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: