Re: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Dear all, Just to inform you with the answer from Jonathan Steward. It seems that he didn’t succeed in sending his message to the group. I am intended to support his answer. It is a good balance of arguments. Thanks Jonathan! Kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl On 23-03-2007 01:27, jstew...@curtis-straus.com jstew...@curtis-straus.com wrote: Hi Theo, Interpretation #1 is completely wrong. It is a common mistake to make because the radiated and conducted immunity tests themselves are transient in nature; a frequency range is stepped or swept through incrementally, with discrete frequencies. Regardless, these tests are meant to simulate a condition that might always be present within the environment where the alarm system is installed. For instance, a field that is present due to a wireless internet installation in the house. The intruder alarm is a transient event (we hope) and so it would follow that if it occurred at all it could realistically occur at the same time as the radiated/conducted phenomenon. Interpretation #2 is pretty much correct, though I think the world would be a much safer place if intruders were just armed with portable radiators. EN 50130-4 is not actually all that vague about the criteria for compliance for radiated immunity (section 10.4). There shall be no damage, malfunction or change of status due to the conditioning...no residual change in the EUT or any change in outputs, which could be interpreted by associated equipment as a change... It is the same for the conducted disturbances. Interpretation #3 is correct in that the Telecom equipment within this system should meet the requirements specific to ITE equipment, probably EN 55024. But this would be IN ADDITION TO these alarm standards. Kind Regards, Jonathan Stewart EMC Manager Curtis-Straus, a Bureau Veritas Company Theo Hildering theo.hilder...@planet.nl Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 03/21/2007 06:34 PM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1.During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2.It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3.Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Mozartlaan 4 45 6865GB Doorwerth, The Netherlands E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl Tel. +31 263790590 __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http
RE: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Not to comment on the standard itself, but 10 V/M for a commercial environment is not much of a safety margin. You can get 10 V/M moderately close to a number of common sources (cell phone, CB, Ham). Considering the value of what an alarm system might be protecting, I would hope that a manufacturer would voluntarily verify proper performance to something a bit higher (if asked, I would suggest 50 V/M). Ed Price mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com ed.pr...@cubic.com NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (FAX) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty _ From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:06 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: SV: Immunity testing alarm equipment Theo, I do not recall EN50103-4 EN50136 in detail, but usually both radiated and conducted immunity tests are classified as Performance criteria A. That means that the EUT shall work as intended during the test and no damages or malfunctions are allowed. An alarm product shall be able to in alarm mode and exposed to 10V/m, without any malfunctions. That's the case for fire alam systems. Only my opinion. #Amund Fra: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]På vegne av Theo Hildering Sendt: 21. mars 2007 23:34 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
SV: Immunity testing alarm equipment
Theo, I do not recall EN50103-4 EN50136 in detail, but usually both radiated and conducted immunity tests are classified as Performance criteria A. That means that the EUT shall work as intended during the test and no damages or malfunctions are allowed. An alarm product shall be able to in alarm mode and exposed to 10V/m, without any malfunctions. That's the case for fire alam systems. Only my opinion. #Amund Fra: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]På vegne av Theo Hildering Sendt: 21. mars 2007 23:34 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: Immunity testing alarm equipment Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Immunity testing alarm equipment
Dear all, I have observed that there are different interpretations about testing radiated immunity (for example with 10 V/m, up to 2 GHz) for alarm equipment. Applicable standards are for Europe EN 50130-4 and EN 50136. The main difference in the interpretations is with regard to the functionality of the alarm equipment, especially when an (intruder) alarm is generated and the equipment is designed to transfer this information to an Alarm Receiving Center (e.g. By dialling a telephone number) and this should (?) work as well during conducted and or radiated immunity stress. Interpretations: 1. During the immunity stress testing, some malfunction can be accepted (depending upon equipment class), but afterwards it should work properly. It is not realistic to consider 2 phenomena (radiation stress 10 V/m at critical frequencies and an intruder alarm) at the same time. 2. It is essential that during these circumstances the equipment shall continue to work reliably and is capable to transfer the alarm message. Every intruder who knows the trick, can deal wit the situation with a portable radiator, something we should avoid. 3. Formally speaking: telecom equipment responsible for message transfer is not part of the alarm equipment and should be considered / tested separately. I would appreciate your comments on these interpretations. With kind regards Theo Hildering Consultant E-mail: theo.hilder...@planet.nl __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
