposed to (as best as 
I can remember) adjust the EUT’s position on the turntable relative to 
the cables, which are also to be individually adjusted 
(position/orientation) to maximize emissions for each frequency “of 
interest” (along with mast height if I remember right). Try that with 
a console with 20+ cables at even one frequency… with a simplifying 
assumption that a cable can either be laid out in state “A” or state 
“B”, that’s still over 1 million combinations. Good thing for the lab 
techs (and whoever pays the labs’ hourly rates) to have some 
“uncertainty” cushion


-Elliott

*From: *Brian Kunde 
*Reply-To: *Brian Kunde 
*Date: *Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:31 AM
*To: *
*Subject: *Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

If I may pile on late, keep in mind that measurement uncertainty is 
Plus or Minus (±). Years ago when I was with a previous company, we 
had a buy/sell piece of junk product that we were selling with our 
company's brand/name on it. It was audited in Sweden as part of their 
surveillance program and it failed by 2dB.  The test lab said they 
could not say it FAILED because 2dB was within their measurement 
uncertainty, so we could continue to ship and sell this product in 
Sweden.


Has anyone else ever experienced this?

Thanks,

The Other Brian

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 8:28 AM Brent DeWitt  wrote:

Hi Brian.  It's not entirely clear which measurement range you are
asking about, but I'll assume conducted emissions in the range of
150 kHz to 30 MHz.

Short answer: You can skip QP and Avg detection if the peak
detection level is below the Avg detection limit.

No margin is "required" to pass any emissions limit. Zero dB
margin is still passing.  That said, measurement uncertainty in
that range is generally 3-4 dB, so having a passing margin greater
than that gives you some confidence that a re-test at another time
and lab will still pass.

Hope that helps.

respectfully,

Brent DeWitt
Milford, MA

On 7/8/2023 12:38 AM, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hi there,

A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47.

Does the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg
and Peak.  When do peak readings trigger the need to report
QP?  I'm pretty sure Part 15 has AVG and QP limits listed.

Next was what sort of margin is expected in order to pass CE
emissions requirements (CISPR 16 or 32)?  Memory serves that
one wants 3dB of margin, but memories can be imperfect!

"Colorado" Brian
720-450-4933

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web
at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[John Woodgate]

The European Commission's lawyers object to mentioning statistical 
methods in standards, so the '80/80' rule texts are eliminated from the 
EN 550xx versions and are replaced by EN 50175, which is advice to 
manufacturers about determining what margin is necessary.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-10 15:54, Chas Grasso wrote:

What I DO remember is CISPR (Now EN) 22 (55022) that
required multi-sample testing if the original sample was within 3dB of 
the spec so as to establish a statistical metric of the EMI 
performance of the EUT.


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[John Woodgate]

The EN has more up-to-date information.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-10 12:56, Wiseman, Joshua wrote:


CISPR 11:2015 also gives details on this in Annex H.

Josh

*Joshua Wiseman***

Staff Systems Engineer

100 Indigo Creek Drive, Rochester, NY 14626

T. +1 (585) 453-4231

joshua.wise...@quidelortho.com <mailto:joshua.wise...@quidelortho.com>

quidelortho.com <https://www.quidelortho.com/>

QuidelOrtho <https://www.quidelortho.com/>

QuidelOrtho Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail message, 
including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, 
confidential, proprietary in nature, or otherwise private information 
that is protected by law from disclosure or subject to copyright and 
is intended only for the designated recipient. If you are not the 
designated recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
disclosure, distribution, reproduction, review, or copying is 
unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic 
message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the 
message completely from your computer system. Thank you.


*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Saturday, July 8, 2023 10:26 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

*EXTERNAL SENDER: Verify links, attachments and sender before taking 
action*


That's why EN 50715 is important. It explains all about that margin 
and the associated statistics.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)


On 2023-07-08 15:17, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote:

All produced products need to be compliant, not just the one you
tested. How consistent are your production units? If they are very
consistent, then a lower margin might be Ok.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[John Woodgate]

That's why EN 50715 is important. It explains all about that margin and 
the associated statistics.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-08 15:17, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote:
All produced products need to be compliant, not just the one you 
tested. How consistent are your production units? If they are very 
consistent, then a lower margin might be Ok. 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

[John Woodgate]

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)





 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions
Date:   Sat, 8 Jul 2023 07:07:26 +0100
From:   John Woodgate 
Organisation:   J M Woodgate and Associates
To: Brian Gregory 



I can't answer your first question, but for the second question you 
should look at EN 50715, which advises that you should determine the 
margin by applying statistical methods to data obtained from 
measurements of similar products. It isn't safe to assume 3 dB.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-07-08 05:38, Brian Gregory wrote:

 Hi there,
A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47.
Does the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg and 
Peak.  When do peak readings trigger the need to report QP?  I'm 
pretty sure Part 15 has AVG and QP limits listed.
Next was what sort of margin is expected in order to pass CE emissions 
requirements (CISPR 16 or 32)?  Memory serves that one wants 3dB of 
margin, but memories can be imperfect!

"Colorado" Brian
720-450-4933
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Machine status visual Indicators

[John Woodgate]

Good point. That's how drivers can cope.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-06-23 23:13, IBM Ken wrote:
Hi Steve!  I don't have a copy of that standard but I'm picturing the 
red/yellow/green towers on things like manufacturing floor hipot 
testers.  Have you considered the colorblind user who might not be 
able to discern yellow from red, but on a 'stoplight'-like tower, can 
at least use the illuminated position to determine the indicator status?


-Ken A

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 2:52 PM Steve Brody  wrote:

Experts,
I have a client who would like to use a single LED capable of
multiple colors instead of a mutli-lamp light tower that we are
used to seeing.
It can produce the required colors in accordance with 60204-1,
Table 4.
I have read through 60204-1 (machinery) safety and 61310-1
(requirements for visual, acoustic, and tactile signals) and did
not find anything that prohibits the use of a single LED.
Thoughts?
Steve Brody
sgbr...@comcast.net
C - 603 617 9116
-


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

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Generic radio standard for aeronautical service

[John Woodgate]

I wouldn't expect those SDOs necessarily to produce standards on 
aviation radio. Apart from national regulations, have you tried to find 
if there are any ICAO standards?


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-06-14 14:02, Amund Westin wrote:

Thanks Charlie

It's an ILS system.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
Currently, there are no existing ETSI/EN/IEC standards covering radio tests.

Only these German standards are in place:
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Technik/InverkehrbringenvonProdukten/Schnittstellenbeschreibungen/FlugfunkFL/RegTPSSBFL012Id1461pdf.pdf;jsessionid=63D4A874EE9637C9B4A25A6C70EB23FF?__blob=publicationFile=4


Seems to a Technical File / Notified Body case ...

BR
Amund


-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Charlie Blackham
Sendt: 13. juni 2023 21:24
Til:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] Generic radio standard for aeronautical service

Amund

The only "generic" radio standards are the ones for "short range devices", EN 
300 330, EN 300 220 and EN 300 440 and newer versions of those standards under development

A full list of all ETSI RED published and work-in-progress standards is 
available at

https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/WorkProgram/WorkItemPlan.asp?titleType=all=HIGHVERSION_ALL==TRUE=2014%2F53%2FEU_SUB_TB=True_MOVED_ON=_FLG=N_BOOLEAN=OR_BOOLEAN=OR_BOOLEAN=OR_OUTDATED==Search=FALSE=FALSE_TYPE=RPLAN=ALL

Note, this would only cover products using Civilian frequency bands.

It would be a bit surprising if there wasn't a standards either published ,or 
at least under development, for radio technology deployed on any real scale.

If there really isn't a Harmonised Standard available, you'll need to develop a 
compliance argument in a Technical File and use a Notified Body

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web:https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:44 PM
To:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Generic radio standard for aeronautical service

After some searching, we see that there is a lack of radio standards that cover 
an important ground-based product / system within aeronautical services.
How should we proceed with finding relevant test requirements? Are there any 
generic radio requirements that can be used as a basis?


BR
Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:
David Heald:
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list,

Re: [PSES] Generic radio standard for aeronautical service

[John Woodgate]

I suggest to start here:

https://www.etsi.org/technologies/aeronautical?jjj=1686687018700

an scroll down. No guarantee, but it might help.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-06-13 20:23, Charlie Blackham wrote:

Amund

The only "generic" radio standards are the ones for "short range devices", EN 
300 330, EN 300 220 and EN 300 440 and newer versions of those standards under development

A full list of all ETSI RED published and work-in-progress standards is 
available at

https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/WorkProgram/WorkItemPlan.asp?titleType=all=HIGHVERSION_ALL==TRUE=2014%2F53%2FEU_SUB_TB=True_MOVED_ON=_FLG=N_BOOLEAN=OR_BOOLEAN=OR_BOOLEAN=OR_OUTDATED==Search=FALSE=FALSE_TYPE=RPLAN=ALL

Note, this would only cover products using Civilian frequency bands.

It would be a bit surprising if there wasn't a standards either published ,or 
at least under development, for radio technology deployed on any real scale.

If there really isn't a Harmonised Standard available, you'll need to develop a 
compliance argument in a Technical File and use a Notified Body

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web:https://sulisconsultants.com/  
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247


-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin  
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:44 PM

To:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Generic radio standard for aeronautical service

After some searching, we see that there is a lack of radio standards that cover 
an important ground-based product / system within aeronautical services.
How should we proceed with finding relevant test requirements? Are there any 
generic radio requirements that can be used as a basis?


BR
Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO standards for safety

[John Woodgate]

I don't think that the original suggestion was serious. But a chatbot 
trained only on standards from one SMB could probably do quite a good 
job, apart from assigning numbers to specifications.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-06-10 14:44, Vincent Lee wrote:

Hi all,

ChatGPT is NOT specifically designed for product safety purposes.
It can only give very general results, then it is the job of product 
safety professionals to add the missing details.


In my work, I don't use ChatGPT, since it is not a tool designed for 
product safety which is a highly specialized engineering field.
In my view, ChatGPT is a toy to ask for very general questions. It 
cannot replace product safety professionals. Moreover, who is going to 
be responsible if a product fails and causes harms to users when one 
used the test plan generated by ChatGPT ?


Regards, Vincent


On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 03:15:19 AM GMT+8, Douglas Powell 
 wrote:



Aside from all the news articles about problems with ChatGPT, I've 
tried a few things myself.  For example, "/write a complete test 
protocol for IEC 62368-1 for a desktop audio streaming amplifier 
weighing less than 7 kg./"


Of course, gave me a fairtly detailed but generally incomplete 
responses under these topic headings.


1. Objective:
2. Test Equipment:
3. Test Setup:
4. Test Procedures:
4.1.2. Lifting Test:
4.2.1. Ground Continuity Test:
4.2.2. Insulation Resistance Test:
4.2.3. Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test:
4.3.1. Audio Performance Test:
4.3.2. Power Consumption Test:
4.4. Environmental Tests (if applicable):
5. Test Criteria:
6. ... /after this point it was left blank .../


In fun example is the 4.1.2 Lifting Test, it specified: "Apply a force 
of 200 N in the upward direction"


-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -06:00, US-MDT)


On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Chuck August-McDowell 
 wrote:


Friday’s attempt at humor…

So how about using the text generator ChatGPT to write the
standard draft?

Chuck in Berkeley

*From:*Vincent Lee <08e6c8d35910-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2023 7:05 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Looking for AI or machine vision related ISO
standards for safety

[THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER]

Huff,

No national nor international is available yet.

AI is more closely related to computer science than product safety.

And who knows AI may experience another winter, since there were
AI winter in 1980s - 1990s.

Regards, Vincent

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:37:35 PM GMT+8, David Huff
 wrote:

All,

I am working to guide a design that uses Artificial Intelligence
and machine vision thru a certification type process (CE Mark) and
I am looking for ISO or IEC standards or similar related
guidance.  My theory is that this is such new territory very
little guidance exists yet.  Are there any recommendations for
international guidance.

Thanks,

David

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/l

Re: [PSES] Vehicle Chargers

[John Woodgate]

These are UL standards?

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-05-16 23:39, Brian Gregory wrote:

 As in EV chargers.
Just started a new gig, and I'm back in compliance.
Looking for info on testing & compliance to the applicable standards: 
2202, 2231, and an exciting new concept that might require 9741 or 916.
Please advise if this is off scope for what's titled an EMC ListServe, 
but my experience is that y'all cast a wide net :-)

"Colorado" Brian
720-450-4933
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Low Voltage connectors called out on CCL

[John Woodgate]

The NRTL should be compelled to point to the words in the standard that 
justify their demand. It should not be up to you to search for it.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-04-06 19:08, Ryan Jazz wrote:


Hello Members,

We have an audio amplifier being evaluated by a local NRTL to UL 
62368-1 3^rd Edition.


The NRTL is calling out all the low voltage connectors on the rear 
panel on the Critical Components list.


For example the XLR and TRS connectors.

  * Can someone please let me know where this requirement could be
coming from?

Traditionally only connectors associated with AC voltages have been 
called out on the CCL.


The NRTL will not allow us to use these low voltage connectors if the 
part is not UL Recognized.


Is there something in UL 62368-1 3^rd Edition that requires UR for low 
voltage connectors?


Appreciate any comments.

Sincerely,

Ryan Jazz

Ryan Jayasinghe

Regulatory Compliance Engineer

rjayasin...@line6.com

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" 
- Aldous Huxley


LINE6

26580 Agoura Road

Calabasas CA 91302

line6.com

ampeg.com

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[John Woodgate]

There are two good points about 61-4-2:the test results are 
repeatable and products that pass the tests rarely suffer from ESD 
failures in the field. But there are, even so, unresolved issues and 
doubts about the relations between the tests and actual ESD events. 
Because the present standard 'works', strong evidence would be required 
to support a proposal for change, and that is not forthcoming.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-03-06 14:48, Chas Grasso wrote:
Don't forget the seminal research done by WMKing on this topic. He was 
I believe the first to measure the fast response of an ESD event 
through a metal intervening object. Also, it is understood that the 
ESD test was a consensus output in an attempt to provide repeatability 
within test houses. King and Hish also produced an ESD generator that 
accurately replicated the research.


The current ESD test is a committee consensus output which tried very 
hard to produce a test that could be consistent and repeatable, while 
at the same time be as close as possible to the actual event.





On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 1:42 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

*

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
j...@woodjohn.uk

*


Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to
share your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that
anything will happen.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I
understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)


On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com <http://emcesd.com> wrote:

Hi All,

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that
have comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.

 1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause
equipment malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
 2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV
contact discharge so why test for it? That is designing for
something that is extremely unlikely at best.
 3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at
all. One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a
current spike at the start of the discharge that is more than
twice as high as the standard specifies! This is very repeatable.


The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over
the years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I
believe engineers get a false sense of security that passing the
test means reliable field performance, not even close!




Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send
your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how
to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bach

Re: [PSES] Resend of complete message on ESD thoughts

[John Woodgate]

Yes, 61000-4-2- is not very good, but while you are reluctant to share 
your knowledge with the committee, it is unlikely that anything will happen.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-03-06 04:14, doug emcesd.com wrote:

Hi All,

I have a few thoughts I would like to share with you on ESD that have 
comes out of my private research into the field in recent years.


 1. A 2kV air discharge can be much more likely to cause equipment
malfunction than any other discharge of any voltage.
 2. There is no natural ESD event comparable to a 15-20+ kV contact
discharge so why test for it? That is designing for something that
is extremely unlikely at best.
 3. The IEC61000-4-2 does not very well model real ESD events at all.
One example, my hand metal discharge at 4 kV results a current
spike at the start of the discharge that is more than twice as
high as the standard specifies! This is very repeatable.


The above is just a sample of the research I have generated over the 
years. Seems like IEC 61000-4-2 needs an urgent overhaul as I believe 
engineers get a false sense of security that passing the test means 
reliable field performance, not even close!





Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Flammability Rating for Plastics V0 vs V1

[John Woodgate]

Yes, 'simply'. It's not good enough, and even with the support of the UK 
National Committee secretary (a graduate chemist), I could not get the 
matter even discussed for IEC 60950 (it was that long ago!). Contrast 
that with the (spurious and misleading) table of electrochemical 
potentials, which has even been copied into IEC 62368-1. There should be 
(yet another) Annex in 62368-1 and other safety standards about the 
issues with named plastics (not three-letter abbreviations!). Properties 
such as dielectric strength, resistance to elevated temperature, 
resistance to UV, and many other properties are not widely known, but 
should be.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-03-03 20:19, Douglas Powell wrote:
I work mainly in electrical safety standards and the term 
polycarbonate is not commonly used. Instead they simply say polymer, 
plastics, or something generic like that.


As for flammable materials, the standards I work with normally require 
94 V-0 for anything in direct contact with high power or high voltage 
conductors.  For indirect contact, they like to see 94 V-2.  
Materials, like insulating tapes and films, also have requirements 
like VTM-0, VTM-1, VTM-2, or foam insulation like HF-1, HF-2, HBF.  So 
there is not a simple answer.


And of course, the caveat is you MUST refer to the safety 
standard that is applicable to your product.


-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)


On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 8:05 PM MIKE SHERMAN  
wrote:


Cecil --

Your inquiry is a bit broad, so it's hard to provide specific
answers.

If the polycarbonate parts are part of electrical equipment, you
should be able to find flammability requirements in the safety
standards used for that equipment in the intended markets.

If the polycarbonate is for use in buildings and is permanent
(e.g., windows), I would expect that there might be some guidance
in local building codes.

If the polycarbonate is used in furnishings (e.g., cashier
shields), I simply don't know. Some things (e.g., sleepware,
furniture) are regulated for flammability, but I don't know if
polycarbonate is.

Lastly, in certain high risk areas (e.g., cleanrooms) insurance
companies might have minimum flammability requirements for plastics.

So "it depends" applies here!   :-)

I hope others on this forum can chip in.

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

On 03/02/2023 8:36 AM cgitt...@rochester.rr.com wrote:


Hi Folks,

I am looking for minimum requirements for flammability ratings
for Polycarbonate plastics for the different countries /regions.

Regards

Cecil
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send
your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how
to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-b

Re: [PSES] Have PSES archives been moved or restricted?

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Lauren. It works for me, but there is a blank 'page' below the 
heading. Did you get a '404' or what?


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2023-01-12 17:14, Lauren Crane wrote:


This statement in the footer of PSES messages does not seem to be true

“All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieee-pses.org%2Femc-pstc.html=05%7C01%7Clauren.crane%40lamresearch.com%7Cbf4615a96cb84c204d3308daa57dd1c4%7C918079dbc9024e29b22c9764410d0375%7C0%7C0%7C638017108009832229%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=dFxFAzUzw12TenAoboAxr0JfWrPE14i3Fd6OFpzHHp0%3D=0>”


Or at least not true for me, today. Are the archives somewhere else now?

Best Regards,

-Lauren


LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, 
(collectively, "E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of 
the following based on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail 
Transmission (i) contains confidential information, (ii) is prohibited 
from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for 
and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are not the 
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or 
attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received 
this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and 
destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading 
them or saving them to disk. Thank you.


Confidential – Limited Access and Use

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

[John Woodgate]

Sorry, a word missing:

, if your best efforts to find a documented rationale to not apply the 
requirement FAIL,


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2022-12-02 21:04, John Woodgate wrote:


Very good advice. There is a 'dumb' fallback, if your best efforts to 
find a documented rationale to not apply the requirement, is to 
consider how much extra it costs to comply with it, compared to the 
cost of trying to find a reason not to comply with it.


For example, I found that replacing the inter-winding insulation in a 
transformer by PET tape, which has a very high dielectric strength, 
met the requirement that I considered unnecessary by a very large 
margin, and incidentally was marginally less costly.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2022-12-02 19:15, Joe Randolph wrote:


Hi Steve:

I work mostly with the 60950-1 and 62368-1 standards for ITE, so I’m 
not familiar with the details of the requirements in 61010-1.


That being said, I’ve seen many cases where someone misinterpreted 
the creepage/clearance/dielectric requirements in 60950-1 and 
62368-1, not realizing that their specific configuration was exempt 
from those requirements.  So, I’d like to have more details on the 
specific requirement that concern you, and the specific circuit where 
you are trying to apply this requirement.


Is the 100 Vdc secondary fully floating with respect to the ground at 
the AC mains, or is it referenced to the AC mains ground?


Does the AC mains connection use an ordinary “Pluggable Type A” plug 
or is it hardwired?


If it uses a Type A plug, does that plug have a ground pin?

These are just some of the factors that can affect how the isolation 
requirements apply to this specific design.


If the AC mains ground is obtained from a grounded Type A plug, there 
is a fault scenario that */might/* be behind the requirement that 
concerns you.  This is case where the presumed ground in the AC 
outlet is missing, or the user has installed a “cheater adapter” to 
convert the 3-prong plug to a 2-prong plug.


In this case the ground node in the equipment becomes a floating 
node, which creates certain potential scenarios that might create the 
need for the requirement that concerns you.


I agree with you that it’s best to always make sure that understand 
the rationale behind any requirement that is giving you trouble.  
Once you know the rationale, you will better understand whether the 
requirement should apply to your specific application.


Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

j...@randolph-telecom.com <mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com>

http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/>

*From:*Steve Brody [mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:51 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

I have a client who has a secondary pwb that has traces and vias that 
may have 100 vdc on them adjacent to ground.


Per 61010-1 there is a requirement for spacing and/or dielectric 
test, both depending on what the mains voltage is.


The question is why is the mains voltage a consideration or concern 
if the 100vdc secondary voltage is several layers of impedance and 
circuitry from the mains?


Is it a concern that a surge on the mains would trickle down to the 
secondary circuit, or is there another reason/rationale?


I suggested that a dielectric test per Table 6 [in A1] would suffice 
and put the issue to rest for this product, but the question from the 
designers remains as to why is it a concern in the standard of what 
the mains voltage is.


Is there anything in the standard, that I haven't found, that does 
not require Table 6 to be followed if there is no way for a mains 
surge to impact the secondary voltage?


I look to the experts for an explanation.

Thanks,

Steve Brody

sgbr...@comcast.net

C - 603 617 9116

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

Fo

Re: [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

[John Woodgate]

Very good advice. There is a 'dumb' fallback, if your best efforts to 
find a documented rationale to not apply the requirement, is to consider 
how much extra it costs to comply with it, compared to the cost of 
trying to find a reason not to comply with it.


For example, I found that replacing the inter-winding insulation in a 
transformer by PET tape, which has a very high dielectric strength, met 
the requirement that I considered unnecessary by a very large margin, 
and incidentally was marginally less costly.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. 
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)



On 2022-12-02 19:15, Joe Randolph wrote:


Hi Steve:

I work mostly with the 60950-1 and 62368-1 standards for ITE, so I’m 
not familiar with the details of the requirements in 61010-1.


That being said, I’ve seen many cases where someone misinterpreted the 
creepage/clearance/dielectric requirements in 60950-1 and 62368-1, not 
realizing that their specific configuration was exempt from those 
requirements.  So, I’d like to have more details on the specific 
requirement that concern you, and the specific circuit where you are 
trying to apply this requirement.


Is the 100 Vdc secondary fully floating with respect to the ground at 
the AC mains, or is it referenced to the AC mains ground?


Does the AC mains connection use an ordinary “Pluggable Type A” plug 
or is it hardwired?


If it uses a Type A plug, does that plug have a ground pin?

These are just some of the factors that can affect how the isolation 
requirements apply to this specific design.


If the AC mains ground is obtained from a grounded Type A plug, there 
is a fault scenario that */might/* be behind the requirement that 
concerns you.  This is case where the presumed ground in the AC outlet 
is missing, or the user has installed a “cheater adapter” to convert 
the 3-prong plug to a 2-prong plug.


In this case the ground node in the equipment becomes a floating node, 
which creates certain potential scenarios that might create the need 
for the requirement that concerns you.


I agree with you that it’s best to always make sure that understand 
the rationale behind any requirement that is giving you trouble.  Once 
you know the rationale, you will better understand whether the 
requirement should apply to your specific application.


Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

j...@randolph-telecom.com <mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com>

http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/>

*From:*Steve Brody [mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:51 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Secondary creepage/clearance

I have a client who has a secondary pwb that has traces and vias that 
may have 100 vdc on them adjacent to ground.


Per 61010-1 there is a requirement for spacing and/or dielectric test, 
both depending on what the mains voltage is.


The question is why is the mains voltage a consideration or concern if 
the 100vdc secondary voltage is several layers of impedance and 
circuitry from the mains?


Is it a concern that a surge on the mains would trickle down to the 
secondary circuit, or is there another reason/rationale?


I suggested that a dielectric test per Table 6 [in A1] would suffice 
and put the issue to rest for this product, but the question from the 
designers remains as to why is it a concern in the standard of what 
the mains voltage is.


Is there anything in the standard, that I haven't found, that does not 
require Table 6 to be followed if there is no way for a mains surge to 
impact the secondary voltage?


I look to the experts for an explanation.

Thanks,

Steve Brody

sgbr...@comcast.net

C - 603 617 9116

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Sa

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Gert. I think the third term should be 'unavoidability', because if 
avoidability were perfect, i.e.  = 1 or 100 %, the risk would be zero.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-10-06 06:58, Gert Gremmen wrote:
A risk analysis (risk = chance*severeness*avoid-ability) 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] List of Common Misuses

[John Woodgate]

It's not being replaced, it has been replaced for more than 40 years, in 
the field of safety of electrical goods. Manufacturers have an 
'unassignable responsibility' to offer only safe products. But, as with 
many other things these days, the matter has been enlarged by relentless 
logic to embrace an infinity of philosophical issues, mostly 
unresolvable. The result is that it is no longer acceptable to say that 
nothing is foolproof because Nature keeps breeding more and more 
ingenious fools, even though it's true.



==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-10-05 21:52, Douglas E Powell wrote:
It may seem cynical but in my view "Caveat emptor" is becoming 
obsolete and it is being replaced by "Caveat-venditor".


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] IEC/EN 62368-1 Test report template

[John Woodgate]

The official one is at: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/68497 It's 
quite costly.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-31 07:50, Amund Westin wrote:


We are considering a review of the standard IEC/EN 62368-1. A test 
report template would be helpful. Anyone who sell such a template?


BR

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[John Woodgate]

Forgot to Reply All

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends





 Forwarded Message 
Subject:Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:07:46 +0100
From:   John Woodgate 
Organisation:   J M Woodgate and Associates
To: Brian Kunde 



In all such cases, the best approach is to draw the schematic. You can 
usually see the current paths quite clearly then.  I can't answer your 
question because I can't visualise the schematic of your set-up. It may 
be that you are measuring the total current in the PEC somehow. What is 
the current rating of the fuse?


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-29 13:41, Brian Kunde wrote:
When I run the Touch Current test and the EUT is not isolated from PE 
when I press the Test Button that opens the PE conductor, the meter on 
the test will max out. Sometimes it will even blow the fuse.  What is 
happening at that point?  Am I reading the Touch Current from every 
piece of equipment in the building?


Thanks,
The Other Brian

On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 6:38 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

I wouldn’t describe the phenomenon as “cancellation.”  The touch
current is always present and must have a path to earth/ground.

The equivalent equipment circuit:

Y1 capacitor L-(line)-to-PE.

Y2 capacitor N-(neutral)-to-PE.  Capacitor value is 25x Y1
capacitor value.

4.6 volts N-to-(grounded)-PE.

In the USA, N is connected to a ground rod at the building service
entrance.  PE is connected to N at the breaker box.  In the
building, PE is parallel to N, but is a non-current-carrying
conductor except in the case of a fault.

The Y1 and Y2 capacitors are in series and comprise a voltage
divider to an open PE.  Because the Y2 capacitor is 25x the Y1
capacitor, the open-circuit voltage at the PE connection is very
low compared the line voltage (instead of the usual half the line
voltage).

Normal condition touch current path is from L to Y1 to PE (open)
to a 2,000-ohm resistor to ground,  Touch current is calculated
using Ohm’s Law from the measured voltage across the 2,000-ohm
resistor. The 2,000-ohm resistor is (in essence) parallel to the
Y2 capacitor.  Some of the L-to-Y1 current (not touch current!)
returns to ground through the Y2-N-ground circuit, depending on
the parallel network of capacitance reactance and the 2,000-ohm
resistor.

Reverse polarity (L and N reversed in the supply to the equipment)
current path is N to Y2 to PE (open) to the 2,000-ohm resistor to
ground.  Because Y2 is 25x Y1, the touch current is much higher
than normal polarity.  As in the normal polarity condition, some
of the current (very small) returns to ground through the Y1
capacitor.

If the Y1 and Y2 capacitors are of equal value, the supply voltage
is 120 volts, and the touch current limit is 0.5 mA, the Y1 and Y2
capacitance reactance is 238,000 ohms each. The Y2 capacitance is
shunted by the 2,000-ohm resistor and can be ignored as the
voltage across the Y2 and 2,000-ohm resistor is 1 volt.  (The
current through the 238,000-ohm reactance is 4.2 microamps.)

We have a parallel circuit to ground from the junction of Y1 and
Y2 when the PE is open and when touch current is being measured. 
One circuit to ground is through the touch current measuring
circuit.  The other circuit to ground (via the N) is through the
Y2 capacitor. If the Y2 reactance is small, a significant N
current can be in that path to ground thereby reducing the touch
current, not a partial cancel of the touch current.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:32 PM
*To:* ri...@ieee.org; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

There is also a question in my mind as to whether there can be
partial cancellation of touch current. I suspect this is highly
improbable in the US, due to the distribution system ensuring that
the neutral has a very low voltage difference from the PEC. But in
Europe, it's not inconceivable that the neutral could be, say, 4.6
V relative to PEC and the neutral-to-PEC capacitance 25 times that
of L to PEC, so that half the L-to-PEC leakage current is
cancelled by the N to PEC current.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends


On 2022-08-25 19:12, Richard Nute wrote:

Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[John Woodgate]

Good point.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-26 17:02, Don Gies wrote:


The cancellation that Mr. Woodgate points out could occur with 
industrial equipment that was powered from North American  120/240 V 
ac, 3-wire single phase or 240 Vac, single phase circuits (where there 
are two line conductors separated in phase by 180 degrees on a 
center-tapped, single-phase distribution transformer) or from 208 Vac, 
single-phase equipment  (where the two line conductors are separated 
in phase by 120 degrees on a 3-phase distribution transformer).


If your market was strictly North America, you might use this to your 
advantage.  It is likely, though, that such equipment is sold on the 
global market, so you might test for touch current with a 230 V, 
single phase input (that is, 230V to earthed neutral).  Then, no such 
cancellation of touch current.


Best regards,

*Don Gies*


Internal

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2022 3:32 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]



There is also a question in my mind as to whether there can be partial 
cancellation of touch current. I suspect this is highly improbable in 
the US, due to the distribution system ensuring that the neutral has a 
very low voltage difference from the PEC. But in Europe, it's not 
inconceivable that the neutral could be, say, 4.6 V relative to PEC 
and the neutral-to-PEC capacitance 25 times that of L to PEC, so that 
half the L-to-PEC leakage current is cancelled by the N to PEC current.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk 
<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woodjohn.uk%2F=05%7C01%7Cdonald.gies%40se.com%7C7046b051e9cd42fd084908da86d07966%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C637970527292966147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=YTPpuf0fmAT3zFhO2daPXwkAknmm000tpUrSpv941i8%3D=0>

Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends

On 2022-08-25 19:12, Richard Nute wrote:

I wish to make two points:

 1. Kirchoff’s Current Law states that the sum of currents
entering a node equals the sum of currents leaving the node. 
The Law applies to summation of leakage (touch) currents
(e.g., through a 2,000-ohm resistor) and to summation of
protective conductor currents (through 0 ohms).  In a power
strip protective grounding conductor, I’m assuming 0 ohms to
ground, so the current is slightly higher (1 to 10 % depending
on the leakage current limit and the voltage you are using) in
the protective grounding conductor than leakage (touch) current.

See IEC 60990 for touch (leakage) current and protective conductor
current measurement procedures.

 2. A GFCI measures the current difference between line and
neutral conductors, not current in the protective conductor. 
It nominally operates at 5 mA.  We assume (with a reasonable
degree of accuracy) that leakage (touch) current is 100% of
the differential current measured by the GFCI.  It is
possible, although unlikely, for some of the GFCI differential
current to find another return path than the protective
grounding conductor.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:* Lfresearch Jose
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
<mailto:00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2022 1:44 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

I have wondered about something similar.

If I use a 6 way power strip, I’m assuming all the leakage
currents for anything plugged in sum. Is that correct? I recall
getting a few trips when I used a power strip and It’s only just
twigged that might be why.

Cheers,

Derek.

Sent from my iPad



On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:27 PM, Brian Kunde
 wrote:



If I have a rake of electrical equipment with a single power
cord and a combined touch current exceeding 6mA, and I plug
the rake into a circuit with a GFCI, will it trip?

Thanks.

The Other Brian

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the we

Re: [PSES] UK Authorised Reresntative

[John Woodgate]

For what products, as explicitly as possible? A 'general-purpose' 
entity, that doesn't understand the product but does understand the fee, 
is a menace. The AR need to know as much as possible (or as the 
manufacturer can afford) about the product.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-25 20:14, Steve Brody wrote:

Hello all,

I have a client who is looking for an entity in the UK they can 
contract with to be their UK AR.


Any suggestions, preferably based on experience?

Thanks,

Steve Brody
sgbr...@comcast.net
C - 603 617 9116
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

[John Woodgate]

There is also a question in my mind as to whether there can be partial 
cancellation of touch current. I suspect this is highly improbable in 
the US, due to the distribution system ensuring that the neutral has a 
very low voltage difference from the PEC. But in Europe, it's not 
inconceivable that the neutral could be, say, 4.6 V relative to PEC and 
the neutral-to-PEC capacitance 25 times that of L to PEC, so that half 
the L-to-PEC leakage current is cancelled by the N to PEC current.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-25 19:12, Richard Nute wrote:


I wish to make two points:

 1. Kirchoff’s Current Law states that the sum of currents entering a
node equals the sum of currents leaving the node.  The Law applies
to summation of leakage (touch) currents (e.g., through a
2,000-ohm resistor) and to summation of protective conductor
currents (through 0 ohms).  In a power strip protective grounding
conductor, I’m assuming 0 ohms to ground, so the current is
slightly higher (1 to 10 % depending on the leakage current limit
and the voltage you are using) in the protective grounding
conductor than leakage (touch) current.

See IEC 60990 for touch (leakage) current and protective conductor 
current measurement procedures.


 2. A GFCI measures the current difference between line and neutral
conductors, not current in the protective conductor.  It nominally
operates at 5 mA.  We assume (with a reasonable degree of
accuracy) that leakage (touch) current is 100% of the differential
current measured by the GFCI.  It is possible, although unlikely,
for some of the GFCI differential current to find another return
path than the protective grounding conductor.

Best regards,

Rich

*From:* Lfresearch Jose 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2022 1:44 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] High Touch Current and GFCIs

I have wondered about something similar.

If I use a 6 way power strip, I’m assuming all the leakage currents 
for anything plugged in sum. Is that correct? I recall getting a few 
trips when I used a power strip and It’s only just twigged that might 
be why.


Cheers,

Derek.

Sent from my iPad



On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:27 PM, Brian Kunde  wrote:



If I have a rake of electrical equipment with a single power cord
and a combined touch current exceeding 6mA, and I plug the rake
into a circuit with a GFCI, will it trip?

Thanks.

The Other Brian

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell 

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



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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instruct

Re: [PSES] Harmonised standards

[John Woodgate]

Method  1 is sensible and not confusing. Method 2 is a product of the 
mentality of the Town Hall clerk, who, having received a certificate 
that a person was alive in September to December 1999, demanded a 
certificate that the person was alive in June to August 1999. I would 
not recommend replacing the + sign by anything else.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
It all depends



On 2022-08-24 20:48, Brian Kunde wrote:
This topic goes a little deeper, I think.  Question being, how are the 
harmonized standards to be listed on your DoC?


It appears to me that the Commission lists standards a couple 
different ways, which adds to the confusion. For example, on the EMCD 
Harmonized Standards list, it shows it one way as:


Method #1
EN 16361:2013+A1:2016

but then for another standard shows it this way:

Method #2
EN 50065-2-1:2003, EN 50065-2-1:2003/A1:2005, EN 50065-2-1:2003/AC:2003

Using the first method, the above could be listed as

Method #1
EN 50065-2-1:2003+AC:2033+A1:2005

I thought we had a discussion a year or so ago where the plus sign "+" 
was to be replaced by the slash "/".  If that is true, then the above 
could be listed as:


Method #3
EN 50065-2-1:2003/AC:2033/A1:2005

But this method could be technically confusing thinking you are using 
only the amendment to show compliance. Yet, we all know what 
this really means, right?.


So, which is correct?  Does it really matter?  Using method #2 above 
is probably the most correct, but it is very long.  I prefer method #1 
or #3 because it is shorter and gets the point across.


Comments?

The Other Brian






On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:59 AM Scott Xe  wrote:

Hi Gert,

Thanks for your useful reply!  The EN 55032 : 2017/A11 : 2020
contains the corrigendum only, no any technical changes.  Does AC
have another condition to qualify for?

Will arrange some time for visiting the CENELEC site.

Best regards,

Scott

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 21:38, Gert Gremmen 
wrote:

Hi Scott,

No only the :

EN 55032 : 2017  is the Harmonised Standard (1 documnet)
EN 55032 : 2017/A11 : 2020  is the (Harmonised) amendment only
(1 dcoument)

Both documents are needed. (did not check the OJ for you)

EN 55032 : 2017+A11 : 2020  is both documents together.

AC stands for Corrigendum, most used for plain error, typos
,wrong
references etc.

There is lots of info on the site of CENELEC on these
subjects. Worth so
spent an afternoon.

Gert Gremmen

On 24-8-2022 15:06, Scott Xe wrote:
> EN 55032 : 2017/A11 : 2020
>
-- 
Independent Expert on CE marking

EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering
Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the
list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

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:
Mike Cantwell 

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



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

[PSES] Trouble with IEEE Xplore

[John Woodgate]

This is off-topic, but I hope that someone who knows more about IEEE can 
help me. I've know for years that I can't even buy a paper from Xplore, 
let alone get one free; it just doesn't work, but today I needed a paper 
so couldn't just give up. I went to the Chat feature and the agent was 
able to buy the paper for me, but could not fix the problem.


What happens is that I sign in, find the paper, click on 'PDF', putting 
the paper in my cart, then I click on the 'Purchase' tab. That takes me 
back to the sign-in page and empties the cart.


Does anyone else have this problem?

--
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Happy New Year 2022

[John Woodgate]

Your seasonal felicitations are cordially reciprocated.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-12-22 18:33, Ruth Shapira wrote:


*Dear friends,***

*From the Holy Land I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 
2022 with good health and accomplishments.***


*Happy New Year 2022!***

**

*With all friendship,***

*Steli***

**

**

**

**

*Steli Loznen*, M.Sc., SM-IEEE

VP for Technical Activities and Member of BoG IEEE-PSES

Convener IEC 62A/MT29+MT 62354

17-3 Shaul HaMelech Blvd.

Tel Aviv 6436719

Israel

Tel:+972-3-6912668

Fax:+972-3-6913988

Mobile:+972-54-4818816

e-mail: *sloz...@ieee.org*

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?

[John Woodgate]

My advice is always cite, because Mr. Militant Customs Man can challenge 
your import because there is no proof on the DoC that you have taken all 
the amendments into account. You don't need to list every amendment; 
'and all amendments up to the date of dispatch' should be enough.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-12-16 20:23, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Doug

It’s not required – the applicable Directive is still 2011/65/EU

2015/863 Directive amended it…….as did 60 or so Commission Delegated 
Directives


Whether you like it or not, declaring compliance to RoHS means that 
you are declaring compliance with RoHS, as amended, with applicable 
permitted exemptions if permitted, at the time of signing.


Lots of people like ask to see it on the DoC, so I agree that it won’t 
hurt, probably isn’t “wrong”, but also is not “required”


You do not however declare compliance to RoHS III (it doesn’t exist)

Best regards

Charlie**

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ *

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 16 December 2021 20:19
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?

It can't hurt to cite it. There are cases where a citation is not 
allowed, but I don't think this is one of them.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque


On 2021-12-16 19:48, Douglas E Powell wrote:

All,

Given that Directive 2011/65/EU has been amended by Directive (EU)
2015/863, is it now necessary to reference the amendment on the
Declaration of Conformity?

This is an amendment to Annex II, and "RoHS III" appears
terminology used by the unwashed masses.

Thoughts?

-Doug

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

doug...@gmail.com <mailto:doug...@gmail.com>

LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>



Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (incl

Re: [PSES] RoHS III references on the DoC?

[John Woodgate]

It can't hurt to cite it. There are cases where a citation is not 
allowed, but I don't think this is one of them.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-12-16 19:48, Douglas E Powell wrote:

All,

Given that Directive 2011/65/EU has been amended by Directive (EU) 
2015/863, is it now necessary to reference the amendment on the 
Declaration of Conformity?


This is an amendment to Annex II, and "RoHS III" appears terminology 
used by the unwashed masses.


Thoughts?

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Nyloc Nuts

[John Woodgate]

The nylon is under hoop stress, causing friction with the stud. Unless 
it softens due to temperature, it remains effective. However, if there 
is any doubt, an all-metal version is available. Do a Web search for 
'all-metal friction nuts'.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-11-15 14:06, Chris Wordley wrote:

Hello

We sometimes come across products that employ a Nyloc nut as the sole 
means of securing (preventing accidental loosening of) a protective 
earth connection on a threaded stud.


I’ve heard various views on the acceptability of this type of 
construction - some consider it OK provided the temperature is not 
high enough to cause the nylon insert to soften, others think that a 
separate spring/serrated washer is required since the nylon cannot be 
depended on in the longer term.


I’d be interested to hear the views of others, particularly any CB or 
similar labs. I failed to uncover any IECEE decisions on this subject.


Best Regards

Chris

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Filter Issues [General Use]

[John Woodgate]

The filter is probably designed for 50Hz or 60 Hz mains. It probably 
isn't saturating at a higher input frequency, but your voltage 
measurements indicate that it may be resonating. I think you need a 
filter specifically designed for 400 Hz mains.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-10-27 10:56, Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK) wrote:


Hi members

Can anyone offer some advice.

Have issues with EMC Chamber RF Filter 3 phase.

Using 115V 400Hz single phase supply from a static convertor, filter 
looks like it is saturating.


Ambient levels failing between 6kHz to 150kHz.

Voltage of phase at static convertor 115.8Vrms but at EUT on bench 132Vrms

Regards

Andy

*Andrew Price*
Integrated Sensing & Protection (ISP)

Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)

 Leonardo UK
 Sigma House,

 Christopher Martin Rd,

 Basildon

 SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308

Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888

_andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com 
<mailto:andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com>_


leonardocomapany.com

HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS 
/ SPACE


P /Please consider the environment before printing this email./

Leonardo UK Ltd

Registered Office: 1 Eagle Place, St James’s, London SW1Y 6AF

A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132



This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended

recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended

recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.

You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or

distribute its contents to any other person.



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-3:2017 evaluation of USB 2.0 ports

[John Woodgate]

Hi, Pete. Isn't Charlie's option to say, with test results, that if he 
plugs his product into a USBzilla source, it still remains safe under 
any single-fault condition?


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-10-20 19:52, Pete Perkins wrote:


Charlie,    Remember that 62368-3 was developed at the 
direction of ACOS to move the powered communication interfaces info 
from the 62368-1 base standard to a separate document that would be 
available for use outside of 62368-1.  The goal is to move this from 
the Wild West into an orderly set of requirements that any product 
standard can use.


   You claim that for the ‘simple circuit’ you mentioned 
the limited power is safe as you see it.  How does the user know if 
that simple solution is implemented in any particular product and that 
it is safe?


   The 62368-3 standard itself seems limiting so the 
requirements are being rewritten into 2 new documents which will be 
more tailored to the two realms under which these circuits work, 
<60Vdc and >60Vdc. TC108 has this work underway.


   Whether or not any of this is required is a matter for 
product committees to specify and test labs to check.


   Whether you want to use the requirements or not come 
down to your understanding of the risk associated with the use (and 
misuse) of products providing power over these communication 
interfaces and/or having them specified in a mother standard.


:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

www.researchgate.net <http://www.researchgate.net/Peter%20Perkins> 
search my name


p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

*From:* Charlie Blackham 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:12 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] IEC 62368-3:2017 evaluation of USB 2.0 ports

All

I realise there are now applications where 100W or more can be 
transferred, but for devices with only USB2.0 ports, that are coming 
from the same chip, is there really any need for testing and CB 
certification to this standard as part of an assessment to IEC 62368-1?


The particular products I’m looking at are powered from external 5V 
LPS power supplies that shutdown at around 4.5 A


I may just be being cynical, but I can’t see how the -3 standard makes 
such a product any safer, it just seems to make the test lab richer 


Is there something in the CB scheme rules that mandates using the -3 
standard as well when seeking CB certificate?


Best regards

Charlie

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Mead House*

*Longwater Road*

*Eversley*

*RG27 0NW*

*UK*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com 
<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>*


*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html


Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities 
site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for 
graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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



--
This

Re: [PSES] Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health?

[John Woodgate]

Well, the abstract contains no information on the EMF strengths that are 
said to cause unwanted effects and trashes one study that found no 
significant effect. I can't help feeling that the huge field experiment 
of millions using Wi-Fi has to be taken into account.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-10-17 02:03, 058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org wrote:

Hi John,

Here is one such paper of Dr. Pall published July 2018:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355#t0005


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[John Woodgate]

I think it's not safe to generalize. Attitudes and forethought vary so 
much among designers. For me, whatever automated safety measures are 
provided, there must be 'last chance' protection in hardware, such as 
fuses.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-09-03 15:00, Douglas E Powell wrote:
In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much 
on technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking 
for an open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store 
for us in the future.





--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Climatic conditions for ESD testing

[John Woodgate]

That explains it: they want to be able to do the tests in La Paz. (;-)

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-07-29 17:49, Charlie Blackham wrote:


EN 61000-4-2 specifies a minimum air pressure of 860 mbar but,

  * 920 mbar is the centre of a cat 5 hurricane at sea level
  * 860 mbar is about 4500m above sea level

Hardly the most rigorous set of criteria ever written into a standard 

Best regards

Charlie**

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ <https://sulisconsultants.com/> *

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247





--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Climatic conditions for ESD testing

[John Woodgate]

They did it because the motor industry wants to have all its standards 
in ISO (obviously they have thousands of mechanical standards), not IEC, 
and wants full control over them.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-07-29 17:32, Pete Perkins wrote:
Specifically for this case; why did the committee write another 
standard that seems to cover the same ground as a base standard IEC 
61000-4-2? Wot’s the rationale for this additional standard? 



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John Woodgate]

Everyone has a choice.

==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-06-04 20:40, john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:


No way will I be “going back to contracting”  - 6 yrs away from all 
that hassle has convinced me that it wouldn’t be worth all the hassle 
& stress (had quite enough of that whilst I was working - contract or 
not!), especially now that the UK tax regs on contract work have 
become more complex & difficult to “navigate”. ☹


OTOH, I thought I’d deleted my LinkedIn a/c but I still get a few “job 
opportunities” flagged up by various agencies which got my contact 
details from that site – seems that deleting those a/c’s is 
considerably more “difficult” than it should be ☹.


John E Allen

W.London, UK

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 04 June 2021 19:56
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of 
products pass first time?


Don't assume. I've just been hired at 83.5 years old. Not a long-term 
hire, nor well paid, but every little helps.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk <http://www.woodjohn.uk>
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque


On 2021-06-04 18:54, Cortland Richmond wrote:

I retried to a few years working on contracts, and I doubt I'll be
working again at 77 -- but it was FUN.

Image removed by sender. 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>




Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>


-


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
<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/ 
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <http://www.ieee-pses.org/>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>


For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] What percentage of products pass first time?

[John Woodgate]

Don't assume. I've just been hired at 83.5 years old. Not a long-term 
hire, nor well paid, but every little helps.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-06-04 18:54, Cortland Richmond wrote:
I retried to a few years working on contracts, and I doubt I'll be 
working again at 77 -- but it was FUN.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Australia: IEC 62368-1 or IEC 61010-1 for controller with radio

[John Woodgate]

I think that an industrial controller might have high-current power 
circuits, but 62368-1 doesn't cover securing high-current cables against 
movement due to magnetic forces under fault conditions.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-05-25 12:57, Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) wrote:


Thank you all

The summary is that as AS/NZS 62368-1 is a standard defined by ACMA 
for radio equipment, we will test for this standard, additionally 
tested for EN 61010-1


/Telecommunications (Customer Equipment Safety) Technical Standard 
2018 (legislation.gov.au) 
<https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01725/Explanatory%20Statement/Text>///


Perhaps in the future it will good to test an industrial controller 
with radio communication only for EN 62368-1 as a safety standard. Any 
one has a concern about this?


Thank you

Kind Regards / Saludos cordiales / Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Daniel Rodríguez

*From:*Pete Perkins 
*Sent:* Tuesday, 11 May 2021 18:41
*To:* Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) ; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* RE: [PSES] Australia: IEC 62368-1 or IEC 61010-1 for 
controller with radio


*Caution:*This email message originated from outside of the 
organization. *DO NOT CLICK* on links or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you think it is 
suspicious, please *report as suspicious*.




Daniel, The world gets more complicated by the day.  This is both the 
exciting technologically challenging part of this work as well as the 
difficult, slogging regulatory stuff, too.


Historically, 40 years ago,  61010 & 60950 (now 62368) were designed 
by folks working in overlapping businesses who understood that these 
two standards were aimed at providing safe electronic equipment 
(contrasted to electrical equipment).  61010 for commercial and 
industrial electronic equipment and 60950/62368 for consumer & 
commercial electronic equipment.  The products used the same 
components and techniques in the design for products so the 
requirements needed to be the same.  At the time there was 
consideration of making this one standard for all this equipment but 
this was a bridge too far.


Today, electronics have been incorporated in many products, the term 
IoT (Internet of Things) describes this phenomenon well.


Now this leaves us with a couple of choices; everything electronic 
goes into one or two standards or electronic devices are accepted in 
all product standards.  For the latter there has to be consideration 
as to the additional issues arising from the electronic portions, 
including the radio.


I believe that the there needs to be the latitude to include complex 
digital electronic systems in any product.  in addition to the usual 
electronic controls and displays used, electronic motor controllers 
(VSDs) are becoming more popular in consumer equipment.  If the 
product standards are too slow to incorporate the needed safeguards 
for these electronic systems then it is not unreasonable to apply 
other requirements for them (think 61010 or 62368) but this should be 
the exception. I would believe.  This is a messy solution tho.


I have worked on a ‘smart Relocatable Power Tap’, an IoT combination 
which was to be certified to North American and European CB safety 
standards (specific outlet sockets for each market).  There was 
considerable negotiation with the safety test lab to get them to 
cooperate between their internal groups on the evaluation and ensure 
that any needed test was only run once.  The project covered the power 
delivery requirements as well as the electronic systems (including the 
radio) and, altho complex, went pretty well after that.


The EMC evaluation was straightforward, the RED evaluation was 
comprehensive covering all the needed requirements.


It would seem to me that you have properly evaluated your device and 
the radio requirements should not bring about a separate evaluation.  
Are you prepared to defend your position in that regard?


In your Australian case, this can only be clarified by the AU 
authorities who need to explain what they mean by the requirement.


Perhaps, when this is resolved, you can provide all of us with an 
update as to how it is resolved.


:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 1067

Albany, ORe  97321-0413

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

IEEE PSES 2020 Distinguished Lecturer

www.researchgate.net 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.researchgate.net/Peter*20Perkins__;JQ!!Nkc5UzxO!5m4dnnKjhkYxYqcb25E-Z6vctcA6RodTfmkGnesK0J3QeFIQCK334y_i0k4366mR$> 
search my name


p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

Entropy ain’t what it used to be

*From:*Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP) 
<123de38bd494-dmar

[PSES] ENs notified in the OJEC are legal documents

[John Woodgate]

Does anyone have the exact wording of the European Court decision given 
in the Subject line above?


--
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Et ita istae praeteribunt
Who is Percy Verence and has he been tested for Covid?




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Energy efficiency for power supplies...

[John Woodgate]

The requirements were negotiated between EC-hired consultants and 
industry stakeholders. Or so I was assured.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK

"A nation once again" (with apologies to Eire)
People have to be told in stark terms that they can disobey the Covid 
rules at the risk of their own lives,
but disobeying at the risk of others' lives is no less than a crime 
against humanity.

On 2021-01-21 15:08, Matthew Wilson | GBE wrote:
EU 2019/1782 is the ecodesign requirements for external power 
supplies, i.e. their efficiency, for Directive 2009/125/EC. Someone 
asked me how the formula in 1(b) of Annex II of the EU 2019/1782 
regulation was decided upon. This table sets out the determination of 
'average active efficiency'. I don't know the answer to where all that 
came from. So I thought posting here might bring some enlightenment?


The regulation in all its glory is here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2019.272.01.0095.01.ENG=OJ%3AL%3A2019%3A272%3ATOC

Thanks & kind regards,


Disclaimer:​This email and any files transmitted with it are 
confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in 
error please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the 
information in any way and notify the sender immediately. The contents 
of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of 
the company, unless specifically stated.


​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales 
under number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By 
Sea, West Sussex, BN12 4QY.


-


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
<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/ 
<http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> can be used for graphics (in 
well-used formats), large files, etc.


Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <http://www.ieee-pses.org/>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html>


For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] EMC for induction cookers

[John Woodgate]

Is anyone involved with induction cookers willing to discuss EMC in the 
context of CISPR14-1? On-list or off-list.


--
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Small loop antenna

[John Woodgate]

Thank you very much.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-07-13 15:03, Larry K. Stillings wrote:


John,

ETS Lindgren has some smaller loop antennas in their product line.

http://www.ets-lindgren.com/products/antennas/loops

Schwarzbeck has some options as well

http://schwarzbeck.de/en/antennas/loop-antennas.html

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
*/Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!/*
*/FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - 
Product Safety/*

357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887 6445
complianceworldwide.com <https://complianceworldwide.com/>

*Follow us on social media*

linkedin.com/company/compliance-worldwide-inc twitter.com/complianceww

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. 
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible 
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or 
deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this 
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise 
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email 
for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information 
in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm 
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.


*From:* John Woodgate
*Sent:* Saturday, July 11, 2020 9:26 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Small loop antenna

Does anyone know of a commercially-available small loop antenna (4.3.2 
of CISPR 16-1-4) that isn't a 60 cm diameter circle?


--
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH 
YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus


<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>



Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



-


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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html 
<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/ 
<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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help,

[PSES] Small loop antenna

[John Woodgate]

Does anyone know of a commercially-available small loop antenna (4.3.2 
of CISPR 16-1-4) that isn't a 60 cm diameter circle?


--
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] IEEE 291

[John Woodgate]

Two questions:

1. Can an IEEE member get to see IEEE 291, even if it's only 'read 
only', free of charge?


2. Is its contents superseded by part of IEEE C63.4-2014?


--
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Can the previous version of a Normative Reference be used if newest version is too new?

[John Woodgate]

That's the big trouble with undated references. It's good that the EC 
lawyers insist on dated references. Incredibly, even the 2019 edition 
with the latest amendment still includes undated references, including 
60086-4.  The EC will not accept the standard in that condition for 
notification in the OJ.


What you can do is explain in your Assessment that you cannot apply the 
2019 edition because no conforming parts are available, so you have used 
parts conforming to the 2014 edition. You can also state (if it's true) 
that you have compared the two editions and none of the changes affect 
your use of the part.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-06-01 16:40, Kevin McCandless wrote:


Hello Colleagues,

We have a handheld device that is being tested for IEC 62368-1:2014 
compliance.


The NRTL we are using is stating that our battery (CR2450N) has to be 
tested and certified to IEC 60086-4.


In IEC 62368-1:2014, IEC 60086-4 is an undated Normative Reference. So 
you must use the latest edition.


Currently, the latest edition is IEC 60086-4:2019 and is available as 
a Redline version.


So far we cannot find a vendor that is certified to this newly 
released standard The best we have found is Renata, who states they 
are estimating compliance to the 2019 version by the end of Q3.


Are we forced to sit and hold our product's certification and release 
because no battery vendors are certified to this newly released standard?


Or, is there a Start Date of PoC and DoW equivalent scenario where we 
can finish our certification using a battery that is compliant to the 
previous version of the Normative Reference?


Thank you very much for your time, experience and wisdom in these matters.

Best regards,



Kevin McCandless   |   Schneider Electric   |   Regulatory Engineer

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] marking of rated voltages

[John Woodgate]

It looks like a dreadful mess. Concerning the shellfish question below,  
if 61293 is normatively referenced in any product safety standard, then 
it must be applied. This dot triad '...' is an old German way of 
signifying 'to'. What the commas are supposed to be for, I cannot imagine.


The revision was produced by IEC committee TC3. TC3 documents are 
studied by national committees that often have very little or no liaison 
with their own product committees. I wonder if TC3 consulted any product 
safety committees.



Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-05-22 17:56, Brian Kunde wrote:

what mussel does it have to force the world to follow it?


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] New RoHS Directive list Harmonised Standard

[John Woodgate]

Short notice of withdrawal - only about 18 months.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-05-22 14:44, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/659 
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020D0659>: 
EN IEC 63000:2018 is listed and EN 50581:2012 will be withdrawn on 18 
November 2021


Best regards

Charlie

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Mead House*

*Longwater Road*

*Eversley*

*RG27 0NW*

*UK*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com 
<mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>*


*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ *

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] CU TR 020/2011 (Russia+) Non-Residential EMC Exemption?

[John Woodgate]

It looks very much to me that 'consumer' is a synonym of 'user' in 
general, not restricted to 'home user'.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-05-20 12:36, Carl Newton wrote:


I've been going back-and-forth with a large International GMA source 
over whether the Customs Union EMC Technical Regulation TR 020/2011 
only applies to "consumers".  I have the English translation of that 
regulation which was issued by Bellis from Belarus and it states the 
following under the DEFINITIONS heading:


/"This technical regulation of the Customs Union, the following terms 
and their definitions: apparatus - structurally completed technical 
means available to the body (shell) and, if necessary, the devices 
(ports) for external connections, designed for the consumer (user)"/


I believe that the fundamental question concerns the definition of 
"consumer" within the regulation.  Typically within western nations 
the term "consumer" applies to residential applications, not 
commercial/professional/industrial.  Can anyone on this list help with 
this understanding?


Thanks in advance,

Carl


-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Acceptor & Rejector Circuits

[John Woodgate]

The only thing I can tell you is that I remember seeing these terms in a 
textbook dating from the 1920s. Such books are very likely to be still 
in libraries in the Indian subcontinent. Indeed, some of them include 
information that is still valuable, or at least interesting, today and 
not found elsewhere. For example, another ancient textbook (I can't 
remember the title) describes an air-cored inductor of 1 henry with a 
resistance of 1 ohm. Easily simulated in Spice, but requires a small 
building to house it in real life.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU dum nisi ex silvis sumus

On 2020-05-20 12:07, Edward Price wrote:


*An Etymological Diversion:*

**

*I was recently following a conversation which involved mention of the 
design of Acceptor & Rejector circuits. I soon realized that these 
terms actually referred to Series and Parallel resonant circuits (the 
names obviously describing the input currents at resonance). While I 
can see that these terms might helpful to a new student (perhaps more 
accurate than thinking of water sloshing back and forth in a “tank” 
circuit and intuitively simpler than the math of Impedance),*


**

*I wondered about the origin of these terms. From what I can tell, 
these idiosyncratic terms seem to be favored by South Asians (Indians 
& Pakistanis); can anyone cite the date and origin of Acceptor & 
Rejector? Are these terms recognized in the IEEE’s dictionary?*


**

*/Ed Price
/**WB6WSN**/
/**Chula Vista, CA USA*

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John Woodgate]

Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? 
I might be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:


IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too 
many times – which was why I “dissected” several standards (notably 
60950, 60204 and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various 
cross-references, and then documented and worded them in a form that 
would allow your (“average” in safety compliance issues but otherwise 
very competent!) development engineers to understand and then meet the 
 requirements of the standards in question.


Great pity that the IEC tech committees /never /seem to do the thing - 
but, if they did then their standards and Technical Report formats 
would be far more easily and clearly understood by /_everyone_/_!_


__

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* 06 May 2020 19:45
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. 
It is extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of 
forward and back cross references, and text pushed off from its 
primary context to multiple annexes, to ensure internal consistency.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
<http://www.woodjohn.uk> Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU


On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind
62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the
2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states
that, "/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by
applying all of the following supplementary safeguards/:".  In
that clause it includes, "/by providing a fire enclosure as
specified in 6.4.8./"

Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states
"/For circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W
(see 6.4.1), a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements
of Clause S.1./"  That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is
acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the
application of the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less
demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied rather than three
steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then
goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the
requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 6.4.8.4 (which
addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame requirement than
S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.

I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The
most fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4
allow the S.2 test method?

Thanks,

Carl

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

[John Woodgate]

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It 
is extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and 
back cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to 
multiple annexes, to ensure internal consistency.


Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk 
Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:


I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 
62368-1,  in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 
edition.


Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, 
"/Fire spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of 
the following supplementary safeguards/:". In that clause it includes, 
"/by providing a fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8./"


Clause 6.4.8.2.2, /Requirements for a fire enclosure/, states "/For 
circuits where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 
6.4.1), a fire enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause 
S.1./"  That clause then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable


Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire 
enclosure and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of 
the S.2 flame test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 
60 s flame is applied rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 
test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4 then goes on to state that a V-0 material 
is excluded from the requirement.  So unless I'm mistaken, this clause 
6.4.8.4 (which addresses separation) is requiring a lesser flame 
requirement than S.1, yet goes on to exclude V-0, but not V-1.


I don't see the rationale.  I must be missing something here. The most 
fundamental question in my mind here is why does 6.8.8.4 allow the S.2 
test method?


Thanks,

Carl

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] ESD - Floating metal knob, otherwise grounded equipment

[John Woodgate]

See 7.2.4.1 of the standard ( my bold text):

Rationale: Ungrounded equipment, or*ungrounded part(s) of equipment,* 
cannot discharge
itself similarly to class I mains-supplied equipment. If the charge is 
not removed before the
next ESD pulse is applied, it is possible that the EUT or part(s) of the 
EUT be stressed up to
twice the intended test voltage. Therefore, this type of equipment or 
equipment parts could be
charged at an unrealistically high charge, by accumulating several ESD 
discharges on the
capacitance of the class II insulation, and then discharge at the 
breakdown voltage of the

insulation with a much higher energy.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2020-03-12 15:53, Elliott Martinson wrote:


Hi Everybody,

We’re having some disagreements regarding the 61000-4-2 standard. In 
the section “ungrounded equipment”, it states that ungrounded 
equipment or part(s) of equipment shall have the charge removed in 
between ESD pulses in order to not over-test.


We have a product that only fails pre-compliance when repeated ESD 
pulses are applied to a floating metal knob without removing the 
charge in between (eventually there is a second discharge between the 
knob and the enclosure). The product as a whole is “grounded equipment”.


Since the issue only happens when the charge isn’t removed in between 
pulses, is this a pass or a fail?


Thanks,

Elliott Martinson

Controls Engineer

Sub-Zero/Wolf

elliott.martin...@subzero.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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-amps

[John Woodgate]

Thank you very much.

Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2020-02-19 12:20, Gert Gremmen wrote:


Basically any connection to an opamp can create unwanted susceptibility.

So a small cap to ground preceded by a suitable impedance for the 
frequencies to be suppressed


will do the job.

What pins ?

Those that have a substantial length (compared to wavelength) on PCB 
(or off PCB).


By placing impedance in series with each input/output/supply the 
effects will already greatly be reduced.


Do not rely on feedback mechanism for this so the 47 pF will do a 
great job until the max freq of the opamp is exceeded.


Gert Gremmen


On 19-2-2020 13:11, John Woodgate wrote:


I see two apparent ways of keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-amps:

- 10 pF between + and - inputs;

- 47 pF (or similar) from output to inverting input.

Which is usually more effective? I suspect that the first one is, but 
I see it less often.

--
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>


--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] Keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-amps

[John Woodgate]

I see two apparent ways of keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-amps:

- 10 pF between + and - inputs;

- 47 pF (or similar) from output to inverting input.

Which is usually more effective? I suspect that the first one is, but I 
see it less often.


--
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] Test please ignore

[John Woodgate]

Please ignore


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] Keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-maps

[John Woodgate]

I see two apparent ways of keeping cellphone noise out of audio op-amps:

- 10 pF between + and - inputs;

- 47 pF (or similar) from output to inverting input.

Which is usually more effective? I suspect that the first one is, but I 
see it less often.



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion 
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Post Brexit Day Jan 31 2020, where is UK going with CE mark?

[John Woodgate]

No change likely until January 2021, and probably not then. It probably 
wouldn't be in UK interest to be unnecessarily difficult about EU 
requirements.


On 2020-02-13 21:22, Rick Linford wrote:


Not seeing update for several months, now post Brexit; Does anyone 
have insight how long the CE will be accepted for UK compliance of 
ITE? Will other mark be required?


Thank you in advance.

Rick Linford

-


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 mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] PCB layout technique - multilayer

[John Woodgate]

Look for books and other publications by Keith Armstrong, and others by 
Tim Williams.


On 2020-02-10 07:27, Amund Westin wrote:


I’m looking for articles about how to do good EMC layout on multilayer 
PCB.


Choice of PCB layer stacking (8 or 10 layers) and basic routing 
techniques are the issues of most importance right now.


Appreciate if you have some experience about good or bad layer stacking.

Thanks!

Best regards

Amund

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your 
e-mail to mailto: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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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