[PSES] Seeking semi-rigid N cables for a HP/Agilent/Keysight 8546A EMI receiver

[Sykes, Bob]

I am trying to locate replacement semi-rigid cables cables for my old HP 8546A 
EMI Receiver.  The HP/Agilent/Keysight part number is 85460-20036 but are no 
longer available from any source that I can find.  These are the (3) cables 
with type N connectors joining the EMI receiver (top box) to the RF 
Pre-Selector section.  They are about 5 inches long in a semi-circular shape.

My last resort would be to have some made, but I thought I would ask here in 
case someone knows of a source for these or other instruments that might use 
these same cables.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces? - Thanks

[Sykes, Bob]

Thanks to all who replied publicly and privately to my question on ESD to metal 
surfaces with non-paint coatings.  It seems everyone agrees to treat them the 
same as paint.

As Brian points out, the Standard I'm looking at (BS EN 61000-4-2:2009) is a 
bit fuzzy using the term "paint" then switching to "coating".

So now I'm just left with a rhetorical question.  Has anyone heard such a 
declaration from a manufacturer?  In my decades of EMC work, I have not.

Thanks again,
Bob


From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal 
surfaces?

The standard I have says this in section 8. 3. 2: "In the case of painted 
surfaces covering a conducting substrate, the following procedure shall be 
adopted: If the coating is not declared to be an insulating coating by the 
equipment manufacturer,

The standard I have says this in section 8.3.2:

"In the case of painted surfaces covering a conducting substrate, the following 
procedure shall be adopted:

If the coating is not declared to be an insulating coating by the equipment 
manufacturer, then the pointed tip of the generator shall penetrate the coating 
so as to make contact with the conducting substrate. Coating declared as 
insulating by the manufacturer shall only be submitted to the air discharge. 
The contact discharge test shall not be applied to such surfaces.

In the case of air discharges, the ESD generator shall approach the EUT as fast 
as possible until contact between the electrode and the EUT is made (without 
causing mechanical damage). After each discharge, the ESD generator (discharge 
electrode) shall be removed from the EUT. The generator is then retriggered for 
a new single discharge. This procedure shall be repeated until the discharges 
are completed. In the case of an air discharge test, the discharge switch, 
which is used for contact discharge, shall be closed."

The standard probably should not call out "painted" but worded in a way that 
would include all types of coatings.  Maybe the newer versions of the standard 
clarifies this.

The Other Brian

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:13 PM Brent DeWitt 
mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
I believe the language said something like: "the contact discharge tip shall be 
applied to any coating not expressly declared as insulative"

Could be wrong though.

Brent DeWitt
Milford, MA
On 9/18/2023 7:39 PM, Ken Wyatt wrote:
Always had the impression the sharp end of the CD tip was designed to punch 
through any coated metal.
Kenneth Wyatt
Woodland Park, CO
Sent from my iPhone.


On Sep 18, 2023, at 09:48, Sykes, Bob 
<mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com> wrote:

Worldly Experts,

I have a question regarding the suitability of contact mode ESD testing to 
plated metal surfaces.  I understand the wording in IEC 61000-4-2 regarding 
painted and bare metal.  Does the same logic used for painted metal surfaces 
also apply to other coatings (anodized, plated, passivated etc.)?  These are 
not addressed in the Standard.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes




Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.



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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!O0RzmI-5FnBA4YlbU-yYDqxEB35OLspWv9sJcph2dGRZ8vpUVCY3HTWF5F_hoeBnNO0Z-Xgml8IuteSeZaPBdA$>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!O0RzmI-5FnBA4YlbU-yYDqxEB35OLspWv9sJcph2dGRZ8vpUVCY3HTWF5F_hoeBnNO0Z-Xgml8IuteQZOpwujw$>
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!O0RzmI-5FnBA4YlbU-yYDqxEB35OLspWv9sJcph2dGRZ8vpUVCY3HTWF5F_hoeBnNO0Z-Xgml8IuteTp34Drcw$>
List rules: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!O0RzmI-5FnBA4YlbU-yYDqxEB35OLspWv9sJcph2dGRZ8vpUVCY3HTWF5F_hoeBnNO0Z-Xgml8IuteRCGbpUvA$>

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

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



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click 

[PSES] ESD testing - Contact Mode to plated metal surfaces?

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I have a question regarding the suitability of contact mode ESD testing to 
plated metal surfaces.  I understand the wording in IEC 61000-4-2 regarding 
painted and bare metal.  Does the same logic used for painted metal surfaces 
also apply to other coatings (anodized, plated, passivated etc.)?  These are 
not addressed in the Standard.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes




Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] RE: [PSES] FCC requirements for in-home BPL devies?

[Sykes, Bob]

Hello Ghery,

Thank you for the background information.  It is very useful to me and I 
appreciate it, as well as the challenges faced by the ham community.  I have 
read some very interesting comments from ARRL in my hunting and gathering.  
With HomePlug AV extending up to 80 MHz, things aren’t getting easier.

I will probably have to query the OET, and suspect some in-situ testing is in 
my future 

Thanks again,
Bob Sykes


From: n6...@comcast.net 
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Sykes, Bob ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [PSES] FCC requirements for in-home BPL devies?


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


Bob,

IIRC (it’s been many years since I dealt with these) in-home BPL devices are 
considered to  be “carrier current” devices by the FCC.  I didn’t work for a 
manufacturer of such devices, but I was (and still am) involved in the EMC 
standards writing business.  As a carrier current device Home Plug 1.0 (and 
probably later) devices were subject to a radiated emissions limit of 30 dBuV/m 
at 30 meters.  The Home Plug Alliance took 25 representative homes and found 
the maximum drive level that they could use and still comply with this limit.  
They then worked with the ARRL and notched out the use of the amateur radio 
bands as they figured that the majority of people in the US who would suffer 
interference and do something about it were hams.  Home Plug 1.0 ran from 7 MHz 
to 22 MHz.  I tested some devices for compliance with the FCC and CISPR 22 (at 
the time) limits for conducted emissions from 150 kHz to 30 MHz.  In the ham 
bands (where they were notched) they met the Class B limits.  Outside the ham 
bands they were 25 to 30 dB above the Class B limits.  So I took a pair of them 
home and compared then against my HF station.  I was running a random length 
end-fed wire antenna with the feed point about 10 feet or so from the corner of 
my office (and ham shack) at the time, so I figured that if anyone was going to 
suffer interference, it was me.  One unit was located adjacent to the ham 
station and the other was somewhere else in the house.  In the ham bands I 
couldn’t tell it was operating.  Outside the ham hands it was on the air, 
everywhere.  It obliterated everything.  WWV, international shortwave 
broadcasters, everything.  That told me that the FCC and CISPR 22 (now 32) 
Class B limits were plenty adequate but 25 to 30 dB above those limits was 
unacceptable.  You won’t find a BPL device in my home because of these 
experiments done many years ago.

I’m sorry this didn’t answer your question, but I thought some historical 
information would be useful (like how the Home Plug 1.0 drive levels were 
derived).  I would recommend that you check the FCC Rules to see how carrier 
current devices are to be tested, check the KDB for any opinions or useful 
information that the FCC might provide on tis and finally, check with the FCC 
lab people with any questions that you might have afterwards.

Ghery S. Pettit, iNCE


From: Sykes, Bob mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 8:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] FCC requirements for in-home BPL devies?

Worldly Experts,

I am seeking information on Regulations and Test Methods for in-home Powerline 
Communication devices (Broadband over Powerline).  Primary interest is U.S. 
(FCC) emissions.
The requirements for Access BPL (as defined in FCC Part 15.3(t)) are well 
defined in 15.601, but for in-home BPL “homePlug” (as defined in 15.3(gg)) they 
seem less clear.
Does anyone have any experience/information with in-home BPL approvals, 
particularly test methods/setup, that they can share?  I have read FCC 11-160 
Appendix D.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes
Frustrated EMC Engineer



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.
-


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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!eugP8ZvTgv19A_gSRFgZrVlIKolJ8wsWgQajPu0jwIviryzRS-FkrSrKJAKkF9FzOg$>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/__;!!IJTm5Pv7pnzb!eugP8ZvTgv19A_gSRFgZrVlIKolJ8wsWgQajPu0jwIviryzRS-FkrSrKJALhaRni6A$>
 can be used for graphics

[PSES] FCC requirements for in-home BPL devies?

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I am seeking information on Regulations and Test Methods for in-home Powerline 
Communication devices (Broadband over Powerline).  Primary interest is U.S. 
(FCC) emissions.
The requirements for Access BPL (as defined in FCC Part 15.3(t)) are well 
defined in 15.601, but for in-home BPL "homePlug" (as defined in 15.3(gg)) they 
seem less clear.
Does anyone have any experience/information with in-home BPL approvals, 
particularly test methods/setup, that they can share?  I have read FCC 11-160 
Appendix D.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes
Frustrated EMC Engineer



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] Keytek EMC Pro direct surge output question

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I've been asked to perform data-line surge testing on shielded cables per EN 
61000-4-5 (para. 7.6)

My question is:  Does anyone know if the Keytek EMC Pro surge generator has the 
18uF capacitor (referenced in para 7.6 and 6.2.3 of the standard) built into 
the internal CDN?
This is the first time I have attempted this test.  The EMC Pro manual has 
little details on this and Keytek (the company) is long gone.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] Need help repairing log-spiral antenna

[Sykes, Bob]

I have a 3101 I purchased in the early '80s.  There are no visible fasteners 
holding the back on.  Can send pictures If needed.

-Bob Sykes

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 6:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Need help repairing log-spiral antenna


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


My employer back in the 70's and '80s had all three: EMCO 3101 uhf, EMCO 3102, 
uwave and the EMCO 3103 big uhf, but I honestly don't recall the details of the 
3103 construction down to the appropriate level of detail...

The back does set flush with the base of the cone.  The question is what holds 
it there...

Also the base is phenolic and the cone is fiberglass.  Any adhesive experts out 
there with a recommendation for the proper glue?

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: Ken Wyatt 
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:22:30 -0700
To: Ken Javor 
Cc: "EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org" 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Need help repairing log-spiral antenna

Hi Ken,

We used one of these (I believe from EMCO) back when I started with HP in the 
late 1980s. It sure seemed to me it was just glued, as I don't recall any 
fasteners. The joint seemed to be flush with the cone. It's long gone, so no 
pictures.

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

Phone: (719) 310-5418

Web Site 
>
  | Blog 
>
The EMC Blog (EDN) 
>
Subscribe to Newsletter 
>
Connect with me on LinkedIn 
>
On Dec 9, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:

Need help repairing log-spiral antenna
List Members with an EMI test facility,

Recently purchased subject antenna, which is damaged.

See attached image.  Tensor made the EMCO log-spirals before EMCO acquired 
them, way back. I had an opportunity to buy the antenna in the image, and it is 
the same as an EMCO 3103.  Unfortunately, they packed it up like it was 
indestructible, and it wasn't - the box was intact, but the antenna within had 
come apart as can be seen.  The back plate was originally glued in, but there 
are also holes for fasteners, visible in the image.  None of the fasteners were 
in the antenna or even in the box. It could be that the fasteners were only 
there during assembly to hold the back plate in place long enough for the glue 
to set.   I got with ETS/Lindgren to see assembly drawings for their 
log-spirals, but that hasn't been fruitful. I am reaching out to the list 
membership for a description of how the EMCO or ETS/Lindgren 3101 or better yet 
EMCO or ETS/Lindgren 3103 is put together. The main question is whether or not 
there are any fasteners, and if so, metal or nylon, or?

Also any evidence of glue, or how the back plate stays in place.

I have two uhf log-spirals like the EMCO 3101, but one is from Electro-Metrics, 
and the other Stoddart/Singer, and neither show any evidence of what holds them 
together, plus it wouldn't necessarily apply, anyway.

If there are fasteners, a close-up image would be really helpful for me to 
figure out what I need to get.

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
-

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 

[PSES] engineers-turned-detectives have become heroes in the village of Aberhosan Wales

[Sykes, Bob]

Another EMC war story written for the general public, but interesting (to me) 
and certainly geek humor 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/uk/old-tv-breaks-broadband-village-scli-intl-gbr/index.html




Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] Currency requirements for FCC Part 15/ISED transmitter test reports

[Sykes, Bob]

Thank you all for the replies.  Very helpful and much appreciated.
-Bob Sykes


From: micha...@acbcert.com 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Currency requirements for FCC Part 15/ISED 
transmitter test reports


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


Hi all,

As per RSS-GEN (ISED Canada):

For equipment certification, the test report shall not be dated more than 12 
months before the application for equipment certification is submitted.  The 
tests within the test report may have been conducted more than 12 months before 
this date but must remain valid with the applicable requirements.  In addition, 
the test report shall include the test laboratory company number assigned by 
ISED or the Conformity Assessment Body Identifier (CABID).


Thanks,

Michael.


Michael Derby
Senior Regulatory Engineer
Director
ACB Europe

Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry
Web:   
www.acbcert.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.acbcert.com/__;!!KPww_GFiJXw!PM6u40WOOwTkxMPkuptVF59rrxSQyTOHeJSWKhwvPLxw97csLkJ-VYgytM8Gxkxl_w$>

e-mail:micha...@acbcert.com<mailto:micha...@acbcert.com>
Mobile phone:   (+44) 7939 880829   (UK area code)
Corporate office phone: USA:   (+1) 703 847 4700

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law.




From: Paasche, Dieter 
mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com>>
Sent: 29 June 2020 20:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Currency requirements for FCC Part 15/ISED transmitter test 
reports

As far as I know  in Canada and for ISED it is OK provided that you product 
complies to the latest version (issue) of the standard.

Sincerely,

Dieter Paasche
Senior Product Developer, Electrical
CHRISTIE
809 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y7
Phone: 519-744-8005 ext.7211
www.christiedigital.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.christiedigital.com/__;!!KPww_GFiJXw!PM6u40WOOwTkxMPkuptVF59rrxSQyTOHeJSWKhwvPLxw97csLkJ-VYgytM-USWnYGQ$>

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential.  Any 
unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  If you have 
received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail 
or telephone and delete it and any attachments from your computer system and 
records.

From: Dennis Ward 
<0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:11 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Currency requirements for FCC Part 15/ISED transmitter test 
reports

You are correct in that the actual FCC rules do not prescribe how long a test 
report is good for.  What you will find however, is that the FCC will generally 
require attestations from the grantee that any report older than one year still 
reflects the accuracy of the test results for the device.
Test reports as old as three years or more have been accepted by the FCC as 
long as the attestations are provided.  These attestation must generally come 
from the grantee, not the test lab.  These attestations will generally include 
attestations that the device has not changed in any way that affects the 
emissions characteristics of the device.

As you stated, ISED is different and will not accept test reports after a 
certain time has elapsed.

Thanks

[cid:image001.png@01D64EE3.6B968E60]
Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com<mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com> | 
www.pctest.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Fwww.pctest.com*2F=01*7C01*7CDieter.Paasche*40christiedigital.com*7Cef74937e2772494d269508d81c603dd5*7Cdf46f062ad2c407688e6c675c789a0d8*7C1=F5mKJ5t*2FKKUQd*2FjMCI2LR9PaoBS6uWKIE4O8iCDBgvc*3D=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!KPww_GFiJXw!PM6u40WOOwTkxMPkuptVF59rrxSQyTOHeJSWKhwvPLxw97csLkJ-VYgytM-tOBkkbg$>
 | 
www.element.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http*3A*2F*2Fwww.element.com*2F=01*7C01*7CDieter.Paasche*40christiedigital.com*7Cef74937e2772494d269508d81c603dd5*7Cdf46f062ad2c407688e6c675c789a0d8*7C1=BtH8vVfpAES4j0FK0ArhqvXy4nibLqrdtBx9lj8Nrp8*3D=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!KPww_GFiJXw!PM6u40WOOwTkxMPkuptVF59rrxSQyTOHeJSWKhwvPLxw97csLkJ-VYgytM-9X169tQ$>

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

From: Sykes, Bob ma

[PSES] Currency requirements for FCC Part 15/ISED transmitter test reports

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I seem to recall that exists some sort of shelf life limitation on re-using 
FCC/ISED test reports for subsequent new Certifications.  I am unable to find 
documentation of this in the FCC Rules or KBDs.  Perhaps this is just for 
Canada?  (I have a little more difficulty searching ISED) Or perhaps I was 
dreaming.  Can anyone shed some light?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] [PSES] Low power FM or Am transmitter

[Sykes, Bob]

Hi Dieter,

For FM you can exceed the 15.209 general limit of 150uV/meter @3m.  See section 
15.239.  It allows 250uV/meter @3m.  There are some bandwidth restrictions.

No license required, but transmitter Certification is needed.

-Bob Sykes



From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Low power FM or Am transmitter


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


Hi group,

Can I operate an AM or FM very low power transmitter without a license and or 
authorization? I mean that the transmitting power would be below 15.209.

Sincerely,

Dieter Paasche
-


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>>



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message.

-

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] [PSES] FCC regulatory statements

[Sykes, Bob]

The devil is in the details (FCC Rules Part 15.5).  Comments below in [square 
brackets] are mine.


(1)This device may not cause harmful interference….  [to licensed devices.  
Licensed devices are protected by the FCC Rules.  The other less obvious 
meaning of this part of the label statement is that a Part 15 device operates 
at sufferance and compliance with the technical standards does not relieve the 
equipment owner from non-interference.  It doesn’t matter if your product is 
20dB below the FCC limit.  If it is interfering, it must cease.]


(2) This device must accept any interference received, including 
interference that may cause undesired operation”[Part 15 devices are 
offered no protection from interference (whether generated by licensed devices 
or not).  The FCC is only interested in protecting communications, not product 
quality.]

-Bob Sykes



From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] FCC regulatory statements


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



“This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules.  Operation is subject to 
the following two conditions:  (1) This device may not cause harmful 
interference, and  (2) this device must accept any interference received, 
including interference that may cause undesired operation”

Hmm.  So, if the device causes harmful interference, operation is prohibited 
(1).

And, if the device accepts interference that causes undesired operation, 
operation is prohibited (2).

A CFL causes undesirable interference with my radio.  So, operation of both the 
CFL and radio is prohibited.

Is my interpretation correct?

Best regards,
Rich



-


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>>



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Reading or Limit Conversion?

[Sykes, Bob]

Also see the FCC Rules.  Part 15.31 (f) has additional guidance.
-Bob


From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Reading or Limit Conversion?


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


David

Hmm, different standards appear to deal with this differently:

  *   EN 55011:2009 section 6.2.2.3 instructs you to normalise the measured 
data to the specified distance in the standard
  *   EN 55032:2015 section 9 instructs you to adjust the limits (in fact it 
gives limits for 3 and 10m which are 10 dB apart and not 10.45dB apart if you 
extrapolate using 20LogD)
  *   ANSI 63-4:2014 instructs you to extrapolate the results

If the standard or test method doesn't specify, I guess the important thing is 
to be clear in the report as to what's been done.

Regards
Charlie

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

From: itl-emc user group mailto:itl...@itl.co.il>>
Sent: 28 October 2019 06:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Reading or Limit Conversion?

A number of standards list radiated emission limits in the frequency range of 
30-1000 MHz for test distance greater than 3 or 10 meters.
Testing is normally performed at either 3 meters or 10 meters on an Open Area 
Test Site.
A question has arisen concerning reporting the test results in these cases.
Any opinions concerning which should be converted:
a.   Convert the limit to the relevant test distance (3 meters or 10 
meters) by adding correction factor or
b.   Convert the reading to the unit and test distance listed in the 
standard (convert dBµV to µV and add correction factor for distance)
On some occasions I have seen option b. above used.
Which option is preferable?
All opinions welcome

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

[cid:image001.png@01D58D6E.267E5470]ITL Waze: 
https://waze.com/ul/hsv8vccn2j

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


-


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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] EMI testing with ambient

[Sykes, Bob]

Also not rocket science or breaking news (to many).  If you are measuring a 
CW NB signal in the presence of BB ambient, decreasing the Resolution Bandwidth 
of the EMI receiver will generally reduce ambient signal level while having 
negligible effect on the CW signal.  Of course there are limits to this

And yes, you are no longer using the specified CISPR RBW for the measurement so 
YMMV :)


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] EMI testing with ambient


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


Seeing as no one has yet taken a crack at this, I will weigh in with a 
non-specification opinion. Meaning this is just statistics, or math, not 
wording from some officially sanctioned publication.

No rocket science here or revealed truth. Probably not telling Chas anything he 
doesn't already know...

You can calculate the effect of an ambient on an existing signal at the same 
frequency, but you have to decide if the signal and noise add in phase or not.  
If the ambient is just thermal noise, that is an rss type calculation, like 
this:

(Measured amplitude)^2  = (Actual amplitude)^2 + (noise amplitude)^2

If the signal and noise are in phase, then it's just a linear addition.

I only mention this latter because Chas' post says the noise is BB. He doesn't 
elaborate, but that could mean impulsive noise. I'm not sure if impulsive noise 
adds to a cw signal the same as thermal noise. Never tried to measure that. 
Worst case you assume it adds rss.

Using Chas's values:

If the signals do add linearly, then if the measured amplitude is 6 dB over the 
limit and the noise is at the limit, that means the signal is just at the limit.

If the signals combine rss, then if the measured amplitude is 6 dB over the 
limit and the noise is at the limit, that means the signal by itself is about 5 
dB over the limit.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "Grasso, Charles" 
mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com>>
Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles" 
mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com>>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:02:50 +
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
Conversation: EMI testing with ambient
Subject: [PSES] EMI testing with ambient

Hello all - My question is regarding the validity of data taken with a high
ambient condition present.

Due to test configuration constraints we have high broadband noise entering
a test chamber via the cables entering the enclosure.  The bb noise is about 
20MHz
wide and is hitting the FCC Class B spec. Of course I have failing data (from 
the EUT)
reported by the lab. The failing data exceeds the FCC spec by about 6dB.

Question: What are the conditions under which a data point is considered invalid
in the presence of high ambient bb noise??


Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467

-


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) 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] EMI testing with ambient

[Sykes, Bob]

Charles,

See ANSI C63.4 Section 5.1.2 "Ambient radio noise and signals"
(at least that is the section in the 2009 edition of C63.4.)

-Bob Sykes


From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] EMI testing with ambient


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


Hello all - My question is regarding the validity of data taken with a high
ambient condition present.

Due to test configuration constraints we have high broadband noise entering
a test chamber via the cables entering the enclosure.  The bb noise is about 
20MHz
wide and is hitting the FCC Class B spec. Of course I have failing data (from 
the EUT)
reported by the lab. The failing data exceeds the FCC spec by about 6dB.

Question: What are the conditions under which a data point is considered invalid
in the presence of high ambient bb noise??


Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467

-


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>>



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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] HP 8546A EMI Receiver - Looking for calibration facility

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I just learned that Keysight has unceremoniously dropped calibration and repair 
support for the 8546A EMI receiver.
It's an old beast, but we like it and use it a lot.  Does anyone still use one 
of these and know of a facility (preferably U.S.) that can calibrate them?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes





Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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] Equipment EMI Issue

[Sykes, Bob]

Robert,

Explain the FCC Rules to your customer and that while your equipment conforms 
to the technical requirements, that is not always sufficient to prevent 
interference in all cases.  If their eyes haven't glazed over yet, you might 
explain the effect of source-to-victim separation distance.

The cellular carrier may well be experiencing an interference level of 20dB or 
more.  But is all of that attributable to your customers equipment?  Are there 
other sources?  The carriers are pretty good at locating the loudest/nearest 
source of interference, but typically do not quantify that interference 
strength.  Fortunately it is not necessary if you can get cooperation from both 
parties.  If so……

Perform an "on-off" test while the cell carrier monitors their Received Signal 
Strength Indicator in real time.  Their RSSI will drop by X dB when your 
customer's equipment is switched off.  X represents the maximum reduction in 
interference level that could be achieved if your customer's equipment were 
perfectly quiet.  Now you have a best case (dB) number.  Any remaining 
interference is not yours.

Temporarily shutting down a customer's equipment for this test can be painful.  
It really helps if they understand the situation and the FCC Rules.  The 
cellular carrier interference hunters are generally cooperative and helpful.  
They just want to resolve the issue ASAP.

Hope this helps,
Bob Sykes


From: Moeller, Robert T. [mailto:robert.moel...@banctec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 9:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Equipment EMI Issue

Hello,
Maybe someone can help with this question:  We have had one of our systems 
installed and operating at a customer site in the US, and now suddenly a local 
Cell Ph Company has made complaint that we have an unintentional signal 
radiating at 780 MHz which is interfering with their Cell Tower.  Our equipment 
is EMC tested to CISPR Class A for business only use, and at 780 Mhz our 
radiated Level at 3Meters is under the Class A limit of 57 dB at 780 Mhz.  
Question is, can the complaining company legally demand that we drop the signal 
further, they may be looking at a necessary reduction of current level by 20 dB 
lower.

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 
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>>



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic 

[PSES] FCC tests & limits for In-House BPL-like devices

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I am trying to determine FCC requirements for a system that uses technology 
similar to In-House BPL devices.  The difference from BPL is that the data is 
not carried on AC power lines.  Rather it may be carried on other unshielded, 
un-twisted wire pairs.  It would be installed only non-residential 
environments, I don't know if that makes a difference.

It appears (to me) that if it were treated as a carrier current system,  
conducted emissions limits in 15.107(c)(2) and (c)(3) would apply as well as 
15.109(e) radiated limits.  Does that sound correct?

If it's not consider carrier current or BPL because there is no "Power Line" 
involved then would it be (better) classified as just an unintentional radiator?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer?

[Sykes, Bob]

In addition to Mr. Ward's words of wisdom below, it is probably worth 
mentioning that a Class A digital device [as defined in Part 15.1(k)] aka 
"industrial computer" (which may be based on "PC" architecture) cannot take 
advantage of the "Declaration of Conformity" FCC Approval process(es).  These 
are specific FCC approval routes that offers some flexibility, but only apply 
to Class B "Personal Computers" [PC as defined in Part 15.1(s)].

See Part 2 for the DoC administrative requirements [2.906 is good starting 
point].  There are also DoC specific labeling and test requirements found in 
Part 15.  This DoC process has nothing to do with the CE Marking "Declaration 
of Conformity"

To the original question poster:  It may be worthwhile to take a look at the 
FCC Rules Part 15.31(3)(k) relating to Composite Systems.

Confused yet?  Glad it's Friday?

-Bob Sykes

From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 applicable/mandatory 
for an industrial personal computer?

Probably one of the beneficial aspects of the FCC is that they tend to take the 
manufacturers word for how and where their devices are to be used.  Thus, 
unless the documentation or other information clearly indicates one of those 
purposes is for use in the residential environments, the FCC accepts the 
manufacturers premises if it states ‘commercial use only’ or otherwise 
indicates how they control where the devices are used.  That does not mean 
however that a company can go out to Best Buy and purchase a batch of laptops 
clearly intended for personal use and say they are ‘business computers’.  They 
are still PCs but used in a commercial environment.

So the idea that “Our company uses PCs with our products which are considered 
“Laboratory Equipment”. Our products only have to meet the Class A 
requirements…” may not be totally correct unless the computers the company 
actually buys is a Class A computer and not PC (Personal Computers).

As 15.3s states, “…notwithstanding business applications. Such computers are 
considered Class B digital devices.”

The guiding factor in a computer, computing device or digital device being 
Class B is in the following conditions:

(1)  Marketed through a retail outlet or direct mail order catalog.  (2) 
Notices of sale or advertisements are distributed or directed to the general 
public or hobbyist users rather than restricted to commercial users.  (3) 
Operates on a battery or 120 volt electrical supply.
As the FCC rules state, the proof for classifying a digital device as other 
than Class B lies with the responsible party to demonstrate.

​Thanks
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 applicable/mandatory 
for an industrial personal computer?

I don’t think the answer can be found chapter and verse from some standard, but 
look at the historical evidence.  Any electrical equipment, no matter what it 
is or what it does, what it is initially used for or how it is marketed, if it 
is likely to end up in homes or used in residential areas then it must meet the 
Class B requirements.

Years ago, computers sold to the military only had to be Class A. But when old 
computers were replaced with new ones, the old ones found their way into 
people’s home. So now all computers have to be Class B.

Computers with a Network Card used to only have to be Class A because “no one 
would ever use a network at home”.  But, as soon as it became common for people 
to have home networks, computers and network cards had to meet Class B.

So, if you use a stand-a-lone PC with an industrial device which can 
practically be used in homes, then the PC would have to meet Class B.

Our company uses PCs with our products which are considered “Laboratory 
Equipment”. Our products only have to meet the Class A requirements, but the 
PCs have to meet Class B because no matter how we use it or what environment we 
use it, it is still a PC and could end up in someone’s home.

I hope this was 

Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity

[Sykes, Bob]

John Woodgate writes (in part):
>Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency 
>services, because of their importance and because they are
 >probably well-founded, not lunatic.

Yes, and not just emergency services...  I want my MTV via 4G!  The 
Cellular/mobile industry spends billion$ for precious spectrum and they 
aggressively protect that investment.  Frequencies that were once occupied by 
UHF channels are now home to advanced wireless services using base stations 
that log signal impairment data 24/7/365.  Cellular (and other related) 
industries are motivated and well equipped to track down interference to their 
services.  Revenue stream is directly proportional to throughput.

In the US;  Often these interference issues are resolved without FCC 
involvement by contractors such as:
http://www.signalfinders.com/info/

Sometimes the FCC helps:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-2077A1.pdf

As spectrum cost rises, I think we can also expect interference complaints from 
more sophisticated, informed, funded and connected entities to supplant Joe 
Consumer's problems with his rabbit ears reception.

My opinion only,
Bob Sykes


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity

In message <004f01d0f078$6ea986d0$4bfc9470$@cox.net>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>To paraphrase Monrad and John: "The only justification for regulations
>is consumer complaints."
>
There is a legal principle, 'Cui bono?' ('In whose interest?') that challenges 
laws that are of no practical use or advantage. So emissions that do not cause 
interference and susceptibility that is never challenged should not be 
regulated.
>
>Does anyone have any experience in filing a consumer complaint with
>their applicable national agency? Was it easy to find the place to
>enter your complaint? Did you get the impression the agency was simply
>trying to get you to go away? Did you feel as though your input was
>going to a null-bucket? Did you receive any follow-up? Was the process
>something reasonable for an average consumer?
>
It's deliberately not made easy because history showed that a large proportion 
of complaints were spurious and even lunatic. It's also costly to investigate 
claims.
>
>In short, does "no complaints" really indicate no problems?
>
While official information is not in the public domain, CISPR/H is said to look 
at the levels of complaints when determining whether existing emission 
requirements should be changed and where to set new requirements as the 
exploited EM spectrum expands upwards in frequency.

Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency 
services, because of their importance and because they are probably 
well-founded, not lunatic.
>
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


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: 
Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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 

Re: [PSES] EMC Benign devices (was:RE: [PSES] Friday night conundrum)

[Sykes, Bob]

  Does anyone know how much power these cards draw.

It's probably worth mentioning that there are different types of 'these cards' 
to consider.

Smart Cards or Chip Cards usually mean those that have exposed contacts.
RFID or Near Field Cards have internal circuitry as well as an embedded antenna.
Dual Interface Cards have both, and they may be connected (or not).
All of the above may be combined with the old fashioned mag stripe.

ESD is a concern for the smart card industry.  The cards should be immune,
but they can also act as a conduit to couple a charged user to card reader 
terminal.
(particularly when they incorporate holographic foil or other external 
conductive features)

ISO/IEC 7810, 7816, ISO JTC1 SC17 Activities are a good place to start for the 
curious.

-Bob Sykes



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

[Sykes, Bob]

Scott,

See FCC Part 15 - § 15.27 Special accessories

-Bob Sykes


-Original Message-
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:31 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

Fellow List persons...

Please help refresh a tired brain. A designer of a product tells us that he 
passes FCC emissions testing if he puts ferrite sleeves (beads?) on the four 
HDMI cables connected at the rear panel of the product.

He tells us that all he needs to do is add a statement in the user manual to 
the effect that the HDMI output cables must have ferrite sleeves (beads?) on 
them.

He says he does not need to specify manufacturer name and part number of the 
ferrites.

He says he does not need to provide the ferrites with the product.

He also does not plan to include the HDMI output cables with the product 
because every installation will have different length HDMI cables needed.

Now, my old brain thinks the above is not acceptable and that the FCC says that 
anything special needed to pass FCC testing must be provided with the product. 
And I am thinking that ferrites are special as you can't get them at Walmart or 
Radio Shack or Ace Hardware. And not all ferrites are the same.

Can anyone confirm my memory and maybe give a pointer to the part of the FCC 
Rules that clarify this? Or have the rules changed over the years and I just 
missed that part?

Thank you in advance for any and all comments, on list or off.

Best 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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] EMI measurement software in OATS environment

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

I am looking for recommendations/experiences relating to list based radiated 
emissions measurement software.   This will be used in an OATS environment 
where trace based software does not work well due to ambient signals.  I will 
be driving either a RS or Keysight (aka Agilent)  MXE receiver with ETS 
Lindgren tower/turntable.

I am currently using HP85876 software, which is list based and works well at 
the OATS but I must upgrade when I replace my HP8546A.  I am aware of TILE!, 
but are there others?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes

Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, an example using a class D stereo amp

[Sykes, Bob]

Charlie,

FCC Class B protection distance is 3m,  where Class A is 10m.  This 
establishes their relationship.  Class B = X dBuV measured at 3m, and Class A = 
X dBuV @ 10m. (where X = X)

EN 55022 Class B is for domestic environment which is an environment where 
the use of broadcast radio and television receivers may be expected within a 
distance of 10m or the apparatus concerned.

---
Rick,

AM is older than the FCC, but they are making noise (pun intended) about 
revitalizing it.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323370A1.pdf

While LEDs are quiet, any mains powered LED lamp involves some form of pulsed 
current and EMI.  LED lamps are regulated under FCC Part 15.  I tried to use 
them (LED floods) in my shielded enclosure with dismal results.

For those interested; This article is mainly about visual flicker, but the same 
principles apply to noise generation.
http://www.digikey.com/en-US/articles/techzone/2012/jul/characterizing-and-minimizing-led-flicker-in-lighting-applications

Here's a discussion of the RFI problem more from a regulatory perspective. 
http://www.emcrules.com/2011/07/radio-interference-from-led-lighting.html

-Bob Sykes



-Original Message-
From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

Do we still have AM? Someone once called that was Ancient Modulation. :) I 
suspect that in a few years fluorescent lamps will give way to LED technology. 
As a side note, do LED lamps create EMI concerns?

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

On 6/4/2014 9:47 AM, Mike Violette wrote:

Class B limits are amazingly conservative, to which large populations of 
devices ascribe.


Try using an ordinary AM radio beside a compact fluorescent lamp as on a beside 
table.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 

Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, an example using a class D stereo amp

[Sykes, Bob]

Thanks Charlie,

My use of the protection distance concept stems FCC docket 20780, an museum 
piece which was replaced by Part 15.
I guess I know what that makes me :-)

Best Regards,
Bob Sykes


-Original Message-
From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 2:12 PM
To: Sykes, Bob; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

Bob

I've always read it as being a measurement distance.

The FCC/CISPR limits are (more or less) the same when extrapolated, and indeed 
the CISPR ones may be used instead.

Regards
Charlie

-Original Message-
From: Sykes, Bob [mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com] 
Sent: 04 June 2014 18:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

Charlie,

FCC Class B protection distance is 3m,  where Class A is 10m.  This 
establishes their relationship.  Class B = X dBuV measured at 3m, and Class A = 
X dBuV @ 10m. (where X = X)

EN 55022 Class B is for domestic environment which is an environment where 
the use of broadcast radio and television receivers may be expected within a 
distance of 10m or the apparatus concerned.

---
Rick,

AM is older than the FCC, but they are making noise (pun intended) about 
revitalizing it.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323370A1.pdf

While LEDs are quiet, any mains powered LED lamp involves some form of pulsed 
current and EMI.  LED lamps are regulated under FCC Part 15.  I tried to use 
them (LED floods) in my shielded enclosure with dismal results.

For those interested; This article is mainly about visual flicker, but the same 
principles apply to noise generation.
http://www.digikey.com/en-US/articles/techzone/2012/jul/characterizing-and-minimizing-led-flicker-in-lighting-applications

Here's a discussion of the RFI problem more from a regulatory perspective. 
http://www.emcrules.com/2011/07/radio-interference-from-led-lighting.html

-Bob Sykes



-Original Message-
From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 1:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

Do we still have AM? Someone once called that was Ancient Modulation. :) I 
suspect that in a few years fluorescent lamps will give way to LED technology. 
As a side note, do LED lamps create EMI concerns?

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

On 6/4/2014 9:47 AM, Mike Violette wrote:

Class B limits are amazingly conservative, to which large populations of 
devices ascribe.


Try using an ordinary AM radio beside a compact fluorescent lamp as on a beside 
table.

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


Please be advised that this email may contain

Re: [PSES] Ferrite on LAN Cable

[Sykes, Bob]

The KDB *supplements* the Part 15 Rules.  I would start with Part 15.27.
Also consider who is installing the equipment.  Consumer or Professional?
-Bob


From: Bell, Chad [mailto:chad_b...@bose.com]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ferrite on LAN Cable

Yes it was KDB number 981555.  But, as mentioned the specific question was for 
detachable power cables.  That being said I have personally witnessed many 
products with detachable cables with loose ferrites in the box for the customer 
to install especially on recent televisions.

-Chad

From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 10:25 PM
To: Bell, Chad; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ferrite on LAN Cable

Was this response on the KDB, the Knowledge Data Base?
If so, what is the number?
That is where the FCC makes rulings on a near day to day bases.
And those reasons are very similar to the ones given for the EU requirement.



From: Bell, Chad chad_b...@bose.commailto:chad_b...@bose.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2013 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Ferrite on LAN Cable

Gary,

Here is the response from the FCC on the same question except we asked about 
adding a ferrite on the power cable.

“The power cord with ferrite snaps and clamps for conducted emission compliance 
has got to be supplied as one unit. That is to say, the ferrite snaps and 
clamps must be incorporated into the power cord such that the purchaser of the 
electronic device does not have to put the ferrite snap or clamp onto the power 
cord when he or she is assembling the device for operation.  The reason is that 
the FCC's historically knows that the buyer or purchaser of the electronic 
device will not put the ferrite snap or clamp onto the power cord and as a 
result the manufacturer must incorporate it into the power cord.”

Sincerely,
Chad Bell

From: Myers, Gary [mailto:gary.my...@xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 8:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Ferrite on LAN Cable

EMC Experts,
If an ITE product requires a ferrite on an external LAN cable in order to 
comply with FCC Part 15 and EU EMC Directive requirements, is it legally 
required that the manufacturer include the LAN cable fitted with the ferrite 
with the ITE product, or can the manufacturer simply provide the ferrite along 
with detailed installation instructions for the end user to add the ferrite to 
his own LAN cable?
Thanks,
Gary Myers

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.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 emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.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 emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-


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

[PSES] Automated testing to EN61000-4-6

[Sykes, Bob]

I am investigating purchasing test equipment to perform 61000-4-6 R.F. 
conducted immunity testing.  There's lots of choices out there, and I see a 
couple of integrated, automated systems that look interesting (albeit at a 
price premium I'm sure).  My questions are:  Does anyone on this list use an 
automated test setup?  And what are the drawbacks (if any) of such an approach. 
 The marketing literature doesn't seem to go there.  It's all good.  I suppose 
any vendor specific negative stories should be sent direct and not to the 
listserv.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes

Unrelated Friday  humor for those involved in ESD 
testinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtlYi1yLTVQ



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.


-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

[PSES] wireless approvals matrix

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

Some time ago a few members of this list compiled a list of global wireless 
approval requirements.
Foolishly I did not save any emails containing the link to that document and 
now it would be extremely to me.
It seems the list archives are not working, or the at least the link to them in 
the email footers doesn't work.
Can anyone point me to the wireless approval document?

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.


-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix

[Sykes, Bob]

CE = Check Everything or Compliance Expensive

...It's Friday

-Bob

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sundstrom, 
Michael
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 8:45 AM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix

And here all these years I thought it meant: Compliance Extraordinary...


 Michael Sundstrom
OHD TREQ Dallas
Electronic Lab Analyst EMC Lead
(214) 579 6312  office
(940) 390 3644  cell
KB5UKT

-Original Message-
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix

The CE marking remains the same. 

The meaning is 'Caveat Emptor'   ;-)

Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix

Conformité Européenne

-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Doug Powell
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:30 PM
To: peter_kelle...@dell.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EC vs EU suffix


And the CE mark, what happens to it?

CE = Communauté Européenne

--
Thanks, -doug

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On 8/16/12, peter_kelle...@dell.com peter_kelle...@dell.com wrote:
 EU = European Union
 EC = European Community

 The Treaty of Lisbon  which came into force in in December 2009 
 provided
for
 the absorption of the entity known as the European Community  by the 
 European Union.

 Regards

 Peter.

 From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Scott 
 Xe
 Sent: 16 August 2012 15:37
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: EC vs EU suffix

 The EU regulations/decisions/directives published after 2010 have a 
 suffix of EU rather than EC.  Is there any particular reason for this change?

 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 
emc-p...@ieee.org

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the 

Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 and ANSI C63.4

[Sykes, Bob]

I didn't receive any response to my puzzler last week.
Perhaps:
a) I didn't put it in question form.
b) There was insufficient interest in the topic.
c) The mention of the word auditor was a mistake.

Assuming all (or some) of the above; Here's one more attempt.

Is anyone using the 2009 version of C63.4 for FCC Part 15 compliance testing?

If so what is your basis for its validity?
FCC Public Notice DA 09-2478?
Or something else?

This appears not to be of general interest for group discussion, so if I 
receive enough private replies, I will post a summary of them.

Thanks,
Bob Sykes


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sykes, Bob
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:32 PM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: FCC Part 15 and ANSI C63.4

Worldly Experts,

In preparing for an upcoming ISO audit and making sure my standards are in 
order, I have uncovered some potential problems.

I am currently using ANSI C63.4 2009.  My basis for doing so is the November 
2009 FCC Public Notice (DA 09-2478) clarifying use of C63 Measurement Standards 
which effectively updated the (then) Rules by permitting either the 2003 or 
2009 version of C63.4 for part 15 compliance testing.

The Public Notice further stated:
The Commission will consider modifying its rules to reference the new 
measurement standards in a future rulemaking proceeding.

Well here we are in 2012 and the latest version of Part 15 (Oct 2011 edition) 
still (only) references ANSI 63.4-2003.

§ 15.31(a)(3) states:
Other intentional and unintentional radiators are to be measured for 
compliance using the following procedure excluding sections 4.1.5.2, 5.7, 9 and 
14: ANSI C63.4-2003:

With the re-numbering of the 2009 version, the indicated exclusions no longer 
align with the relevant topics (artificial hand, noise power measurements etc.).

Adding further confusion is the note:
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3): Digital devices tested to show compliance with the 
provisions of §§ 15.107(e) and 15.109(g) must be tested following the ANSI 
C63.4 procedure described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

§ 15.107(e) doesn't seem to exist?

I can fill in the blanks and make sense of all of the above, but my concern is 
that this will not appease the auditor(s).  If they take the position that the 
2011 version of Part 15 supersedes the 2009 Public Notice I don't have anything 
to counter with.

I feel like I must be missing something somewhere, but I am unable to find any 
further guidance on this.  Any ideas most appreciated.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.
-


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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

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


Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.


-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product

[PSES] FCC Part 15 and ANSI C63.4

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Experts,

In preparing for an upcoming ISO audit and making sure my standards are in 
order, I have uncovered some potential problems.

I am currently using ANSI C63.4 2009.  My basis for doing so is the November 
2009 FCC Public Notice (DA 09-2478) clarifying use of C63 Measurement Standards 
which effectively updated the (then) Rules by permitting either the 2003 or 
2009 version of C63.4 for part 15 compliance testing.

The Public Notice further stated:
The Commission will consider modifying its rules to reference the new 
measurement standards in a future rulemaking proceeding.

Well here we are in 2012 and the latest version of Part 15 (Oct 2011 edition) 
still (only) references ANSI 63.4-2003.

§ 15.31(a)(3) states:
Other intentional and unintentional radiators are to be measured for 
compliance using the following procedure excluding sections 4.1.5.2, 5.7, 9 and 
14: ANSI C63.4-2003:

With the re-numbering of the 2009 version, the indicated exclusions no longer 
align with the relevant topics (artificial hand, noise power measurements etc.).

Adding further confusion is the note:
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3): Digital devices tested to show compliance with the 
provisions of §§ 15.107(e) and 15.109(g) must be tested following the ANSI 
C63.4 procedure described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

§ 15.107(e) doesn't seem to exist?

I can fill in the blanks and make sense of all of the above, but my concern is 
that this will not appease the auditor(s).  If they take the position that the 
2011 version of Part 15 supersedes the 2009 Public Notice I don't have anything 
to counter with.

I feel like I must be missing something somewhere, but I am unable to find any 
further guidance on this.  Any ideas most appreciated.

adTHANKSvance,
Bob Sykes



Please be advised that this email may contain confidential 
information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
by email by replying to the sender and delete this message.  The 
sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer 
to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the 
foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or 
other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.


-

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

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

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Average detector/s

[Sykes, Bob]

 
Here is an excerpt from an old (~1983) H.P. RF measurement presentation
by Siegfried Linkwitz and Al Wilcox.
 
//
Average detection is provided in the spectrum analyzer by use of the
video bandwidth filters.  Video (post detection) filtering provides
averaging of the higher frequency components (such as noise) at the
output of the envelope detector.  When the video filter bandwidth is
narrower than the resolution bandwidth, averaging occurs.  Narrowband
(e.g., CW) signals amplitudes are not affected by video filtering.
 
For a true average, the video BW must be less than the lowest pulse
repetition frequency (PRF), the frequency sweep must be slow enough to
let the filters charge completely, and the spectrum analyzer must be in
the linear amplitude display mode.
 
When the analyzer is in the log amplitude display mode, video filtering
greatly reduces the amplitude of impulsive and random broadband signals.
This is useful for measuring lower level narrowband signals in the
presence of higher level impulsive signals.  The amplitude of the
narrowband signal is unaffected and it will show on the display well
above the broadband signals.
//
 
Perhaps another piece of the puzzle falls into place?
 
-Bob Sykes
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill
Owsley
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 5:23 PM
To: Ken Javor; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Average detector/s


Indeed it does.  The measured signal in this particular case is
broadband stuff of a modulated carrier.
So far I can get a 20 dB spread when measuring the signal with all the
different buttons and techniques available for average.
And you know the limit falls right in the middle !!  And the fingers
start pointing...

The instrument manual says the average detector finds the average of
everything in each measuring window and reports that.
instantaneous average ?!?!  And then do a trace max hold on that, and
it begins to look similar to peak.
Now if I turn on averaging over time, for instance a running average of
a 100 runs, The reported value settles down nicely.  
But, I suspect any interference has already happened.
Or, If I slow the sweep time down, then the same settling occurs as each
window is averaged during the measurement dwell and that number is
reported.  

I have not found a reference to an averaging time.  Is there one?  




From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Average detector/s


If video averaging is done with a log amplifier instead of linear, then
a geometric mean is taken rather than an arithmetic mean, the latter
being an average detector.  Both means naturally yield the same output
with a cw input, but as the variation in the averaged quantities gets
greater (standard deviation increases) the difference between the two
types of means gets larger and larger.  Hence, for an intermittent
broadband signal of high amplitude but very low duty cycle and duration,
one would expect very different outputs when using the log display vs.
linear.
 
Ken Javor

Phone: (256) 650-5261





From: ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:15:40 -0800
To: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Average detector/s


For in-house pre-compliance testing, we use a VBW of 10Hz to approximate
the time response of an AVG detector.  Seems to work quite well.

_ 

Ralph McDiarmid  |  Schneider Electric  |  Renewable Energies Business
|   CANADA  |   Regulatory Compliance Engineering 


From: Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Date: 12/06/2011 09:15 AM 
Subject: [PSES] Average detector/s 






Quasi-peak was fun, so now let's have fun with the Average detector/s,
each and all of them ! 

For reference, EN 302 208-1, Sec. 8.3, 8.4, 8.5. 
Detection mode: Averaging 

Which averaging would this be?  On the SA that I'm using, 
There is video averaging by reducing the VBW to something a lot smaller
than RBW. 
There is EMI average detector, and 
There is average detector which has two modes, power and video. 
(one is the log of the average of power, the other is the average of the
log of power.) 
And there is a multiple sweep averaging of the above. 
And there is adjusting the sweep time while averaging is turned on. 
And adjusting the span to be measured has an effect on the average
measurement. 

Each can give a different result. 

So starting with the always correct answer in EMC, it depends,  what
are these dependencies? 






__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
service.

RE: FM Modulator Information

[Sykes, Bob]

I wondered about this when I read the consent decree which has
substantially the same wording that XM is sending out to owners of these
radios.  They don't really say how they might be non-compliant, but it
seems logical to suspect the intentionally radiated signal is too loud.

My radio has an internal FM modulator and Xmit antenna.  No way for me
reduce that signal (except using the cassette solution).  Because two
of the remedies involve installing ferrites, I assume that one or more
of the peripheral cables must also be radiating substantially.

There are several models of receivers covered here, so spurious
emissions/fixes might vary :-)

Bob Sykes
EMC Engineer


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Larry
Stillings
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 1:18 PM
To: 'Conway, Patrick R (Houston)'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: FM Modulator Information

Patrick, All,

 I have XM. The problem is this. The units are in violation of
FCC rules. The output power in the FM band is limited to 250 dBuV/m at 3
Meters.
The unit's FM modulators output power got significantly increased after
testing and approval (of course they work really good). I have noticed
that when driving by cars with Sirius, that my station will fade out and
all of the sudden I will be listening to Howard Stern or whatever the
other person has on, in their car. I believe both Sirius and XM are
being required by the FCC to fix the non compliant radios, but not
positive about this.
 More of an FYI, at my Camp I can have my Truck parked several
hundred feet away from the radio in the camp and get the ball game. I
have never measured mine, so I can't tell you if it is over powered or
not, but I suspect so.

Larry Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.


From: Conway, Patrick R (Houston) [mailto:p.con...@hp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:23 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: FM Modulator Information

A family member forwarded the below email.
(I'm pleasantly surprised that they remember my field of work !)

Does anyone on this list subscribe to XM?
It would be interesting to know the details of the interference
problem.



Best Regards,

Patrick Conway, NCE.
Hewlett-Packard Co.
p.con...@hp.com
281.514.2259
281-514.5473(fax)



~~


From: XM Radio [mailto:xmra...@xmradio.chtah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:11 AM
To:
Subject: FM Modulator Information


Dear XM Subscriber,

The FCC has notified XM that some of our older receiver models
(generally, those purchased before August, 2006) may not operate in the
manner required by the FCC and may cause interference to nearby FM radio
users depending on how the XM radio is installed or used.

The receiver models include the Roady2(r), SKYFi2(r), MyFi(r),
Airware(r), Tao, RoadyXT(r), Xpress(tm), Sportscaster, XR9-XCX9, Jensen
JXR9, inno(r), Helix(tm), and Nexus(r). Please note this notice does not
apply to you if your new car came installed with an XM receiver.

If you do have one or more of the receivers mentioned above and use it
with the wireless FM option or you have had the receiver professionally
installed, then we have several options available at no cost to you to
alleviate this possible interference. Please visit our website at
www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo
http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4  or call us
toll-free at 866-410-0096 to choose one of the following three options:

Option A:
We will send you ferrite beads to attach to your XM antenna and power
adaptor cables. (Ferrite beads are typically placed on the end of data
cables to reduce interference.)

Option B:
We will send you a replacement cassette adapter to use with your XM
radio.
Only choose this option if your car radio has a cassette player.

Option C:
If your car does not have a cassette player, we will provide you with
ferrite beads and an installation kit, with hardware, to use in
connection with a professional installation of your radio along with a
coupon redeemable at no charge for professional installation.

Please visit the following website, www.xmradio.com/fmmodinfo
http://email.xmradio.com/a/hBIoukKB7RzePB7SVYU$Ka5GK0m/xm4  for more
information and to select your option. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may call 866-410-0096 for information on how to alleviate
this possible interference. To help expedite your order, please have
your 8-digit Radio ID (found on Channel 0 of your XM radio) and your FCC
ID (found on the back, the bottom, or under the battery of your XM
radio), available when you start this process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards,
XM Management

Note - If you are using your XM radio's FM modulator to send the XM
signal to a home or car stereo, your radio will work best if you use an
unused FM frequency. Go to www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/vacant

RE: Difference between the HP 8566A and the HP 8566B

[Sykes, Bob]

We're getting close ;-)

The frequency ranges are as Don states.

The A or B versions of either analyzer will work with the 85650A QP adapter

Only the B version (of either) will work with the 85685A Preselector.

-Bob



From: don_borow...@selinc.com [mailto:don_borow...@selinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:46 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Difference between the HP 8566A and the HP 8566B








No, this is not correct. The 8566 in either version covers 100 Hz to 22
GHz. I think Gaby is confusing the 8566 with the 8568, which in both A and
B models covers 100 Hz to 1.5 GHz.

I am going from memory right now, but I believe the B models of both
spectrum analyzers have the capability of accepting a quasi-peak adaptor,
and have additional functions related to reading out values from the
screen. Also, the 8566B could accept a preselector (perhaps the 8568B could
too). If I remember correctly, the trace of the A versions could be read
out only as X-Y coordinate values, and it was up to the user to translate
them into level and frequency (knowing what the settings are). The B
versions read out directly in level and frequency (IIRC).

Don Borowski
ex-HP/Agilent employee
present Schweitzer Engineering Labs



   
 Gaby F. Abboud  
 g.abboud2@verizo 
 n.net To 
 Sent by:  lfresea...@aol.com,   
 owner-emc-pstc@ma emc-p...@ieee.org 
 jordomo.ieee.org   cc 
   
   Subject 
 11/25/03 06:36 AM Re: Difference between the HP 8566A 
   and the HP 8566B
   
 Please respond to 
 Gaby F. Abboud  
 g.abboud2@verizo 
  n.net   
   
   





8566A can be used up to 1GHz
8566B can be used up to 22GHz

I hope this helped.

Gaby,

 From: lfresea...@aol.com
 Date: 2003/11/24 Mon PM 11:23:10 EST
 To: emc-p...@ieee.org
 Subject: Difference between the HP 8566A and the HP 8566B

 Hi there,

 can anyone tell me the difference between the two spectrum analysers?

 Thanks,

 Derek N. Walton
 Owner, L F Research EMI Design and Test Facility
 Poplar Grove,
 IL 61065








This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

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


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

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

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

Old LectroMagnetics shielded enclosure

[Sykes, Bob]

Greetings,
 
I have an old (circa 1986) LectroMagnetics shielded enclosure that I would
like to modify.
I'm looking for some parts and panels.  It seems that LectroMagnetics (LMI
inc.) are no
longer around.  Does anyone know if this product line (clamp together s.e.)
has been
taken over by another entity?
 
I expect this is not of general interest to the list, so off-line replies
appreciated.
 
adTHANKS,

Bob Sykes

EMC Engineer

Marconi Commerce Systems

 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

134kHz transmitter in the U.K.

[Sykes, Bob]

Greetings,

We are looking at providing a short range RFID system to the U.K., and I am
tasked with
determining the regulatory requirements for this system.  It incorporates a
low power
transmitter/receiver operating at 134kHz.  I am familiar with the LVD and
EMCD requirements,
but unable to determine RTTE applicability, or whether U.K. National
regulations apply.

Any help would be most appreciated.

adTHANKSvance,

-Bob Sykes
Marconi Commerce Systems


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

HP 8546A calibration facility

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Compliance Experts,

Can anyone recommend a calibration facility (besides Agilent) in the U.S.
that can
accommodate a HP 8546A EMI receiver?

adTHANKSvance,

-Bob


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/  click on Virtual Conference Hall,

RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Sykes, Bob]

For those interested, check out:

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0039a.html
(scroll down to Cellphone Fails Flight Systems)

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0020b.html
(scroll to British Study Says Airborne Cellphones Are A Problem)

For the opposing (economic) spin see:
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news9941.html#3
(... Cellphone Use In Aircraft May Not Be Dangerous)

If you've really got some time on your hands see:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf
(this one encompasses all PEDs)

-Bob


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Credence Technologies EM eye

[Sykes, Bob]

Worldly Compliance Experts,

Does anyone here have any direct experience with RF/EMC products made by
Credence Technologies?
I am considering purchasing their EM EYE  for use as a diagnostic tool. 
 http://www.credencetech.com/emeye.html

I have not seen or used this device, but it looks useful, especially if it
lives up to the manufacturers claims.

Thanks in advance,

Bob Sykes
EMC Engineer
Marconi Commerce Systems



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org