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

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Conducted Immunity test for EMC

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:39:10 -,
  "James Pawson (U3C)"  wrote:

> This looks like distance between injection point and EUT.
> 
> This diagram is for direct injection through a resistor with no CDN. The 
> resistor forms the ‘C’ or coupling part of the CDN, and the “decoupling 
> device” forms the ‘D’ of decoupling part.

Yes, and it is the horizontal distance, not the cable length.

Clause 7.8 of the standard clearly says:
The injection point shall be located between 0,1 m and 0,3 m from
the geometric projection of the EUT on to the reference ground plane.

Tom


> From: Youngsik Kim  
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 7:57 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Conducted Immunity test for EMC
>  
> Hi All
>  
> I'd like to inquire about the conduction resistance test.
> What is L in the picture below?
> 1. Distance between CDN and EUT
> 2. Length of cable between CDN and EUT

-

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] EN 55011:2016 + A2:2021

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 15:56:55 +0100,
  Amund Westin  wrote:

> I can’t find any reference to A2:2021 in any EMC Harmonized standard list. 
> 
> Does it mean we should not make any reference to in in the DoC?

For Directive 2014/30/EU and similar directives/regulations,
as it is also written in the DoC template in Annex IV, although such
non-harmonised standards will not give "presumption of conformity",
I believe we can make reference to any standards:

  ...
  6. References to the relevant harmonised standards used, including
  the date of the standard, or references to the other technical
  specifications, including the date of the specification, in
  relation to which conformity is declared:
  ...

If the product also comply with the harmonised edition of the standard
(EN 55011:2016+A1:2017+A11:2020), maybe you can simply make reference
to the harmonised edition instead.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:44:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

...
> We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US)
> and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls
> out IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a
> requirement for a field strength of 20V/m.
...
> Can some offer this "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a
> quick definition of what the 20V/m represents?
...

It appears the standard is for personnel protection devices for use in
charging systems, and not for other aspects of the EV chargers.

Safety-related standards sometimes call for higher immunity test levels.
For example, IEC 61000-6-7 calls for 20 V/m per IEC 61000-4-3 test method.

Also, although the regulation will not usually be required in US and
charging stations will not be covered by the regulation anyway, ECE R1
calls for 30 V/m per ISO 11451-2 also in charging mode.

I don't know of the rationale, but I think 20 V/m is not unreasonably high
to test safety aspects of the charging systems.

Regards,
Tom


On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:44:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello colleagues,  We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not 
> just US) and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2.  It calls 
> out  IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a 
> requirement for a field strength of 20V/m.  Our EMC expert says typically 
> testing is "done at 3 Vrms, which is standard for most products in 
> residential environments."   He can only test up to 10V, and we're hearing 
> the same from an overseas lab to whom our manufacturer refers.   Does FCC 
> Part B have guidelines for field strength we can cite?   Can some offer this 
> "DC guy" (aka, 60 Hz) a quick definition of what the 20V/m represents? I'm 
> guessing 20 V/m is for higher density commercial applications, aka charging 
> stations, so we probably need an exception for residential.   Thank you! 
> Colorado Brian 
> 720-450-4933
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> _
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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


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] 6dB pad

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:53:41 +0200,
  Paolo Roncone  wrote:

> I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB
> attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the
> range 30MHz - 6GHz.
> The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm.
> My colleague says the pad is an unnecessary element in the measurement
> chain, because the receiver built-in attenuator (typically with 10dB steps)
> and proper adjustments in the amplitude settings are enough.
...

For example in case of CISPR 16, CISPR 16-1-4 requires antennas to have
return loss higher than 10 dB.

6 dB pad at antenna output makes this requirement satisfied regardless of
return loss of the antenna itself, even for biconical and hybrid antennas
which will have very bad VSWR.

Regards,
Tom



On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:53:41 +0200,
  Paolo Roncone  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB
> attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the
> range 30MHz - 6GHz.
> The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm.
> My colleague says the pad is an unnecessary element in the measurement
> chain, because the receiver built-in attenuator (typically with 10dB steps)
> and proper adjustments in the amplitude settings are enough.
> 
> The reason I'm using the 6dB pad is that - based on my EMI testing
> experience, the 6dB pad is a good trade-off between the need to avoid
> receiver overload and maintaining a good enough noise floor.
> Without the pad the noise floor is of course lower and everything is fine
> as long as the input levels are low enough.
> But in the majority of the test scenarios I'm working on the input levels
> are not so low and the 6dB pad is just enough to avoid triggering the auto
> built-in 10dB attenuation, that kicks in when the receiver attenuation is
> in auto mode, and that is oftentimes an overkill, raising the noise floor
> too much, especially in the 1-6 GHz range.
> I have the 6dB pad calibrated for cable loss once a year together with the
> N-cable connecting to the antenna. And also the cable calibrated without
> the pad.
> 
> The most typical sources of overload are transient noise generated by
> motors (especially brush DC motors)  and signals from radio modules like
> 2.4G wi-fi, Bluetooth and 5G wi-fi.
> 
> In addition to overload protection, the 6dB pad improves the VSWR at the
> cable-receiver interface, as explained in C.J.Paul's EMC Introduction to
> EMC (John Wiley 2nd Ed.) Ch.7.
> Based on the above I think that, being a resistive network stabilizing the
> 50ohm termination impedance at the receiver end, the 6dB 50ohm pad is a
> good practice that can prevent overload or excessive auto-attenuation, and
> worst-case doesn't do any harm. Or, am I missing something here?
> 
> I'd like to know if there is someone else in this community who has
> experience using fixed attenuation pads at the receiver end of EMI
> receivers/spectrum analyzers, or any opinion about it.
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback!
> 
> Paolo
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> _
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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


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] How to Measure Surface Conductivity?

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:45:29 -0400,
  Brian Kunde  wrote:

> I have been given two samples of metal plates; one plated in our current
> material and the other with a new plating material we want to switch to in
> production.  I have been tasked to compare the electrical surface
> conductivity.
> 
> What is the best way to do this?  How is this done in the industry?
> 
> I have tried the following methods;
> 1. DMM (Ohm Meter) = inconclusive results
> 2. Used 5 volts from a current limited power supply and measured the
> current = inconclusive results
> 3. Used our Ground Bond Tester set to 60 amps. One plate measured 3-4mΩ,
> the other 1-3mΩ

If you want to ignore the contact resistance, did you tried four-point
probe method?

https://www.suragus.com/en/technology/four-point-probe/

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Safety: 60335-1 conflicting clauses question - earthing (or not) of handles

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:23:03 +0100,
  "James Pawson (U3C)"  wrote:

> In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come
> across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in
> some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but
> I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this.
...
> 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and
> knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the
> event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs
> are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the
> event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by
> insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their
> shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation.
> 
> For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not
> apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical
> components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing
> terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal.
...
> 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are
> continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that
> when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal
> parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or
> reinforced insulation

I don't know of the reason of the differences, but it appears clause
22.35 (including the last paragraph "For stationary appliances...")
is for constructions, and clause 22.36 is for entier appliances.

Regards,
Tom


On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:23:03 +0100,
  "James Pawson (U3C)"  wrote:

> Hello experts,
> 
> In running through some safety checks on a customer's product I've come
> across what appears to be a conflict between two clauses. This resulted in
> some head scratching! I'm sure it is my misunderstanding or misreading, but
> I could do with some pointers in how to unpick this.
> 
> Context
> 
> * Standard is IEC EN 60335-1:2012 (+amendments)
> * Context is an exercise machine (the appliance)
> * Supply is AC mains Class I
> * Appliance has metal handles that are held during normal use. These
> are connected through bearings to the metal frame but are not "reliably
> earthed" (no explicit wired connection)
> 
> Earthing of metal parts is acceptable
> 
> 22.35 For constructions other than those of class III, handles, levers and
> knobs that are held or actuated in normal use shall not become live in the
> event of a failure of basic insulation. If these handles, levers and knobs
> are of metal and if their shafts or fixings are likely to become live in the
> event of a failure of basic insulation, they shall be adequately covered by
> insulating material or their accessible parts shall be separated from their
> shafts or fixings by supplementary insulation.
> 
> For stationary appliances and cordless appliances, this requirement does not
> apply to handles, levers and knobs, other than those of electrical
> components, provided that they are reliably connected to an earthing
> terminal or earthing contact or separated from live parts by earthed metal.
> 
> * Class I appliance, with metal handles held during use so this
> requirement is applicable
> * Handles are not reliably earthed so we are advising manufacturer to
> make an explicit bond to PE
> * With Basic insulation and Earthing we have our two safeguards
> between live and user = reduced risk of shock
> * No complaints with this clause
> 
> Earthing of metal parts is not accpetable
> 
> Then the next clause seems to contradict this:
> 
> 22.36 For appliances other than those of class III, handles which are
> continuously held in the hand in normal use shall be constructed so that
> when gripped in normal use, the operator's hand is not likely to touch metal
> parts unless they are separated from live parts by double insulation or
> reinforced insulation
> 
> * This clause appears to not allow for earthing of the metal handles
> * Instead, only rouble or reinforced insulation are acceptable
> * Thoughts / speculation:
> 
> o   Would this clause make more sense if it read "For appliances other than
> those of class I."? i.e. unearthed
> 
> o   Talks about "appliances" (whole product) rather than "constructions"
> (parts of appliance)
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> I'm happy that the approach of reliably earthing the metal handles will
> reduce the electric shock risk in the context of the equipment, this
> approach being consistent with other safety standards I know like 62368-1
> and 61010-1. I just can't rationalise this with clause 22.36. As I say, I'm
> sure I've misread or misunderstood something so any help would be greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Otherwise, if anyone has a link to an explanatory document or contact for
> someone who could 

Re: [PSES] Question for FCC Part 18 RE test?

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 11:32:20 +0900,
  Youngsik Kim  wrote:

> According to FCC part 18.305 FIELD STRENGTH LIMITS, a test article of Any
> type unless otherwise specified has a measurement distance of 300 meters,
> but I want to measure it at a distance of 3 meters because I need to
> measure it in a chamber.
> In this case, what is the limit at 3 meters?
> 
> If we use Any non-ISM frequency, the measurement distance is 300 meters and
> the limit value is 15 uV/m, We have a limit of 63.5 dBuV/m when measuring
> at 3 meters.
> However, other laboratories apply a limit of 103.5 dBuV/m.
> Depending on the RF power of the test device, can I use a 40 log instead of
> a 20 log conversion?
> Is the conversion different depending on the power of the test device?

See note 2 in the section, which says:

  Testing for compliance with these limits may be made at closer
  distances, provided a sufficient number of measurements are taken to
  plot the radiation pattern, to determine the major lobes of radiation,
  and to determine the expected field strength level at 30, 300, or 1600
  meters.

  Alternatively, if measurements are made at only one closer fixed
  distance, then the permissible field strength limits shall be adjusted
  using 1/d as an attenuation factor.

With the former method above, attenuation factor larger than -20 dB/decade
may be used if measurements at closer distances justified that.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT

[T.Sato]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 19:12:57 +0900,
  "T.Sato"  wrote:
...
> However, in case of the EMC Directive, it requires "... it complies
> with this Directive when properly installed, maintained and used for
> its intended purpose."
> 
> If if is considered that to install tens of LED lights in a house is
> covered by the "intended purpose", shouldn't the LED lights still
> comply with the essential requirements of the Directive in that
> configuration, too?

P.S.

I didn't mean to test tens or hundreds of lamps as a whole.

I only said that they shouldn't cause interference poblem (it is half
of the essential requirements of the Directive) when installed and used
as intended.

Regards,
Tom


>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Ken Javor 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I’m finding this an extremely interesting discussion. I don’t have
>>> anything definitive to offer, but I do have a question to help stir the pot.
>>>
>>> If the possibility that multiple items might be used together and that
>>> emissions will be additive in some fashion is a justification for testing
>>> multiple units at a time, what about ... light bulbs?
>>>
>>> Meaning CFLs or LEDs.
>>>
>>> My house is full of them.  It is reasonable to assume that most
>>> homes/businesses are. Perhaps the emissions limits for these were based on
>>> this reasonably foreseeable outcome?
>>>
>>> Ken Javor
>>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *John Mcbain 
>>> *Reply-To: *John Mcbain 
>>> *Date: *Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:22:44 -0800
>>> *To: *
>>> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT
>>>
>>> Hi Derek -
>>>
>>> Typical requirement for a unit that may be sold and used in multiples
>>> (that is, all the units can be sold together as one product) is you can
>>> test just one IF adding the other units does not increase the emissions.
>>>
>>> Of course the most practical way to determine that is to assemble the
>>> multiple units to see what happens.  If the test result for testing max.
>>> connected units compared to testing only one unit shows no significant
>>> difference, then you're good - but definitely archive those test results!
>>>
>>> If you can't pass the test with all units connected, then whatever you do,
>>> don't let Marketing create a multiple-unit product to sell.  ;-)
>>>
>>> Similarly, the desktop PC system that James mentioned would have all power
>>> cords separately tested for conducted emissions as a fully connected system
>>> (monitor, printer, scanner, etc. attached) if it is a  product sold as a
>>> complete all-included system.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> John McBain
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:59 PM James Pawson (U3C) <
>>> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Derek,
>>>
>>>
>>> Is the daisy chain connection the AC supply or some other power bus?
>>>
>>>
>>> How is 8 units daisy chained any different to 8 separate units all on the
>>> same power bus? We are looking for individual emission contributions from
>>> each connected unit.
>>>
>>>
>>> If measuring conducted emissions on a desktop pc (y'know, the big ones we
>>> had before everyone had laptops to work from home...) the you would just
>>> measure the PC, not the monitor and printer and scanner and modem and and
>>> and...
>>>
>>>
>>> Just thinking aloud
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>  Lfresearch wrote 
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’ve been asked to test a light fixture that has the ability to be daisy
>>> chained up to 8 units.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I run conducted emissions, I’m wondering if I need to insist on
>>> having 8 units plugged in at once i.e. fully populated, OR, can I just test
>>> one fixture at a time since that’s how the system is likely to be used
>>> also..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there a legal requirement or precedent on how this should be tested as
>>> I’m going round in circles arguing with myself here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Derek.
>&

Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT

[T.Sato]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 11:07:01 -0800,
  John Mcbain  wrote:

> Absolutely, the requirement is "... it complies with this Directive when
> properly installed, maintained and used for its intended purpose."  But
> what is "it"?
> 
> I maintain that "it" is the product that is tested and sold, not all the
> possible final configurations in which combinations of "it" might be
> found.

Assume a product that is clearly intended to be installed and used with
tens of the same model of the product.
If the product is installed and used as intended and caused interference,
although with other tens of same model of the product, isn't it caused
the interference?

> The final installer/user, not the manufacturer, would be responsible for
> whatever interference might be caused by the in-use combination of multiple
> units of compliant products UNLESS the manufacturer sells that combination
> as a product.

The EMC Directive require to provide instruction neessary to comply
with the essential requirements.

If installer didn't follow the provided instruction and caused
interference problem, I think the installer is responsible.

However, if the installer follow the provided instruction if any
(and electric code, if applicable) but still caused interference
problem, the installer (maybe end-user himself, who is probably layman
at least for EMC) still responsible for that?

Regards,
Tom


> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 2:13 AM T.Sato  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 21:12:40 -0800,
>>   John Mcbain  wrote:
>>
>> > The key is testing the .  If all the light bulbs in your house
>> and
>> > the connecting wiring was sold as a single product, then presumably it
>> > would have been tested for EMC in that configuration.  I doubt that is
>> what
>> > happened.  
>>
>> Well, standards usually require to test product, in a representative
>> or minimum configuration.
>>
>> However, in case of the EMC Directive, it requires "... it complies
>> with this Directive when properly installed, maintained and used for
>> its intended purpose."
>>
>> If if is considered that to install tens of LED lights in a house is
>> covered by the "intended purpose", shouldn't the LED lights still
>> comply with the essential requirements of the Directive in that
>> configuration, too?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Ken Javor 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I’m finding this an extremely interesting discussion. I don’t have
>> >> anything definitive to offer, but I do have a question to help stir the
>> pot.
>> >>
>> >> If the possibility that multiple items might be used together and that
>> >> emissions will be additive in some fashion is a justification for
>> testing
>> >> multiple units at a time, what about ... light bulbs?
>> >>
>> >> Meaning CFLs or LEDs.
>> >>
>> >> My house is full of them.  It is reasonable to assume that most
>> >> homes/businesses are. Perhaps the emissions limits for these were based
>> on
>> >> this reasonably foreseeable outcome?
>> >>
>> >> Ken Javor
>> >> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> *From: *John Mcbain 
>> >> *Reply-To: *John Mcbain 
>> >> *Date: *Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:22:44 -0800
>> >> *To: *
>> >> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT
>> >>
>> >> Hi Derek -
>> >>
>> >> Typical requirement for a unit that may be sold and used in multiples
>> >> (that is, all the units can be sold together as one product) is you can
>> >> test just one IF adding the other units does not increase the emissions.
>> >>
>> >> Of course the most practical way to determine that is to assemble the
>> >> multiple units to see what happens.  If the test result for testing max.
>> >> connected units compared to testing only one unit shows no significant
>> >> difference, then you're good - but definitely archive those test
>> results!
>> >>
>> >> If you can't pass the test with all units connected, then whatever you
>> do,
>> >> don't let Marketing create a multiple-unit product to sell.  ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Similarly, the desktop PC system that James mentioned would have all
>> power
>> >> cords separately tested for conducted emissions as a fully connected
>> system

Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 21:12:40 -0800,
  John Mcbain  wrote:

> The key is testing the .  If all the light bulbs in your house and
> the connecting wiring was sold as a single product, then presumably it
> would have been tested for EMC in that configuration.  I doubt that is what
> happened.  

Well, standards usually require to test product, in a representative
or minimum configuration.

However, in case of the EMC Directive, it requires "... it complies
with this Directive when properly installed, maintained and used for
its intended purpose."

If if is considered that to install tens of LED lights in a house is
covered by the "intended purpose", shouldn't the LED lights still
comply with the essential requirements of the Directive in that
configuration, too?

Regards,
Tom


> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Ken Javor 
> wrote:
> 
>> I’m finding this an extremely interesting discussion. I don’t have
>> anything definitive to offer, but I do have a question to help stir the pot.
>>
>> If the possibility that multiple items might be used together and that
>> emissions will be additive in some fashion is a justification for testing
>> multiple units at a time, what about ... light bulbs?
>>
>> Meaning CFLs or LEDs.
>>
>> My house is full of them.  It is reasonable to assume that most
>> homes/businesses are. Perhaps the emissions limits for these were based on
>> this reasonably foreseeable outcome?
>>
>> Ken Javor
>> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From: *John Mcbain 
>> *Reply-To: *John Mcbain 
>> *Date: *Fri, 17 Feb 2023 14:22:44 -0800
>> *To: *
>> *Subject: *Re: [PSES] Adding more than one EUT
>>
>> Hi Derek -
>>
>> Typical requirement for a unit that may be sold and used in multiples
>> (that is, all the units can be sold together as one product) is you can
>> test just one IF adding the other units does not increase the emissions.
>>
>> Of course the most practical way to determine that is to assemble the
>> multiple units to see what happens.  If the test result for testing max.
>> connected units compared to testing only one unit shows no significant
>> difference, then you're good - but definitely archive those test results!
>>
>> If you can't pass the test with all units connected, then whatever you do,
>> don't let Marketing create a multiple-unit product to sell.  ;-)
>>
>> Similarly, the desktop PC system that James mentioned would have all power
>> cords separately tested for conducted emissions as a fully connected system
>> (monitor, printer, scanner, etc. attached) if it is a  product sold as a
>> complete all-included system.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> John McBain
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:59 PM James Pawson (U3C) <
>> ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Derek,
>>
>>
>> Is the daisy chain connection the AC supply or some other power bus?
>>
>>
>> How is 8 units daisy chained any different to 8 separate units all on the
>> same power bus? We are looking for individual emission contributions from
>> each connected unit.
>>
>>
>> If measuring conducted emissions on a desktop pc (y'know, the big ones we
>> had before everyone had laptops to work from home...) the you would just
>> measure the PC, not the monitor and printer and scanner and modem and and
>> and...
>>
>>
>> Just thinking aloud
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>  Lfresearch wrote 
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve been asked to test a light fixture that has the ability to be daisy
>> chained up to 8 units.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I run conducted emissions, I’m wondering if I need to insist on
>> having 8 units plugged in at once i.e. fully populated, OR, can I just test
>> one fixture at a time since that’s how the system is likely to be used
>> also..
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a legal requirement or precedent on how this should be tested as
>> I’m going round in circles arguing with myself here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Derek.
>>
>>
>>
>> SSCLabs,
>>
>> Reno, NV.
>>
>> -
>>
>> 
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <
>> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>
>> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe)
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>>
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Mike Cantwell 
>>
>>
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher:  
>>
>> David Heald: 
>>
>> _
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>>
>> -
>> 
>>
>> This message is from 

Re: [PSES] Harmonics test requirement for Japan

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 14:19:34 +,
  "Paasche, Dieter"  wrote:

> Is there a requirement to test harmonics in Japan to obtain VCCI on an ITE 
> equipment.
> There is a JIS C 61000-3-2 standard, but it is required by VCCI?

No, it it not required by VCCI.

Compliance with JIS C 61000-3-2 is strongly recommended by the
Ministry, and manufactures usually treat the standard as if it is
a mandatory requirement.

> If yes, I assume it is been tested to Japanese voltage.

Yes.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Origin of steps in radiated emissions limit lines

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:42:23 +0100,
  "James Pawson (U3C)"  wrote:

> A question I get asked by our customers, and that I've not found a
> satisfactory answer to, is why are there steps in the limit lines for
> radiated emissions?
>
> This kind of leads to the question of how do limit lines get specified in
> the first place? For emissions and immunity.

For emission, maybe worth to read the following articles:

"A Historical Look Back: The 1977 CBEMA Paper on Electromagnetic Emanations"
(Daniel D. Hoolihan, published in In Compliance Magagine) 

https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations/
https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations-2/
https://incompliancemag.com/article/a-historical-look-back-the-1977-cbema-paper-on-electromagnetic-emanations-part-3/

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 21:28:48 +,
  Ryan Jazz  wrote:

> We have a Short Range Device transmitter and corresponding receivers we 
> install in various enclosures for which we have test reports from different 
> US labs.
> Transmitter power is less than 10mW and uses the 2.4GHz band.
> The various reports issued show the ETSI EN 301 489-1 V1.9.2 as one of the 
> standards to which they were tested. The other is EN 300 440 V2.1.1.
> 
>   *   My question is how do we show this ETSI standard in the RED Declaration 
> of Conformity when this standard is listed only in the OJEC under the EMC 
> Directive?
> Many RED guidance articles mention the EMC Directive should not be identified 
> in the RED DoC.
> Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it 
> would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
> Instead of this ETSI standard, should we list the EN 55035:2017 standard 
> instead, which is published in the OJEC under the RED?

Annex VI of the Directive clearly says:

  6. References to the relevant harmonised standards used or
  references to **the other technical specifications** in relation to
  which conformity is declared. ...

Although non-harmonised standards will not give presumption of conformity,
I believe we can list any non-harmonised documents in the DoC.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Surge on input/output lines which connected to power supply

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 12:22:26 +0200,
  Thomas Stolle  wrote:

> We have to recertificate a device. From EN62061 we changed to
> EN61326-3-1.
> In EN61326-3-1 in table 6 (german version) they discribe, that signal
> lines, which connected to power supply have to test with 2kV symmetric
> an 4kV asymmetric and such lines have to test with a
> coupling/decoupling network for supply lines (2 Ohm or 12 Ohm)
> We have a DC24V device. I don't understand why we must test the signal
> lines with the twice of voltage of the power lines. Die signal lines
> are connected to the same DC24V source like the power lines.
> The device will be build in a cabinet (IP20) as part of a machine.
> It's a safety-relevant device.
> 
> Is this a faulty part of the standard?
> 
> We will destroy about 18 devices, because we have to repeat every test
> three times (criterion DS).

I believe the test levels are intended to cover I/O ports directly
connected to AC mains networks.

Although the term "power supply networks" is not defined in the standard,
can't you insist that those ports may be connected to local DC power supply
but will not be connected to "power supply **networks**"?

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] FW: Testing to IEC 60601-1-2-2014 + A1-2020

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 07:03:43 +,
  David Shidlovsky  wrote:

> Any opinions as to when testing conducted and radiated missions of a medical 
> device being tested to IEC 60601-1-2 can be performed to CISPR 14-1 or CISPR 
> 32 instead of CISPR 11?
> Would it be more appropriate to test a medical device used in home health 
> care environment using CISPR 14-1 instead of CISPR 11 since CISPR 14-1 is 
> four household devices?
> Any ideas as to when testing using CISPR 32 instead of CISPR 11 is 
> appropriate. Many modern medical devices/systems incorporate multimedia 
> devices (some of which have not been tested to CISPR 32).

CISPR 14-1 is applicable to ME EQUIPMENT whose main functions are performed
by motors and switching or regulating devices. Examples include motor-driven
electromedical apparatus such as simple dental drills and simple operation
tables. (see clause 7.1.7)

CISPR 32 is applicable to multimedia equipment connected to ME EQUIPMENT and
ME SYSTEMS. (see clause 7.1.3)
For example, personal computer, external LCD mointor, video recorder,
network equipments which comply with CISPR 32 may be connected to
me equipment without re-testing them with CISPR 11.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] EN 62311:2008 : proper statement in European Declaration of Conformity

[T.Sato]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:41:10 -0700,
  Richard Georgerian  wrote:

> The European Journal has listed only the EN 62311:2008, whereas at the
> Cenelec webpage it has EN IEC 62311:2020. The "EN" in, EN IEC 62311:2020,
> implies that it is a harmonized standard and should be in the European
> Journal.

Not all "EN" will be harmonized under European Directives/Regulations.

> But I am not sure why the "IEC" is in the name or what it implies
> or its significance.

As described in clause 4.1 of CENELEC Guide 13 dated 2016-10,
https://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CENELEC/Guides/CLC/13_CENELECGuide13.pdf,
"EN IEC" now means the EN standard is identical with the corresponding
IEC standard.

> As for the EU Declaration of Conformity, are we only to
> state that a product meets, EN 62311:2008, when in fact, the product was
> tested to the 2020 version, or the latest version, even though the latest
> version is not in the European Journal?

I believe manufactures can choose to apply harmonized standards
or non-harmonized standards, although only the harmonized standards
will give presumption of conformity.

Although compliance with the newer non-harmonized standard necessary
means compliance with the older harmonized standard, if you can
demonstrate compliance with both editions of the standard, maybe
you can references older edition, newer edition or both editions
in your DoC.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] ELP devices in Japan

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 21:34:17 +,
  MARIO DE ARANZETA  wrote:

> I've read information on several websites about extremely low power devices 
> for Japan.  The fundamental limit being 500uV/m@3m for frequencies below 322 
> MHz.  Does anyone know if this is a Q-P or Average.Also what is the limit for 
> harmonics?

It is slightly complex.

For example in 30 MHz to 1 GHz range, measure the emission with QP, PK with RBW 
= 100 kHz,
and PK with RBW = 1 MHz, and

  o PK(1MHz) - PK(100kHz) <= 3 dB --- use QP value
  o 3 dB < PK(1MHz) - PK(100kHz) <= 7 dB --- use PK(1 MHz) value
  o 7 dB < PK(1MHz) - PK(100kHz) --- use PK(1MHz) value + 5 dB
  
No special limit for harmonics, and same limit (500 uV/m for f < 322 MHz,
35 uV/m for 322 MHz <= f <= 10 MHz, ...) can apply.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Japanese safety lab

[T.Sato]

Hello Peter,

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 22:54:40 +,
  06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:

> Are there any other government agency that can do safety tests beside JET in 
> Japan? I have been dealing with JET directly and it has been a nightmare due 
> to their lack of knowledge of ITE standard and wanted to see if there are any 
> other labs that I can use rather than JET.

Why you need JET or other "government agency"?

Involvement of such agency will not be required for most ITEs.

Some of products covered by Electrical Appliances and Materials Safety
Act (known as "PSE") will need to be assessed by one of the registered
conformity assessment bodies, but some foreign certification bodies
such as TUV LGA are also registered:
https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/consumer/seian/denan/cab_list.html

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] Intentional radiator Class A or Class B

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 02:51:17 +,
  06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org wrote:

> I have a client that design and manufacture products for usein 
> non-residential environment. This product consists of a BT module. I am 
> toldthat the product must meet Class B emissions. Is this correct? What if we 
> putan statement in the user manual stating that this product is not to be 
> used inresidential market? Would that give us the pass to go to Class A?

Can it be considered as a composite system (47 CFR 2.947) that incorporate
Class A unintentional radiator and Part 15 intentional radiator?

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] Electrical equipment in an EU ship

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:28:13 +,
  "Rodriguez, Daniel (ESP)"  wrote:

> Is there any regulation specifically for equipment to an EU ship apart of 
> normal regulations/directives (EMC, LVD, RoHS)?
> Consider that this equipment is not lifesaving, marine pollution, fire 
> protection, navigation equipment, radio communication. Just soap dosing 
> system for washing machines.

If the ships are classified, you may need to consider the rules for
classification of ships, such as those Lloyd's, Bureau Veritas, etc.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-4-9: Section 7.3 - use of a non-conductive table

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 14:36:54 -0600,
  Richard Georgerian  wrote:

> In IEC 61000-4-9, Section 7.3 it states the following -
> 
> "Table-top EUT's shall be placed on a non-conductive table."
> 
> Up until now, I have always thought that "non-conductive" had meant no
> metals, such as iron, steel, aluminum, copper, etc. In that meaning, the
> table would then be made of wood, foam, etc. However, I have been advised
> that for this particular case of impulse magnetic field immunity test, that
> "non-conductive" is referring to material that should not be magnetic
> conductive, such as aluminum or copper. Iron and steel would not be used, as
> these are considered magnetic conductive. And therefore, an aluminum or
> copper sheet would be placed on the table under the EUT.
>
> The standard does not provide guidance as to the use of "non-conductive"
> that would mean in essence, "should not be magnetic conductive".
> 
> Any guidance and insight would be most helpful.

I believe "non-conductive" means electrically non-conductive.

It should also non-magnetic to avoid influences to magnetic field,
but most non-conductive material should also non-magnetic.

In addition, in case of IEC/EN 61000-4-9:2016, I though that GRP
below the table-top EUT is no longer required.

So, I believe we can simply use wood or foam tables.

See also IEC/EN 61000-4-8, which use both "non-conductive" and
"non-magnetic" for different meanings.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 14:39:46 +,
  Jim Hulbert  wrote:

> Yes, FCC requirements for this type of equipment are not very practical.
> As a side note, such large equipment is industrial in nature, which may lead 
> one to believe they would fall under FCC Part 18 for ISM instead of Part 15.  
>  However, Part 18 only covers industrial equipment that generates and locally 
> uses RF energy for the production of physical, biological, or chemical 
> effects.  An industrial machine that does not utilize RF energy for these 
> purposes is not within scope of Part 18, and so Part 15 applies.

I guess large industrial machines which will not fall under Part 18
may often be exempted from Part 15 (except for general conditions of
operation), especially due to 47 CFR 15.103 (b) or (c).

If the machine can't be exempted, although in-situ radiated emission
measurement can be very difficult, I think we need to measure them
in-situ individually at least for first three installations.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  

> From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 3:05 AM
> To: Jim Hulbert ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: **External**Re: [PSES] FCC Part 15 Testing in Situ
> 
> 
> Such very large equipment tends to be custom-designed, so three identical 
> installations never exist. Even if there are three identical installations, 
> they are unlikely to be completed simultaneously, so how can the first two be 
> legally operated before the third is installed and tested?
> 
> I wonder if FCC needs to look again at this requirement.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> 
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> 
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
> On 2019-02-21 20:48, Jim Hulbert wrote:
> Equipment that is covered under FCC Rules Part 15, but which is too large to 
> test on an open area test site, can alternatively been tested in situ.  
> However, the rules state that the test should be performed at 3 different 
> representative installations of the equipment.  Does anyone on this forum 
> have experience doing this?  I would expect conducted emissions to be 
> reasonably similar, but I can see how environmental influences could result 
> in 3 different sets of radiated emissions data.  How do you make sense of the 
> data?
> 
> Jim Hulbert
> 
> 
> 
> This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged 
> information. It is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If 
> you have received it in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply 
> email and then delete this message. No one other than the intended recipient 
> may disclose, copy, distribute or use the information contained in 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
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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] Magnetic field emissions below 150 kHz, especially 0 Hz to 9 kHz

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:43:30 +,
  John Woodgate  wrote:

> CISPR standards do not cover the above, but I suppose military and
> aviation standards may do.  Is there anything available free of
> charge?

MIL-STD-461 RE101 covers 30 Hz to 100 kHz magnetic field measurement
using 13.3 cm loop at distance of 7 cm.

http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0300-0499/MIL-STD-461_8678/

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Japanese manis leads

[T.Sato]

John,

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:42:39 +,
  John Woodgate  wrote:

> Hello, Sato-san.  Since mains outlets rarely have PE terminals, is the
> built-in wiring in homes also just 2-core (no PEC) for 100 V and
> 3-core (no PEC) for 200 V?

These days,

  o 200 V outlets (typically used for high-power equipment such as
air conditioners, cloth dryers and IH cookers) and those cables
usually have PE conductors

  o some 100 V appliances such as air conditioners, cloth washers,
refrigerator, shower toilets also require PE, and outlets for
those places typically have PE terminals (2-core outlets with
a separate earth terminal, or 3-core outlets) and wired with
3-core cables

  o other most outlets usually have no PE, and those cables may
or may not have PE conditioners

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Japanese manis leads

[T.Sato]

John,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:40:26 -,
  "John Allen"  wrote:

> Ref those 200V products: are they single phase 2-wire (Neutral + Live) +
> Ground, OR split-phase (100V on each of 2 Live legs) + Neutral return?
> (IIRC, it is the latter - probably introduced as a result of North American
> influence where that configuration is common for high consumption
> appliances).

200 V rated products and 200 V outlets usually use 2-wires (L + L) + PE,
although 200 V distributions have 3-wires (L + N + L) + PE so that both
200 V and 100 V equipment can be powered.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp


> -Original Message-
> From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.com] 
> Sent: 07 December 2018 14:04
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Japanese manis leads
> 
> John,
> 
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:54:18 +,
>   John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
>> In Japan, are 3-core (L, N, PE) mains leads widely used for
>> single-phase products or are the majority of products safety Class II,
>> with just L and N?
> 
> At least for household products, majority of products are Class 0
> and some specific products such as cloth washers are Class 0I.
> 
> Here in Japan, mains outlets in homes rarely have PE terminals.
> 
> Some products such as air conditioners sometimes rated for 200 V,
> in that case they often have 3-core mains cords.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tomonori Sato  
> URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 
> 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Japanese manis leads

[T.Sato]

John,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:54:18 +,
  John Woodgate  wrote:

> In Japan, are 3-core (L, N, PE) mains leads widely used for
> single-phase products or are the majority of products safety Class II,
> with just L and N?

At least for household products, majority of products are Class 0
and some specific products such as cloth washers are Class 0I.

Here in Japan, mains outlets in homes rarely have PE terminals.

Some products such as air conditioners sometimes rated for 200 V,
in that case they often have 3-core mains cords.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Alternative coupling for Surge Test - Higher current products

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:10:22 +,
  Andre Gomes Videira  wrote:

> We have some products with a current higher than the Surge test CDN from many 
> labs in our region can withstand.
> So, we found a lab that does an alternate Surge test.
> 
> Instead of connecting the product to the CDN, they connect it directly to the 
> power supply.
> In the output of the CDN, in each phase, a 10uF capacitor is placed, and it 
> goes directly to the product power supply.
> This way, the current does not go through the CDN, and the Surge noise 
> couples directly to the product.
> 
> We have some doubts on this method, since:
> 
> 1)  It changes the output CDN surge impedance, what can lead to some 
> changes in the noise waveform
> 
> 2)  Since I am coupling directly to the supply, the noise voltage could 
> be divided by going to the product and to the supply in parallel
> 
> What are your thoughts on this? Is this a valid test method?

FYI, IEC 61000-4-5:2014 Annex H (informative), "Coupling/decoupling
surges to lines rated above 200 A", suggests an alternative method
which use a long supply cable as the decoupling network.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Dips and interruptions when connected to UPS

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:35:57 +0200,
  Amund Westin  wrote:

> If a device is permanent connected to an uninterruptible power supply (UPS)
> via its AC input port, can the Voltage dips and interruption test be
> omitted? It could sound like a possibility, but maybe it depends on the UPS
> performance.
> 
> Any experiences?

Depends to the type of UPS, UPS may have transfer time of order of ms or
tens of ms, which means the equipment powered through a UPS may still
experience short dip or interruption.

If specific UPS will be used, maybe it is possible to test the equipment
with the UPS.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] digital controllers used on earth moving machinery--FCC labeling needed?

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:33:18 +,
  Chester Summers  wrote:

> Does the FCC require labeling on digital controllers used on earth moving 
> machinery, or is the finished product category exempt?  These devices may 
> control engines or various electric or hydraulic implements, and are 12-24Vdc 
> powered unintentional radiators that must be installed on a machine to 
> function.  I'm examining a legacy product label series that includes an FCC 
> Part 15 interference statement that I think is unnecessary.  Not that it 
> hurts to keep the statement in place, but is it technically correct?
...
> Exempted device category (a) could apply here, yet I haven't found a formal 
> FCC definition of "transportation vehicle".  The above mentioned CISPR 
> standards are applied across the construction & earth moving machinery 
> industries for both on and off-road vehicles powered by ICE.

Although it doesn't address this topic, FCC KDB 896810 has some
related information:

Answer 6:
...
However, a battery charger and associated digital electronics on-board
a vehicle that is used for charging the vehicle’s battery while
parked and connected to AC power lines is not exempt from an equipment
authorization under Section 15.103. Section 15.103(a) does not apply
to battery chargers for electric vehicles that can be used for
charging while stationary and connected to an AC power line.
**The exemption is only intended for digital devices which operate
primarily when the vehicle is in motion, such as on a road or highway**
where the potential for interference is low. When stationary and
connected to the AC power line, typically in a residential environment
such as a home garage or driveway, the potential for interference by
both AC line conducted emissions and radiated emissions is greater.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] EU Harmonized RF Exposure Standards per RED for 13.56 MHz RFID

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:38:41 -0700,
  Grace Lin  wrote:

> Is there any harmonized standards applicable to 13.56 MHz RFID devices?
> 
> The following four standards are listed in the latest published list
> standards (March 9, 2018).  It seems there is no one applicable to a 13.56
> MHz RFID device.

Will EN 50364 applicable to the device?

Although it is not listed under 2014/53/EU yet, EN 50364:2010 is
listed under 2014/35/EU, and it appears EN 50364:2018 is intended
to be harmonized under 2014/35/EU and 2014/53/EU.

EN 50364:2018
Product standard for human exposure to electromagnetic fields from
devices operating in the frequency range 0 Hz to 300 GHz, used in
Electronic Article Surveillance (EAS), Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) and similar applications

https://www.cenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=104:110:1541743784364801FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_PROJECT,FSP_LANG_ID:1258483,62212,25

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Clicks per CISPR 14-1

[T.Sato]

Paolo,

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom


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

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

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:13:26 -0500,
  Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> wrote:

> There shouldn't be a lower impedance issue, because from 150 kHz up the LISN
> is very close to 50 ohms.  And once the LISN coil impedance is well above 50
> ohms, the measured LISN impedance should be 50 ohms in parallel with the
> bleeder resistor, which is essentially 50 ohms. The only affect is if there
...

I think:

  o 50 ohms / 50 uH + 5 ohms LISN has impedance spec down to 9 kHz,
and its EUT port impedance is 5 ohms + j2.8 ohms at 9 kHz.

  o Automotive 5 uH LISN has impedance spec down to 150 kHz, and its
EUT port impedance is j4.7 ohms at 150 kHz.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp


>> From: "T.Sato" <vef00...@nifty.com>
>> Reply-To: "T.Sato" <vef00...@nifty.com>
>> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:58:54 +0900
>> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty
>> 
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +,
>>   Mac Elliott <0a115b29e815-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance
>>> verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty
>>> budget. 
>>> Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go
>>> through the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there
>>> would appreciate it if you could share.
>> 
>> I think the major contributions would be:
>> 
>>   o network analyzer (VNA?);
>>   o calibration jig which will be required to connect coax to the LISN
>> terminals.
>> 
>> Other possible contributions such as resolution and repeatability may also
>> need to be considered, even if they are relatively minor.
>> 
>> 
>> For lower impedance, network analyzers may have relatively large impedance
>> measurement uncertainty:
>> 
>>   
>> http://www.keysight.com/main/editorial.jspx?cc=ES=spa=102148:epsg:
>> faq=-11143.0.00=102148:epsg:faq
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
>> URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 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>
> 
> -
> 
> 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>

-

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] LISN Calibration Measurement Uncertainty

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:32:09 +,
  Mac Elliott <0a115b29e815-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> We are interested in doing some in-house LISN calibrations (impedance 
> verification only using network analyzer) and need to develop an uncertainty 
> budget. 
> Does anyone happen to have a budget you could share with us? We will go 
> through the exercise of calculating ourself but if there is one out there 
> would appreciate it if you could share.

I think the major contributions would be:

  o network analyzer (VNA?);
  o calibration jig which will be required to connect coax to the LISN 
terminals.

Other possible contributions such as resolution and repeatability may also need 
to be considered, even if they are relatively minor.


For lower impedance, network analyzers may have relatively large impedance 
measurement uncertainty:

  
http://www.keysight.com/main/editorial.jspx?cc=ES=spa=102148:epsg:faq=-11143.0.00=102148:epsg:faq

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] application of CISPR 32 to EUTs with integrated radio transmitters

[T.Sato]

Hello members,

Thanks all who responded.

I hope CISPR makes this topic clear in near future.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp


On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 03:10:27 +0900,
  "T.Sato" <vef00...@nifty.com> wrote:

> Hello members,
> 
> I want to hear of your opinion - while emission measurement for CISPR 32, 
> integrated radio transmitters must transmitting?
> 
> 
> Although the standard is not clear whether radio transmitter can be set off 
> in emission measurement, I believed we can set radio transmitter off, as:
> 
> - CISPR 32 said "The radiated emission requirements in this standard are not 
> intended to be applicable to the intentional transmissions from a radio 
> transmitter as defined by the ITU, nor to any spurious emissions related to 
> these intentional transmissions."
> 
> - If non-transmitter function of the equipment (such as CPU clock and 
> harmonics) generates emissions in the frequency band of the intentional 
> transmission of the transmitter (such as 2.4 to 2.5 GHz), I think we should 
> apply the emission limits as the emissions are not related to the intentional 
> transmissions. However, it is difficult to measure such emissions in presence 
> of the intentional transmission.
> 
> - The standard says "Compliance can be shown by measuring the EUT's emissions 
> when operating its functions simultaneously, individually in turn, or any 
> combination thereof." So, even if emissions from the transmitter function 
> must also be considered in the standard, it should permissible to test 
> non-transmitter function of the equipment while transmitter is set off.
> 
> - Then, if the transmitter function of the equipment is tested while all the 
> other functions are set off, all the emissions measured are those caused by 
> the transmitter.
> 
> 
> However, I heard of strong opinions that the emission measurement must be run 
> while the integrated radio transmitter is transmitting, and all the emissions 
> in the frequency bands of intended transmissions and those harmonics should 
> be simply ignored.
> 
> 
> What do you think about this?
> 
> Regards,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
> URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp
> 
> -
> 
> 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>

-

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>

[PSES] application of CISPR 32 to EUTs with integrated radio transmitters

[T.Sato]

Hello members,

I want to hear of your opinion - while emission measurement for CISPR 32, 
integrated radio transmitters must transmitting?


Although the standard is not clear whether radio transmitter can be set off in 
emission measurement, I believed we can set radio transmitter off, as:

- CISPR 32 said "The radiated emission requirements in this standard are not 
intended to be applicable to the intentional transmissions from a radio 
transmitter as defined by the ITU, nor to any spurious emissions related to 
these intentional transmissions."

- If non-transmitter function of the equipment (such as CPU clock and 
harmonics) generates emissions in the frequency band of the intentional 
transmission of the transmitter (such as 2.4 to 2.5 GHz), I think we should 
apply the emission limits as the emissions are not related to the intentional 
transmissions. However, it is difficult to measure such emissions in presence 
of the intentional transmission.

- The standard says "Compliance can be shown by measuring the EUT's emissions 
when operating its functions simultaneously, individually in turn, or any 
combination thereof." So, even if emissions from the transmitter function must 
also be considered in the standard, it should permissible to test 
non-transmitter function of the equipment while transmitter is set off.

- Then, if the transmitter function of the equipment is tested while all the 
other functions are set off, all the emissions measured are those caused by the 
transmitter.


However, I heard of strong opinions that the emission measurement must be run 
while the integrated radio transmitter is transmitting, and all the emissions 
in the frequency bands of intended transmissions and those harmonics should be 
simply ignored.


What do you think about this?

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] EN55032 host equipment...

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 22:32:38 +,
  Matthew Wilson  wrote:

> In regards testing, for example's sake, a printer with a RS232 serial port 
> under EN55032 for EMC, where does the host 'laptop' PC to generate the RS232 
> signals (most likely via a USB-RS232 adapter from the laptop's USB port) get 
> located in the test setup?
> 
> Inside the test chamber, where you might end up testing the performance of 
> the laptop?  Or outside the chamber via an 'extension lead' through a 
> suitable aperture in the chamber on the RS232 line (and probably loaded with 
> a set of ferrites to attenuate any external signals)?
> 
> EN55032 does seem to conflict itself without a clear answer between #3.1.5 
> and #6.2...
> 
> I'd rather check only the example printer device for EMC, which is the EUT of 
> interest, rather than anyone else's laptop :-)

The standard permit to reduce emission from AEs by mitigation measures
in certain conditions, although it may not easy to demonstrate that
the mitigation measures will not reduce the emission from the EUT.


10 Compliance with this publication
...
If the AE is known to cause significant emissions, these emissions may
be reduced by mitigation measures, as long as these measures do not
reduce the emissions from the EUT. The preferred configuration is that
the AE is removed from the measurement area, as allowed by D.1


Annex D   Arrangement of EUT, local AE and associated cabling
...
Arrangements such as placing AE below the RGP or placing AE outside
the measurement area when it is normally located distant from the EUT
may be used to limit the effects of adverse AE emissions or to reduce
measurement time, as long as the arrangement can be shown not to
reduce the emissions measured from the EUT.


Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] EN55024 - conducted immunity on 28VDC powered equipment

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:51:28 -0700,
  "Ghery S. Pettit"  wrote:

> EN 55024 is based on CISPR 24:2010.  Without looking at a copy of the EN 
> document (which, IIRC, only provides references), CISPR 24 clearly has a 
> table for a port called DC input.  So, the short answer is, yes, there are 
> conducted immunity requirements for 28 VDC powered ITE.

Yes, but appliability of surge, burst, and conducted RF tests depends to
the situation:

o Surge test is required only to to ports connect directly to outdoor cables

o If the equipment is marketed with ac/dc power converter, those tests will
  be applied at the input of the ac/dc power converter

o If d.c. power is fed on conductors included in a signal cable, requirements
  for signal ports will be applied instead

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp


> From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:14 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] EN55024 - conducted immunity on 28VDC powered equipment
> 
>  
> 
> Currently, I’m not able to check EN55024.
> 
> Anybody who could tell me if conducted immunity (surge, burst, cond RF) 
> applies to 28VDC powered ITE? 
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers!
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Amund
> 
> -
> 
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)  
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell  
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald  
> 
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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] FCC requirements for fixed installations?

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:37:41 +0200,
  Michael Loerzer  wrote:

> in comparison to the EU EMC Directive art. 19 and annex I no. 2 "essential
> requirements for fixed installations" has US FCC similar regulations to show
> compliance?

For Part 15 devices, exemption specified in 47 CFR 15.103 may apply,
although still subjected to the general conditions of operation.

For Part 18 devices, there are no such exemption.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] SD Card ESD Testing

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:24:23 +,
  "Grasso, Charles"  wrote:

> Aside from the obvious air discharge tests around the SD card slot (with and 
> without the SD card installed) are there
> any concerns regarding the ESD performance of the SD card during INSERTION?

Only a guess...

SD card may be charged before insertion, and may cause discharge from those
contacts when inserted.
This situation may slightly similar to that simulated with charged device
model (CDM), and the discharge may be much faster than that of IEC 61000-4-2
and ISO 10605.
However, it's capacitance is low, and I think it will not become a serious
problem in general.

In case of Compact Flush card, I ever heard of a case where metalized label
on the card created an unexpected path for electrostatic discharges and
caused a problem when hold by hand and inserted to a device.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Japan PSE Approval

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:12:22 -0500,
  Grace Lin  wrote:

> Is EMC compliance a mandatory requirement to obtain Japan PSE approval for
> a lighting equipment? If yes, does it require emissions only (CISPR 15)?
> Or. does it require both emissions and immunity compliance?

If the lighting equipment is covered by PSE, compliance with
J55015(H20) (a standard derived from CISPR 15:2000+A1:2001+A2:2002)
would be required.

Immunity requirements will be applied only to specific products
which may cause hazards when disturbed.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Passive Loop Emissions [General Use]

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:15:43 +,
  "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)"  wrote:

> The customer has requested an extended magnetic field emission test over the 
> range 100kHz to 2MHz with a limit defined in dBpT.
> The antenna to be used is an EMCO 6512 which has it correction factors 
> provided in dBS/m which the emission software used does not recognise.
> So is there a conversion factor that enables the right correction factor to 
> be entered or is the conversion factor only used once a result is obtained??

By adding magnetic antenna factor in dBS/m to measured voltage in dBuV,
we can get magnetic field strength in dBuA/m.
(S/m x uV = (uA/uV)/m x uV = uA/m)

Because 1 uA/m = 1.257 pT hence 0 dBuA/m = 1.99 dBpT in air, we can
get field strength in dBpT by adding 1.99 dB(pT/(uA/m)) to the field
strength in dBuA/m.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Standard Gain Horn Antenna Calibration

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 04:30:04 +,
  itl-emc user group  wrote:

> According to ANSI 63.4: 2014 Clause 4.7.3 "Standard gain horns need not be 
> periodically recalibrated, unless damage or deterioration is suspected or 
> known to have occurred. If a standard gain horn is not periodically 
> recalibrated, its critical dimensions (see IEEE Std 1309-2005) shall be 
> verified and documented on an annual basis."
> Can anyone point me in the direction of the  clause in  IEEE Std 1309-2005 
> which mentions critical dimensions?

Figure B.6?

In the Annex, formula to calculate horn gain from aperture dimensions and
length from the aperture to the throat are also provided.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] Oscilloscope probe calibration

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 02:08:04 +0100,
  John Woodgate  wrote:

> Slight under-compensation would cause a brief overshoot to 138 V. In my
> opinion, probes can't be calibrated except with the scope they are
> exclusively used with. Covering the cal adjuster with a sticker shows a deep
> misunderstanding of how passive probes work.

Agreed.
Performance of passive probes strongly depends to the oscilloscope,
so I think it should always be calibrated with a specific oscilloscope
channel.

EURAMET cg-7 (calibration of oscilloscopes),
https://www.euramet.org/get/?tx_stag_base%5Bfile%5D=3611_stag_base%5Bidentifier%5D=%252Fdocs%252FPublications%252Fcalguides%252FEURAMET_cg-7__v_1.0_Calibration_of_Oscilloscopes.pdf_stag_base%5Baction%5D=downloadRaw_stag_base%5Bcontroller%5D=Base
also says "For multi-channel systems, the measurement result must be
related with the corresponding oscilloscope channel. A probe
calibration is only valid in combination with the calibrated
oscilloscope (indicated in the calibration certificate). The probe
calibration must be clearly related to the applied channel."

Regards,
Tom


> From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:50 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] Oscilloscope probe calibration
>  
> All,
>  
> We're seeing an issue with scope probes, and I'd appreciate suggestions, or
> just information on how others handle calibration. I've got two problems
> with passive scope probes.
>  
> First, probe compensation. Compensation depends on the capacitance of the
> scope being used, so the probe would be adjusted to match that capacitance.
> Well if the cal house is using a different scope, they'll adjust it to match
> their capacitance, which may not be what we need. Also, many times the cal
> sticker then covers the adjustment port, implying the user should not be
> adjusting that value. I disregard the stickers, but it isn't a good habit to
> get into. 
>  
> Second, we're seeing variance between  in cal probes based on what they're
> measuring. I had four probes measuring a 1 microsecond rise time transient
> signal. All were within 5% of the expected peak voltage. Next, all four
> probes measured a 5 ns rise time transient. Three peak voltages were within
> 10-15% of the measured 100V(not great, but acceptable). The fourth
> consistently read around 138 V. Nearly 40% off, just by changing the rise
> time. 5 ns might be at the edge of the probe's bandwidth, but I'd expect a
> decrease in level, not an increase. 
>  
> These were all calibrated probes, and three were identical models. The one
> that was way off wasn't the odd model. Our cal house measures a DC voltage
> for accuracy, and bandwidth. 
>  
> What's causing the inaccuracy? How can I prevent this problem in the future?
> Moving to all active probes isn't an option right now.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> David Schaefer
>  
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
>  >
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)  
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas  >
> Mike Cantwell  > 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher  >
> David Heald  > 
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
> formats), large files, etc.
> 
> Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe)
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-1-2 Ed.4 (2014) Table 9

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:15:16 + (UTC),
  MARINA PEYZNER <epeyz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yes, sure -  60601-1-2.
> So, place antenna at 3 (or 1) m and create field according to Table 9. Right? 
> But why the Table gives 0.3 m distance?
> If I have to eliminate a small area or the EUT is pretty small - may I use 
> 0.3 m distance?

30 cm is the assumed minimum separation distance between the equipment
and radio transmitters in the real world, which was used to derive the
proposed test levels in the Table 9.

IEC 61000-4-3, and note in IEC 60601-1-2 Table 9, says that the test
distance may be reduced down to 1 m.
To fully comply with those standards, minimum test distance is 1 m.


I think it questionable whether application of IEC 61000-4-3 test method
is suitable in this case, as the test is intended to simulate close
proximity of radio transmitters.
However, it is the requirement of the standard.



Regarding to the assumed minimum separate distance of 30 cm, if closer
distance may be reasonably foreseeable in actual use, smaller separate
distance hence higher electromagnetic field levels (i.e. test levels)
may need to be assumed.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp


> On Friday, May 27, 2016 2:59 PM, T.Sato <vef00...@nifty.com> wrote:
>  
> 
>  On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:37:01 +,
>   MARINA PEYZNER <epeyz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> I am confused with Note below the Table 9 in IEC 61000-1-2 Ed. 4 standard.
>> I am under impression that we have to create Immunity test levels given in 
>> this Table with placing antenna at a distance of 0.3 m but this is in 
>> contrary with this Note.
>> So, what should be the distance between antenna and EUT ? 
> 
> Maybe do you mean IEC 60601-1-2?
> 
> Anyway, in IEC 61000-4-3 in general, prefered distance is 3 m but
> the distance may be reduced down to 1 m.
> Unless otherwise specified, the requirement will be applied to standards
> which use IEC 61000-4-3 test method.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tomonori Sato  <vef00...@nifty.com>
> URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp/
> 
> -
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
>   

-

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] IEC 61000-1-2 Ed.4 (2014) Table 9

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 21:37:01 +,
  MARINA PEYZNER  wrote:

> I am confused with Note below the Table 9 in IEC 61000-1-2 Ed. 4 standard.
> I am under impression that we have to create Immunity test levels given in 
> this Table with placing antenna at a distance of 0.3 m but this is in 
> contrary with this Note.
> So, what should be the distance between antenna and EUT ? 

Maybe do you mean IEC 60601-1-2?

Anyway, in IEC 61000-4-3 in general, prefered distance is 3 m but
the distance may be reduced down to 1 m.
Unless otherwise specified, the requirement will be applied to standards
which use IEC 61000-4-3 test method.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] IEC-60601-1-2: 2014 (4th Edition)

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 05:22:07 +,
  itl-emc user group  wrote:

> According to Clause 5.2.2.1 "Requirements applicable to all ME EQUIPMENT and 
> ME SYSTEMS", :
> "For all ME EQUIPMENT and ME SYSTEMS, the technical description shall include 
> the following information:
> a) the compliance for each EMISSIONS and IMMUNITY standard or test specified 
> by this collateral standard, e.g. EMISSIONS class and group and IMMUNITY TEST 
> LEVEL;
> b) any deviations from this collateral standard and allowances used;
> c) * all necessary instructions for maintaining BASIC SAFETY and ESSENTIAL 
> PERFORMANCE with regard to ELECTROMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES for the EXPECTED 
> SERVICE LIFE."
> In IEC 60601-1-2: 2007, the above information was provided in the Guidance 
> and MANUFACTURER'S declaration - ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS tables.
> I did not find any similar tables in IEC 60601-1-2: 2014 .
> Any ideas on how to instruct clients to comply with Clause 5.2.2.1 a, b, c?

IEC 60601-1-2:2014 Annex A has some additional guide:

  Subclause 5.2.2.1 a), Compliance for each EMISSIONS and IMMUNITY
  standard

  This requirement replaces in part the requirements specified in
  Edition 3 to include tables of compliance levels and EMC guidance in
  the ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. While a MANUFACTURER can choose to put
  the information in such a format, this collateral standard does not
  mandate the format for this information. ...

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] CE-EMC on Submersible Product

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 18 May 2016 21:19:00 +,
  John Allen  wrote:

> I would like to get thoughts on if EMC testing is required for CE on a 
> product that does generate noise, but is installed 30 feet below the surface 
> of water. 
> 
> I'm guessing conducted radiation is still a concern, but what about radiated 
> and immunity??  Does it matter if it's 30 feet below or 3 feet??

If the attenuation data in

  http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JEMAA2011071_18390291.pdf
  Electromagnetic Wave Propagation into Fresh Water

is appicable, for 30 MHz, about -10 dB attenuation may be expected at
10 m, which may not enough to ignore radiated emissions and immunities.

In addition, some RF may propagate up/down through the cable.

I guess radiated emissions/immunities can still a matter.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://t-sato.in.coocan.jp

-

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] Anechoic Chamber Questions

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:14:05 +,
  "Pawson, James"  wrote:

> I have some questions about anechoic chambers that I need some help with and 
> I'm sure there is some expertise in this group that can help.
> 
> 1)  My understanding is that an anechoic chamber is meant to simulate a 
> reflection-less, free space environment. Therefore if you move a source 
> towards / away from the antenna, the signal level should follow the inverse 
> square law - correct?

In a perfect anechoic chamber with no reflection, under far-field
conditions, we expect to see inverse square law.
Actually, absorber walls will have some reflections, which can
affect to signal propagation in the chamber.
Typically, we may see some ripple in the attenuation curve.

In case of semi-anechoic chamber which mimic open area test site
on the ground, signal propagation is significantly affected by floor
reflection.

> 2)  When comparing absorber types (hybrid + ferrite tile vs. foam 
> absorber) the return loss characteristic gives the amount of absorption at a 
> particular frequency - correct?

I think not only absorption but wave cancellation and scattering
also contributes to return loss.

> 3)  If I wanted to compare effectiveness of foam absorber with hybrid + 
> tile absorber is it just a case of adding the return loss of the hybrid to 
> the return loss of the tile to achieve a final figure? My understanding is 
> that the hybrid helps match the wave impedance from free space to that of the 
> tile. Is the return loss of hybrid + tiles _together_ greater than the 
> individual return losses of the separate components? Manufacturers that I've 
> looked at list the data separately.

I don't think so.

Foam absorber may reflect some of the incident wave, which can no longer
absorbed by backing ferrite tile.

> 4)  I have been told that the distance between absorber and a reflective 
> metal backing is important for ensuring that the returning wave is in 
> anti-phase (or at least as much as possible) with the incoming signal. 
> However information on acceptable limits for this distance seems sporadic or 
> in rarefied scientific papers behind paywalls. Does anyone have any info or 
> experience on this point?

I think it depends to the absorber.

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] Best antenna for IEC 61000-4-3

[T.Sato]

Did you take a look at AR's "bent element" LPDAs such as ATR80M6G?
http://www.ar-amps.com/html/find-it-fast-antennas.asp


On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:32:58,
  "Kunde, Brian"  worte:

> I'm looking for suggestions on the best antenna to use for Radiated Immunity
 test according to IEC 61000-4-3 between 80Mhz and 1Ghz. (we use a dual ridge 
horn above 1Ghz).
>
> Our goal is to find an antenna which is not too large, yet, will give us goo
d gain at the low end so we can generate 18-20V/m with a 100 watt amplifier.
>
> I've looked at the hybrid antennas and they just don't seem to have enough g
ain at the low end. It appears that most labs that use this type of antenna re
quires a 200 watt amp.
>
> Looks like a Log Periodic has much better gain and should work but we don't 
want the radials to get too close to the floor. Plus, some of these are nearly
 2 meters long.
>
> Any suggestions or recommendations? What antenna do you use and how much pow
er do you required to achieve 10V/m with 80% AM modulation without clipping??

-

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] One DoCs vs multiple DoCs

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:51:03 +,
  "Kunde, Brian"  wrote:

> With the RoHS Directive kicking in at different times for different 
> Categories of products, I'm starting to see the RoHS Directive listed on 
> Declaration of Conformities.  However, I have also noticed many companies 
> generating two different DoCs; one for Safety and EMC and the other for RoHS 
> only.
> 
> Can someone explain to me chapter and verse on the EU's position regarding 
> multiple DoCs?
> 
> Our company's product category will soon be applicable to RoHS and we would 
> like to know if multiple DoCs are OK to do or not.  I've heard Not, but then 
> again, I see reputable companies doing it so what's the deal?

Maybe it is under the manufacture's choice.

However, recent directives such as 2014/30/EU and 2014/35/EU says:
"... a single EU declaration of conformity shall be drawn up in
respect of all such Union acts."

Regards,
Tom

-

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


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] Calculating Reflection Angles on OATS/SAC

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:59:27 +,
  Pawson, James james.paw...@echostar.com wrote:

 I'm trying to calculate the distances/angles at which a maximum (in phase) or 
 minimum (anti-phase) signal would occur on an OATS/SAC.
...
 Is there a standard equation for calculating the reflection angle on an 
 OATS/SAC with a varying height antenna? Or can someone give me some pointers 
 to help me figure it out myself? I was so distracted thinking about this that 
 I missed my turnoff whilst cycling home the other day.

I found Smith's article very helpful:

Calculation of Site Attenuation From Antenna Factors, Smith, A.A. et al.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1982.304041

Calculation of path length is simple: sqrt(R^2 + (h1 - h2)^2) for
direct wave and sqrt(R^2 + (h1 + h2)^2) for reflected wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-ray_ground-reflection_model#/media/File:2-Ray_Ground_Reflection.png

I think reflection angle is not important as far as we assume
specular reflection on the conductive ground plane.
However, at least for vertical polarization, we probably need to
consider incident angle to the antennas.

Regards,
Tom

-

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

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:35:23 -0500,
  kevin.mccandl...@schneider-electric.com wrote:

 I was taught that when using harmonized standards to justify Presumption
 of Conformity, you must use the most relevant standard to your
 product/application.
 
 So if there is a product/family standard that obviously applies to your
 product, you should use it as opposed to a generic standard.
 
 Is that documented? Or is it just a rule of thumb?

CENELEC Guide 25 has some explanations on the topic.

http://www.cenelec.eu/membersandexperts/referencematerial/cenelecguides.html

Regards,
Tom

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-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] Radiated Immunity at 1meter distance

[T.Sato]

On Sat, 9 May 2015 12:27:51 +0200,
  ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:

 Partial Illumination is the term for the solution to your question.
 EN 61000-4-3 mentions it explicitly.
 Shift the antenna, and repeat the test until all areas have been
 illuminated.
 It requires some knowledge about the antenna angles and some basic
 goniometrics...

But, although I think that the requirement is rather useless when
we are trying to simulate radio transmitters in close proximity,
I believe we need to have UFA not smaller than 1,5 m x 1,5 m for
partial illumination as specified in IEC/EN 61000-4-3.

Regards,
Tom

 -Original Message-
 From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
 Sent: Friday 8 May 2015 21:56
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Radiated Immunity at 1meter distance
 
 With the release of the 4th edition of IEC60601, we are being asked if
 we can hit 28V/m for Radiated Immunity on the list of bands/frequency
 called out in Table 9. In our current test setup in a large chamber
 setup in a 3 meter FAR, we can barely hit 18 V/m CW at some frequencies.
 Not sure about these Wireless frequencies until we try. There is a note
 at the bottom of table 9 which states that we can test at a 1 meter
 distance per IEC 61000-4-3, which should increase power but wouldn't
 this also quite drastically narrow the size of the UFA?
 
 I'm sure I can calibrate a 0.5m x 0.5m window but the standard implies
 that the Independent Window Method is only allowed for frequencies above
 1Ghz. I use a large log antenna below 1Ghz and since I've never tried
 I'm not sure if the beam width limits the size of the UFA at a 1 meter
 distance.
 
 Done anyone have experience with this and can give me some pointers
 before I start wasting my time?
 
 I assume at a 1 meter distance, my UFA would be much smaller. How would
 you recommend I perform the calibration test. In one example, the EUT
 will be floor standing yet over 2 meters in length. We have to move the
 EUT to test a section of it as a time as it is.
 
 The Window Method also wants you to position the transmit antenna in the
 center of the Window, but at frequencies below 1Ghz, the radials on my
 log antenna are so long I cannot lower the antenna to 1.05m off the
 floor without the longer radials getting too close to the floor.
 
 Any help or advice would be helpful.
 
 Regards,
 The Other Brian
 
 
 
 LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential
 information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received
 this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank
 you.
 
 -
 
 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
 emc-pstc discussion list. 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
 
 -
 
 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

-

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 

Re: [PSES] Scrolling H

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:59:05 +,
  David Gelfand david.gelf...@kontron.com wrote:

 Agreed, but apparently BSMI does not.  The text is in Annex G.1   If the EUT 
 includes a visual display or monitor...   

CISPR 22 defines EUT as representative ITE or functionally interactive
group of ITE (system) which includes one or more host unit(s) and is used
for evaluation purposes.

When a personal computer peripheral is to be tested, we usually need
a personal computer system incluiding a VDU as described in clause 8.2
of CISPR 22, and I think VDU can be a part of the EUT system in the case,
too.

However, even if VDU is part of the EUT, Scrolling Hs is described in
CISPR 22:2008 Annex G which is infomative, and the annex is deleted in
EN 55022:2010.


In the case of BSMI, they have lot of local rules which are difficult to
know.

Regards,
Tom

 -Message d'origine-
 De : John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
 Envoyé : 29 avril 2015 09:31
 À : EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Objet : Re: [PSES] Scrolling H
 
 In message
 A1DDE24094D54746B1C07B06A31D91BAAE640644@SCABBDMB01.kontron.local,
 dated Wed, 29 Apr 2015, David Gelfand david.gelf...@kontron.com
 writes:
 
We recently encountered this, testing a server in Taiwan for BSMI 
approvals.  We argued that the display is auxiliary equipment, only 
used to install and debug, and the port would be not populated in final 
use.  They insist not only on scrolling Hs, but testing all screen 
resolutions to find worst case.
 
 Emissions from other than the EUT should surely be disregarded?  The term 
 'scrolling H' (indeed, just 'scrolling') does not appear in 55022:2010.
 --
 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 
 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
 
 -
 
 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

-

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] Test report for computers with multiple foreseen hard disk configurations.

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:20:12 +,
  Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com wrote:

 When having a computer system EMC tested, and different hard disk
 options are expected to be used over time, but the exact details
 (e.g. part number) of those hard disks is not yet known other than
 the requirement that they be certified on their own to relevant EMC
 standards, is there a standard phrase that is used in the test
 report to describe the situation (such as ... including any hard
 disk certified EN  for immunity and EN  for emissions)?

I think test reports should describe the system actually tested.

For EMC Directive, if you are sure that system incorporating
other hard disk also comply with the Directive, I think you can
justify that through assessments and describe it in the technical
documentation.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Has UNECE Regulation 10 replaced Automotive EMC Directive (2004/104/EC)?

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:48:15 +0800,
  Wan Juang Foo f...@np.edu.sg wrote:

 I am curious to know if UNECE Regulation 10 has replaced the Automotive EMC
 Directive (2004/104/EC).
 Can someone sheld some light in this direction?

In the past, under Directive 2007/46/EC, we could use either of 72/245/EC
(2004/104/EC) and ECE R10.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0046

Now, 72/245/EC (hence 2004/104/EC) was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] ISM-use of a non-ISM frequency

[T.Sato]

Hello Niels,

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:39:45 +0100,
  Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk wrote:

 Product in question is an ISM equipment. Classified according to EN
 55011:2009/CISPR 11:2009 as class A, group 1 equipment. Using RF energy for
 a kind of skin treatment, with a probe at the end of a 1-1,5 m long cable.

Can't you classify it as Group 2 ISM equipment?

 When the button is pressed, the frequency in use is about 5-15 dB above the
 limits (radiated/conducted). Also when all realistic means for reducing the
 emission have been introduced (including a good shielding of the cable, and
 reducing the power as much as possible).

Under IEC/EN 60601-1-2, product used only in shielded rooms may be
allowed to have higher emission levels.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Difference in meaning of ISM equpment between EU and US

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:40:14 +,
  Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com wrote:

 I am doing a deep dive into ISM equipment requirements for the first time. I 
 *think* I see a difference in interpretation of ISM equipment between the US 
 and EU regulations.
 
 US (FCC Part 18) seems to limit the ISM concept to equipment that essentially 
 uses radio frequency to do something to a target object or work piece. This 
 would exclude, for example, radio frequency energy generated by a 
 microprocessor clock circuit in an industrial machine's controller (which 
 instead are considered unintentional radiators within scope of FCC Part 15)
 
 EU (e.g., EN 55011) by creating the concept of Group1 and Group2 appears to 
 also cover (in Group 1) *any* generated radio frequency energy that is used 
 by the equipment. This would include, for example, radio frequency energy 
 generated by a microprocessor clock circuit in an industrial machine's 
 controller.
 
 Have I got this right?

CISPR 11 / EN 55011 defines ISM equipment and appliances as
equipment or appliances designed to generate and/or use locally
radio-frequency energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic
or similar purposes, **excluding applications in the field of
telecommunications and information technology and other applications
covered by other CISPR publications**.

I believe microprocessor clocks are certainly for information technology
and will not make the equipment ISM equipment, but in these days, many
equipment also use switching power converters.

I guess one of the main source of the confusion is the name of
ISM equipment itself, which suggests any industrial equipment are
covered.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:31:27 -0700,
  Scott Douglas sdouglas...@gmail.com wrote:

 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?

47 CFR 15.27 (Special accessories) ?
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=960d31aad1bb305a1b56abf757c3bb2cnode=pt47.1.15rgn=div5#se47.1.15_127

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] construction machinery in USA

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:20:03 +0900,
  T.Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp wrote:

 Actually I guess so, but couldn't find the fact and the rationale.
 I also sent an inquiry about this to FCC, but had no response at
 this time.

Now, I had response from FCC OET.

QUOTE
Inquiry:
These days, internal-combustion engine driven heavy machines such as
cranes, excavators, etc. may have several microprocessors and other
electronic circuits, and such machines may be used also in residential
areas. Will such machines be covered by the FCC Rules, especially the
Part 15?

If such machines can be exempted, what is the rationale? I know of 47
CFR 15.103(a), but I think such movable machines may not
transportation vehicle, and even if such machinery can be categorized
as transportation vehicle, I think KDB 892282 suggests that such
machines will not be exempted.

And if engine driven machines can be exempted, what about electric
motor driven machines which may or may not powered from the mains?

I am not thinking of the machines which have radio transmitters.


FCC response
You are correct, heavy machines, such as cranes, excavators are not
designed for the purpose of transporting items or people,. The digital
logic within the equipment, does not qualify as transportation
vehicles for the 15.103 exemption. This equipment when transported is
transported by other transport vehicles (trucks) between locations
where they are temporally stationed for a period of time for their
purpose to perform other specific task. In addition (in the case of
cranes) could be connected to the power mains, which also disqualifies
the equipment. In most cases the large Heavy machines would be used
beyond 200 feet of a residential area and can be considered Class
A. Manufactures should note that independent of exemptions or Class A
or B, all Part 15 equipment is subject to the general conditions of
operation in 15.5 and 15.29 which would require the equipment to be
turned off in case of any interference issues.
/QUOTE

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] construction machinery in USA

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:26:23 +,
  Ted Eckert ted.eck...@microsoft.com wrote:

 The FCC is generally not concerned with unintentional emissions from
 construction machinery. The general assumption is that a susceptible
 receiver would not be operating in close proximity to the
 construction equipment. It may no longer be a correct assumption,
 but that is the basis. It will likely be true in some cases. I can't
 imagine a Caterpillar 797 operating in a residential area. However,
 smaller pieces of machinery might be used closer to susceptible
 receivers. The rules have not kept up with technology and they are
 based on a time when the most significant ignition source in a
 vehicle was the distributor and when digital electronics did not
 exist in construction equipment.

Actually I guess so, but couldn't find the fact and the rationale.
I also sent an inquiry about this to FCC, but had no response at
this time.

 The general assumption is that a susceptible receiver would not be
 operating in close proximity to the construction equipment. It may
 no longer be a corre ct assumption, but that is the basis. It will
 likely be true in some cases. I can't imagine a Caterpillar 797
 operating in a residential area. However, smal ler pieces of
 machinery might be used closer to susceptible receivers. The rul es
 have not kept up with technology and they are based on a time when
 the most significant ignition source in a vehicle was the
 distributor and when digital electronics did not exist in
 construction equipment.

Well, in the good old days, heavy machines were driven by diesel
engines with no ECU, those arms were driven by oil pressure through
manual valves and they usually don't have any electronic circuit,
so I risk of EMC problems should negligible.

However, these days, heavy machines may be equipped with electric/
electronic circuit including microprocessors, control circuits,
inverter driven electric motors, sensors, etc., which can cause
electromagnetic emission/immunity problems.
Also, such heavy machines (smaller ones, if not Caterpillar 797!)
may be used also in/near residential areas.

General vehicles are still explicitly exempted by 47 CFR 15.103(a)
and industrial machines are usually exempted by 47 CFR 15.103(b),
but I couldn't find any exemption applicable to heavy machines in
general.

This raise me the question.

 That being said, I'm not an expert in automotive EMC and I encourage
 anybody with better information to amend or correct what I have
 stated. (I would also like to know how you would run testing on a
 Caterpillar 797. I don't think it would fit in many chambers.)

If international standards are accepted, I think we can measure
those emissions with CISPR 12 test method.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] construction machinery in USA

[T.Sato]

Dear experts,

In USA, are there any regulatory EMC requirements for construction machinery 
(heavy machinery in general) such as crane, backhoe, etc.?

For FCC, 47 CFR 15.103(a) says that digital devices utilized exclusively in 
transportation vehicle are exempted, but FCC OET says The exemption is only 
intended for digital devices which operate primarily when the vehicle is 
operating in a mobile environment such as on a road or highway where the 
potential for interference is low (KDB 892282) and I guessed that construction 
machinery would not covered by the exemption (i.e., may be covered by 47 CFR 
15) even if the machinery can run on road.

I also guessed that OSHA (or somebody else) may say something for 
electromagnetic immunity of such machinery as those malfunction can cause 
injury or death, but could find nothing about such requirements.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:23:01 +0200,
  ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:

 2004/104/EC will be withdrawn in November 2014 and be replaced
 by the UN regulations.
 Not having the texts at hand... will this difference remain...

I believe Vehicle emission limits in ECE Regulation No. 10 Rev.4 are
identical with those of 2004/104/EC.

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs1-20.html

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
 Van: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp] 
 Verzonden: woensdag 11 juni 2014 23:43
 Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012
 
 On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:18:15 +0100,
   McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:
 
 But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.
 
 Sorry, I forgot of thinking of vehicle limits in 2004/104/EC.
 
 For the 2004/104/EC vehicle narrow band limits which is 2 dB lower than
 that of EN 55012, the latter requires that the results are at least 2 dB
 below the specified limits when a single sample is tested, and then,
 they will be effectively identical.
 
 Regards,
 Tom
 
 --
 Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
 URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/
 
 -
 
 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

Re: [PSES] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:28:44 +0100,
  McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:

 Can anyone explain the difference in the limits between the directive and EN 
 55012.

EN 55012 is intended to protect off-board receivers, and 2004/104/EC
(and ECE R10, CISPR 25, and OEM standards) are intended to protect
on-board receivers.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC and EN 55012

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:18:15 +0100,
  McCallum, Andy andy.mccal...@mottmac.com wrote:

 But the difference is only 2dB - I don't see the point.

Sorry, I forgot of thinking of vehicle limits in 2004/104/EC.

For the 2004/104/EC vehicle narrow band limits which is 2 dB lower
than that of EN 55012, the latter requires that the results are
at least 2 dB below the specified limits when a single sample is
tested, and then, they will be effectively identical.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] New EU Directives

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 23:20:06 +0800,
  Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks!  What is the major impact on own brand labelers?

NLF directives such as 2014/30/EU defines manufacturer as
any natural or legal person who manufactures apparatus or
**has apparatus designed or manufactured, and markets that apparatus
under his name or trade mark** ;

The new Blue Guide has some additional explanation on this:
The manufacturer may design and manufacture the product himself.
As an alternative, he may have it designed, manufactured, assembled,
packed, processed or labelled with a view to placing it on the market
under his own name or trademark, and thus presenting himself as a
manufacturer (footnote 78).
...
(footnote 78) Those manufacturers are often referred to as 'own brand
labellers' or 'private labellers'.


So, I think they will be required to take all the responsibility as
the manufacturer.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] CISPR 32, colour bar with moving element (ITU-R BT.1729)

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:03:18 -0600,
  monrad monsen monrad.mon...@oracle.com wrote:

 I just found your posting of the ITU-R BT.1729 colour bar test
 pattern.  This is great!
 
 Does this fully implement the ITU-R BT.1729 colour bar test pattern?

No, as I wrote These colorbars (test patterns) were derived from
ITU-R BT.1729, but they are not accurate. in the BUGS section of
the page.
Especially, frequency and waveform of color sweeps are incorrect.

 left to right and then starts again from the left. This is used for
 checking audio-video synchronization and to establish that the channel
 is active. The bar travels horizontally across its zone in 1 s. The
 audio sync signal is given when the bar passes the centreline. There
 is more description to the zone 12 in the standard, but the above
 quote is sufficient to say that I don't see anything moving in zone 12
 of your application.
 
 Do you have plans to fix the zone 12?

No at least at this time, and I thought this Zone 12 is not important
for CISPR 32/35, as we usually use 1 kHz monotone audio signal and
will not check audio-video sync.

However, I would appreciate if someone can help improve this test
program, expecially those test patterns.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 On 4/5/2014 1:51 AM, T.Sato wrote:
 Hello,

 We used to use scrolling-Hs test pattern for CISPR 22 and ANSI C63.4,
 but CISPR 32 requires ITU-R BT.1729 colour bar with small moving
 element
 for computer displays and similar devices.

 Now, I made web pages which will display the test pattern on web
 browsers.

 If you are interested, please try it, at:

 http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/scrolling-h/colorbar.html

 Regards,
 Tom

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

Re: [PSES] New EU Directives

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:49:58 +0800,
  Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there any reason behind to have LVD, EMC and RTTE directives updated in
 similar time?

To align them with NLF, all the new approach directives which were
not aligned with NLF were/will be updated even if no other changes
were necessary.

For some directives such as RTTED (RED), other significant changes
were also made.

NLF itself have big impact, and I guess own brand labelers who supplied
completed product from OEMs may have hard time.

Regards,
Tom

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-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] SV: [PSES] New EMC Directive

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:15:25 +0100,
  John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:

 In message 000f01cf5fa6$acd40660$067c1320$@westin-emission.no, dated
 Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Amund Westin am...@westin-emission.no writes:
 
Distributors ... do we talk about stores as Kmart, Walmart, etc.?
 
 Not really, they are retailers: Digikey and Mouser are
 distributors. Obviously there are many others. And some do both.

I thought all retailers are also distributors under the new EMC
directive, as they are in the supply chain.

Am I missing something?

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] CISPR 32, colour bar with moving element

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:15:08 +,
  Paasche, Dieter dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com wrote:

 Are there any news about what is FCC going to do? As it stand right now (and 
 I do have an official answer) H patterns are required by the FCC. Which 
 means by some international companies double testing, one with H patterns and 
 one with color bar. 

ANSI C63.4-2009 requires scrolling H, and FCC is under way to transition
from ANSI C63.4-2003 to C63.4-2009.
So, I think USA will still go their own way.

 I have seen a worst case using H pattern, so I wonder if I can get away with 
 just testing with the H pattern as it is also in the CISPR 32 table. 

CISPR 32 says Video ports shall output signals, and images shall
be displayed, corresponding to the highest complexity level listed
in Table B.1 that the EUT is capable of generating., so I think we
shouldn't use scrolling H (level 2) when colour bar with moving
element (level 4) can be used.

Anyway, I think the difference of the display test pattern is relatively
small problem.
There are more burdensome differences in, for example, EUT setup, test
method for 1 GHz and above.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 -Original Message-
 From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp]
 Sent: 05 April 2014 08:51
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] CISPR 32, colour bar with moving element
 
 Hello,
 
 We used to use scrolling-Hs test pattern for CISPR 22 and ANSI C63.4, but 
 CISPR 32 requires ITU-R BT.1729 colour bar with small moving element for 
 computer displays and similar devices.
 
 Now, I made web pages which will display the test pattern on web browsers.
 
 If you are interested, please try it, at:
 
 http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/scrolling-h/colorbar.html
 
 Regards,
 Tom
 
 --
 Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
 URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/
 
 -
 
 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
 
 -
 
 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

[PSES] CISPR 32, colour bar with moving element

[T.Sato]

Hello,

We used to use scrolling-Hs test pattern for CISPR 22 and ANSI C63.4,
but CISPR 32 requires ITU-R BT.1729 colour bar with small moving element
for computer displays and similar devices.

Now, I made web pages which will display the test pattern on web browsers.

If you are interested, please try it, at:

http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/scrolling-h/colorbar.html

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Foam table for EMC site

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:42:52 +,
  Sundstrom, Mike mike.sundst...@garmin.com wrote:

 I've been asked to find a supply that can provide the closed cell foam 
 material used in a EMC setup as a table for OATS or inside a chamber.
 
 Does anyone have any contacts?

ETS Lindgren, and possibly some other manufacturers, supplis low dielectric
tables which seems MOSTLY made from foam material:

  http://www.ets-lindgren.com/LDT

We made our test table from cheaper and readily available Styrofoam boards.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Ethernet Loading

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:33:43 +,
  Julian Jones ju...@hursley-emc.co.uk wrote:

 We have a rather convoluted way to load the ethernet lines to meet EN55022.  
 Sec 9.6.3.
 
 I've looked on Google and found a few ping and data copy programmes, but I 
 can't find a single program to do it all.
 
 I am hoping someone has found a simple program to make loading the port easy 
 and getting the 10% traffic.

I have one, if you don't hesitate to use Linux or similar ones:

  http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/tools/pingspray.html

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] EMC requirements for Japan

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:38:24 +,
  McBurney, Ian [Allen  Heath UK] ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com wrote:

 Can anyone give me some advice regarding EMC regulatory requirements for 
 commercial products in Japan. Are there any mandatory requirements?
 Is there a government organisation that issues proclamations regarding 
 product EMC compliance.
 Is there a memorandum of understanding recognising CISPR22 testing methods or 
 are there specific Japanese measurement methods  standards.

Some categories of products are covered by the Electrical Appliance
and Material Safety Law, also known as DENAN.

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/consumer/pse/index.html

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] USA Canada rf emission test standards

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:52:05 +,
  Bill Stumpf bstu...@dlsemc.com wrote:

 The FCC will accept testing using ANSI C63.4:2009 also.  See FCC DA-09-2478.

And ICES-003 Issue 5 may still accept ANSI C63.4-2003, too.

See footnote 2, which says Until further notice the use of ANSI C63.4-2003
is permitted in lieu of the latest edition of ANSI C63.4.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 From: Ian McBurney [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:35 AM
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] USA  Canada rf emission test standards
 
 Dear Colleagues;
 
 I am trying to combine FCC 47 CFR part 15 and Canadian ICES-003:2012 radiated 
 rf emission testing for a digital device that is an unintentional radiator.
 However; looking into the test standards for each country I am getting 
 perplexed.
 
 It appears that for 47 CFR part 15 sub part B, the test standard for 
 compliance is ANSI UL C63.4 2003 whereas for Canada it is the latest edition 
 that is acceptable which I believe is the ANSI UL C63.4 2009.
 Similarly; if I was to apply the CISPR 22 method then CFR47 part 15 
 recognises the third edition of CISPR 22 and Canada applies the 6 edition 
 2008.
 
 Is there a common set of standards that can be applied for radiated  
 conducted rf emission measurements that is acceptable in both the USA  
 Canada?
 
 I am carrying out measurements from 30MHz to 2GHz to class B limits.
 
 Many thanks in advance.
 
 Ian McBurney
 Design  Compliance Engineer.
 
 Allen  Heath Ltd.
 Kernick Industrial Estate,
 Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
 T: 01326 372070
 E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.commailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.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 
 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

Re: [PSES] RTTE example

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:44:35 +,
  Ian White (SXS UK) ian.wh...@uk.spiraxsarco.com wrote:

 If you have a control panel which has relays and various other control gear 
 on, all mounted on a Din rail type construction this all comes under the LVD 
 and EMC Directives.
 
 If you then include a DIN rail mounted 3G Modem (which has its own D of C) 
 would the entire panel then come under RTTE Directive ?
 
 1) Would the panel have to be re-tested ?
 2) RTTE requirements on LVD now apply with no bottom limits on LVD?

I think it is essentially a general question, What is the requirements
for a final product that integrates an RTTE Directive assessed module?.

I think the panel would also be covered by the RTTE Directive.
There is a discussion about this topic in RTTE CA guidance note, at:
http://www.rtteca.com/TGN01%20-%20May%202013.pdf

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Ground Plane Grounding in the Immunity Lab

[T.Sato]

Grace,

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:03:35 -0400,
  Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote:

 Could you please share your experience and/or knowledge for the ground
 plane grounding in the immunity lab?
 
 We plan to layout a L shape ground plane in the 24' x 18' area for ESD,
 etc. tests.  The corner of the L shape is right next to a 10 wide building
 collar.  Is a ground strap tied to the collar good enough?
 
 Do we need (copper) ground rods?  If yes, what is the minimum length
 (deep)?  What is the recommended space between rods?

I think you can simply connect the ground plane to the grounding system
already available in the building.

 How to choose metal sheet material (galvanized steel, stainless steel,
 etc.)?

If mechanical strength is also required, thick sheet of galvanized steel
or stainless steel may be used.
Galvanized steel is cheap, but, personally, I don't like this kind of
plated material as we may need to take care so that those thin plating
will not be damaged.
Recently, we replaced galvanized steel sheets in our old shielded rooms
with austenite stainless steel sheets.

If mechanical strength is not important, thin sheet of aluminum or copper
may work well.
In the case of IEC 61000-4-2, minimum thickness of the ground plane is
0.25 mm for copper and aluminum.
Copper is electrically good but its surface may not looks so good, and
can be heavy and expensive than aluminum.

 When weldering the metal sheet, is there anything that need to be cautious?

It can become troublesome to weld thick metal sheets placed on the floor,
and some material may not suitable for welding.

I rather like not to weld and bond them with other means.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Regulatory Statement per Japan MIC

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:57:09 -0400,
  Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote:

 FYI.  Our agent in Asia informs us there is no regulatory statement
 required for 2.4 GHz devices.

I think many manufacturers respect the requirements of ARIB STD-T66
for 2.4GHz radio devices such as WiFi, although it is not the mandatory
requirement under the Radio Law.

If you interested, refer to the page 11/24 of ARIB STD-T66, at:
http://www.arib.or.jp/english/html/overview/doc/5-STD-T66v2_1-E.pdf

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Regulatory Statement per Japan MIC

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:15:36 -0400,
  Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there any regulatory statement need to be included in the manual per
 Japan MIC for wireless products?

You may need to check the applicable ARIB standards, too.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] 10 MHz mag field for EN 61000-4-10

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:02:58 +0100,
  John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:

 In message 20130618.073854.236474654.vef00...@nifty.ne.jp, dated
 Tue, 18 Jun 2013, T. Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp writes:
 
The waveform is probably one of the fast damped oscillatory waves
specified in IEC 61000-4-18, which simulate oscillatory waves
generated in gas insulated substations for example.
 
 This does include a 10 MHz waveform, but the test is to apply a
 voltage, not a magnetic field.

Yes, and damped oscillatory magnetic field test are described in
IEC 61000-4-10 although I don't have the latest edition of EN 61000-4-10
and don't know whether 10 MHz test method is included in the standard.

However, if it is not included yet or if it is included and the generator
specification doesn't contradict with that of IEC 61000-4-18 generator,
I think it is possible to generate the required magnetic field using
IEC 61000-4-18 generator and the test method described in IEC 61000-4-10.

At least for slow damped oscillatory magnetic field, some manufactures
offer their IEC 61000-4-18 test generator as the current source, I think.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] 10 MHz mag field for EN 61000-4-10

[T.Sato]

David,

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT),
  David barid61...@yahoo.com wrote:

 We have a customer with a requirement I haven't seen before.  Doing a 
 magnetic field test with a damped sine, at 10 MHz.  I'm at a loss for what to 
 do.  The generator we have does 100 kHz and 1 MHz, but not 10 MHz.  Do they 
 even build them?  If so, why?  Where are these high frequency magnetic fields 
 coming from?
  
 My main question is, how can I create a 10 MHz damped sine induced into a 
 loop?  With a requirement of 100 A/m, I just can't find a way.  The standard 
 wants a 1 turn loop, but how is anyone going to generate 100 amps in a loop 
 at 10 MHz?  With multiple turns, the inductance will wreck the waveform. 

The waveform is probably one of the fast damped oscillatory waves
specified in IEC 61000-4-18, which simulate oscillatory waves generated
in gas insulated substations for example.

The generators are available from EMC Partners, EM TEST, etc.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] looking for ...

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:14:57 -0700 (PDT),
  Bill Owsley wdows...@yahoo.com wrote:

 electrically conductive and thermally insulative material to use as a gasket.

Nothing is perfect, so I think you need to specify how high electrical
conductivity and how low thermal conductivity the material should have.

If you simply need thermal resistance much higher than metals, conductive
rubbers may have moderately high electrical conductivity and relatively
low thermal conductivity.
For example, Shinetsu Silicorn EC-BL conductive silicorn rubber has
thermal conductivity of 0.38 W/(m.K), which is much lower than that
of metals such as aluminium (around 200 W/(m.K)) and stainless steel
(around 20 W/(m.K)).

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Japan METI Ordinance 1

[T.Sato]

Hello Peter,

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:43:07 -0700,
  Peter Merguerian pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com wrote:

 It is the japanese technical standard used to evaluate products that have no 
 Japanese standards harmonized with the IEC. I am particularly interested in 
 the requirements used to test LED luminaires

The document is so called Ministerial Ordinance for Determining Technical
Standards for Electrical Appliances and Materials, and LED luminaries are
covered in its Appendix Table 8, specifically clause 86.7.2 if is not
covered in the other clauses.
(LED lamps and some types of LED luminaries are covered in other clauses.)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find English translation of the document except
for the clause for Li-ion batteries which could be found at:
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/consumer/pse/index.html

If you really need the translation, but couldn't find the translation
and neither couldn't find a translator, maybe I can manage to translate
the required part of the document for you but, sorry, with a considerable
fee.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:21 PM, T.Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp wrote:
 
 On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:15:53 -0700,
  Peter Merguerian pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 Hi, does anyone know where I can purchase METI Ordinance 1? 
 
 Can you explain what is the METI Ordinance 1?
 
 Regards,
 Tom
 
 -- 
 Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
 URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Japan METI Ordinance 1

[T.Sato]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:15:53 -0700,
  Peter Merguerian pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi, does anyone know where I can purchase METI Ordinance 1? 

Can you explain what is the METI Ordinance 1?

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] IEC 61000-4-4 test setup for EUT which have casters

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:24:35 +0100,
  John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:

 It's known that this clause is inadequate and it will be reviewed, but
 probably not very swiftly. It has been pointed out that the
 capacitance between the EUT and the ground plane depends on the
 permittivity of the support, which is not controlled.

Thanks both for the responses.

Actually, I didn't mind of permittivity of the insulating material
so much, which is plastic or rubber wheel of the casters/rollers in
this case.

However, I mind of the possible ambiguities, such as:

  o If non conductive roller/casters part of the EUT can be used as
the insulating support, how about commonplace casters like this?

  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Absolex_san.jpg

If such casters can still be used as the insulating support,
how about machine rollers like these ones,

  http://www.machineroller.com/

which are mostly metal but surface of the wheels are covered by
plastic or rubber?

  o If such casters/rollers can be used as the insulating support,
which position of the rollers/casters should positioned at the
specified height of about 0.1m?

Top of the caster/roller, or bottom of its metal component?

  o This standard didn't use the term may about this.

However, if it is an option, it would be expected that one
laboratory may put an EUT on the GRP without 0.1m support, and
other laboratory may put the same EUT on 0.1m support.

This will alter the distance between EUT's bottom surface and
GRP, and can cause additional inconsistency of the test results
between laboratories, I thought.

At this time, we would need to put such EUTs on 0.1m insulating support
for some other 61000-4-* standards anyway, and I think it would far
easier to put such EUTs on 0.1m insulating support as far as possible
also for 61000-4-4 testing.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] IEC 61000-4-4 test setup for EUT which have casters

[T.Sato]

Colleagues,

Maybe a slightly silly question, but I want to hear your opinions.

IEC 61000-4-4:2012 clause 7.3.1 says:

  Floor standing EUTs ... shall be placed on a ground reference
  plane and shall be insulated from it by an insulating support
  with a thickness of (0,1 +/- 0,05) m including non conductive
  roller/casters (see Figure 11).

When testing EUTs which have commonplace casters (caster which has
plastic wheel and metal hub and supporting structure) under it,
will you treat the casters as part of the required 0.1 m height
insulation support, or will you still put the casters on 0.1 m
insulating support?

In the former case, what if the casters were higher than 0.15 m?


In the case of IEC 61000-4-3:2006, it says that Non-conductive
rollers may be used as the 0,05 m to 0,15 m support but it
also says ... the support shall be bulk non-conducting, rather
than an insulating coating on a metallic structure., so I think
we should put the casters, which have plastic wheel but metal hub
and metal supporting structure so probably not bulk non-conducting,
on 0.1 m insulating support in this case.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] GigE coupler for IEC 61000-4-16

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 11:12:30 -0700 (PDT),
  Dave Wilson davewilson...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Is anyone aware of a manufacturer of a suitable coupler for testing
 GigE ports to the Low Frequency Conducted Immunity standard IEC
 61000-4-16?

I don't know of 61000-4-16 coupling network for 1000Base-T, but I think
maybe some of the manufactures of ISNs, or even 1000Base-T PoE injectors,
can make such unit under special orders.

However, maybe there is an alternative, cheaper solution.

As you may know, 1000Base-T transceivers have circuit something like:

  http://pulseeng.com/products/datasheets/H544.pdf

So, maybe we can open the AE such as Ethernet hub which will be connected
to the port under test, find the capacitor, and inject the common mode
disturbance at the terminals of the capacitor.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] How to determine EU RTTE class.

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:00:27 +,
  Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com wrote:

 I am looking for advice on how to determine the EU RTTE class of a product.
 
 The product has a base station and a sensor. The battery powered sensor can 
 be taken out of the base station and used elsewhere to do its sensing thing, 
 and then be brought back to the base station for charging and uploading of 
 the sensed data.
 
 The nominal transmit frequency for sense data communication is 1700 KHz 
 +/-100 KHz. The modulation scheme uses On-Off Keying (OOK).  The nominal 
 baudrate base station to sensor is 1,000 Hz. The nominal baudrate sensor to 
 base station is 8,000 Hz.
 
 
 Based on this information, can someone help me understand which RTTE class 
 this product is, and why?

Information related to equipment classes can be found at:

   http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/documents/

If your product is of low power inductive communication, you can
check whether your product fall under sub-class 74 described in
the document Subclasses of Class 1 - July 2012 first, I think.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] RS ENV216 Two-Line V-Network Reference Ground

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:30:43 -0400,
  Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com wrote:

 Could you please share your suggestions/comments to connect the
 above-referenced LISN (
 http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/en/product/env216-productstartpage_63493-9775.html)
 to reference ground in a semi-anechoic chamber (mainly for radiated
 emission measurement) where a 2mx2m vertical ground plan only moved in for
 AC power line conducted emission measurement?
 
 Section 3.6 of the instrument manual indicates The reference ground used
 can be attached flat to the grounding rail (2) on the side of the device by
 a broad sheet metal with three metric M4 screws (1).  An example of
 reference ground connection B is shown in a diagram under Section
 3.10.  There is some difficulty to follow the instructions in a
 semi-anechoic chamber.

I can't see the diagram you mentioned, but I think it is still
possible to make a connection with the vertical ground plane using
a wide metal sheet as sketched in Figure E.2 of CISPR 16-2-1:2008.

Alternatively, if you wish to connect the LISN to the ground plane
under the LISN, maybe you can screw a L-shaped metal sheet, which
covers side and bottom surface of the LISN, to the side plate.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Surge Test Power Supply Class 2 acc. EN61000-4-5

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 14:10:02 +,
  John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:

Please give me your experts comments.
 
 7.2 of IEC/EN 61000-4-5 says (among other things):
 
 If there are no other possible connections to earth, line-to-ground
 tests may be omitted.

I think maybe the paragraph can cause some confusion.

For example, a Class II power supply unit may be intended to be used
with small PC peripherals which itself doesn't have connections to earth
and the manufacturer may assume that the unit have no connection to earth.
But in real application, maybe the peripheral be connected to a Class I
desktop PC, and in that situation, the 0V output terminal of the power
supply unit may be actually connected to the earth.

In this case, the unit may have possible connections to earth.


In the situation the unit really doesn't have any possible connection
to earth, maybe we can expect that the the unit must not sensitive to
line-to-ground surge (actually, where the surge stress applied?) and
may omit line-to-ground surge test as described in the standard.

However, if we knew that the unit actually sensitive to line-to-ground
surge, is it really wise to use the unit as is?

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Standards for Industrial Machinery in Japan?

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:20:42 -0500,
  Doug Nix d...@mac.com wrote:

 Can anyone point me towards the Japanese industrial machinery standards for 
 safety and electrical requirements? I know of JIS, but am not familiar with 
 them in any kind of detail.
  
 The equipment is a robotic paint booth application employing three, six-axis 
 painting robots and some linear axes. The booth is sized to paint large 
 vehicles.

Industrial machinery would be covered by occupational safety and
health regulations, but those regulations would not define detailed
technical requirements in general.

  http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicosh-old/english/law/
  
http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicosh-old/english/guideline/machinery_attachment_2007/


For technical aspects, there are tens of JIS standards, such as
JIS B 9700 series and JIS C 0508 series of standards, related to
machinery safety.
Fortunately, many of those JIS standards are derived from,
or at least have some relation with, corresponding ISO standards.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Length of coiled cables

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:35:52 +0200,
  Kim Boll Jensen k...@bolls.dk wrote:

 I remember to have seen an official definition of how to define the length
 of a coiled cable. This is very interesting when testing EMC burst on cables
 over 3 meter. When is a coiled cable 3 meter?
 
 Especially I need a definition for medical devices under EN 60601-1-2.

CISPR 24 says that:

  Coil cables (such as keyboard cables) shall not be intentionally
  stretched during testing. For such cables, the length specified in
  the table notes refers to the stretched conditions.

but not sure about the other standards.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Test Fixture for Self

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:40:30 +,
  Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com wrote:

 Quoting from the Guide for the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC, available from 
 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/electrical/documents/emc/guidance/index_en.htm
 
 1.2.6 Products for own use
 Where an apparatus is manufactured for own use, placing on the market is 
 considered to take place at the moment of putting into service; the 
 obligation to comply with the Directive begins with first use.

Well, but EMCD itself says:

  `apparatus' means any finished appliance or combination
  thereof made commercially available as a single functional
  unit, intended for the end user and liable to generate elec-
  tromagnetic disturbance, or the performance of which is
  liable to be affected by such disturbance;

Is such test fixtures made commercially available as a single
functional unit?

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/


 From: Robert Heller [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
 Sent: 19 September 2012 13:24
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 Subject: [PSES] Test Fixture for Self
 
 If a manufacturer builds a test fixture only to be used by the manufacturer 
 (not commercially available), does the test fixture need to undergo EMC 
 testing? If so, where is this called out?
 
 Can placing on the market and putting into service be different things?

-

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

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:49:20 -0500,
  rehel...@mmm.com wrote:

 Are TCF type reports allowed in Australia?

For C-Tick, Yes, I think.

Take a look at:

  Radiocommunications Labelling (Electromagnetic Compatibility) Notice
  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2008L00262

  Electromagnetic compatibility compliance  labelling booklet 
  
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aca_home/publications/reports/industry/manuals/emcbook.pdf


In clause 4.5 of the former document, it clearly says:

 For a medium risk device, the supplier must establish that
 the device complies with an applicable standard by:

 (a) obtaining a test report from a testing body; or
 (b) obtaining a technical construction file.

An appropriate statement by the competent body would mandatory when
using TCF.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] EN 61000-4-5 Lightning Surge Testing on AC Power

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:05:22 -0400,
  Larry Stillings la...@complianceworldwide.com wrote:

 What is the defined sequence of test voltages when performing testing to EN
 61000-4-5 per a family standard that says use the procedure in EN 61000-4-5.
 
 For example when doing a 2 kV Lines to Earth, 1 kV Line to Line test on AC
 power, is it specified what steps must be used for this test. In other words
 should I test at 500V, 1000V and 2000V for line to ground and 500V, 1000V
 from line to line. Or should only 2000V Line to Ground and 1000V line to
 line, or something different, like 500V, 1000V, 1500V, 2000V for example.
 
 We have always done the three steps, but now looking through the 2006
 edition of the standard, I cannot find where it states what steps should be
 used. I know there a couple of family standards that say just the two
 maximum voltages, but was just wondering? Any guidance or pointers is
 appreciated.

In clause 9, the standard says:

  ... Therefore the test voltage has to be increased by steps up to
  the test level specified in the product standard or test plan. All
  lower levels including the selected test level shall be satisfied. ...

For testing purpose, lower levels here may be the lower levels
specified in clause 5 of the standard.

See also Guidance Note Addresses Surge Test Problems, at:

  http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/11/williams.html

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] SV: SRD for Japan

[T.Sato]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:19:59 +0200,
  Niels Hougaard n...@bolls.dk wrote:

 This gives the need for reading the ARIB STD-19 standard or having it
 explained. Until now I have only been able to find it in Japanese; maybe it
 does not exist in an English version.

AFAIK, ARIB STD-19 is available only in Japanese, unfortunately.

 Maybe this could help a bit. 

 http://www.circuitdesign.de/compliance/japan2.asp

Although I think you can't do that for your paging transmitters,
if your product comply with this extremely low power radio limit,
you don't need to think of requirements of ARIB STD-19 including
its channel separation requirements.

 According to what I have found the frequency band of 400 MHz should be for
 Radio Pager which is regulated by ARIB standard STD-19. This standard I have
 found but only in Japanese.
 
 Do anybody know if the frequency band of 400 MHz could be used for a pager,
 and if yes what are the limitation of transmitted power and channel
 separation?

Yes, five bands from 429.7500 to 429.8000 can be used for paging
systems, with or without answerback mechanism.

The maximum transmitter power is 10 mW, and channel separation is
12.5 kHz (-40dBc).

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] EFT Power Port Coupling Paths

[T.Sato]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:34:47 +,
  John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote:

 It seems IEC 61000-4-4:2004 (ed.2) clause 7.3.1.1 is clear on this: 
 The test voltage shall be applied simultaneously between a ground 
 reference plane and all of the power supply terminals, a.c. or d.c., 
 and the protective or functional earth port on the EUT cabinet.
 
 That's not clear at all. Does 'all of' mean 'all  connected 
 together' or 'every... individually'?

I did't feel the sentense is very good, but I thought the word
simultaneously made it clearer on this point.

And figure 4, 9 and 12 in the standard no longer have switches
to select the coupling path.

However, I think that to test all combinations can be a good
practice.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] EFT Power Port Coupling Paths

[T.Sato]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 08:15:54 -0800 (PST),
  Wendy Nya wendy...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I checked several standards but they do not seem to dictate the
 coupling paths to test. The equipment that we have, has all seven
 coupling paths for single-phase power port: L-GND, N-GND, PE-GND,
 LN-GND, LPE-GND, NPE-GND, LNPE-GND. Is it required to test all?
 Where is it mentioned (standard)?

From the viewpoint of the standards, it can depends to the exact
standard you need to apply.

It seems IEC 61000-4-4:2004 (ed.2) clause 7.3.1.1 is clear on this:
The test voltage shall be applied simultaneously between a ground
reference plane and all of the power supply terminals, a.c. or d.c.,
and the protective or functional earth port on the EUT cabinet.

The clause 7.3.1.2 of the standard is slightly confusion, but the
corresponding figure says the essentially same thing.

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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] Zigbee EU Power Limit

[T.Sato]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:00:58 -0800,
  Peter Merguerian pmerguerian2...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Can you help to define what the power transmit level for a zigbee
 2.4Ghz DSSS device for the EU? There are those that say it is 100 mW
 and there are those that say it is 10 mW.

Take a look at the Commission Decision 2011/829/EU:

  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:329:0010:0018:EN:PDF

Regards,
Tom

-- 
Tomonori Sato  vef00...@nifty.ne.jp
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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