RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Don't laugh!! those good ole days are still here. John Shinn, P.E. Manager, Laboratory Operations Sanmina Homologation Services -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Juhasz Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:47 PM To: 'CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query A . . . naiveté! I remember those days . . . Break it to him/her gently. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:54 PM To: Ken Javor; Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query You are right ??? May I add the following quoted part of an email inquiry we received today from one "reputable" USA manufacturer I received today in my mail box : QUOTE I apologize for the delay in responding back to you, but my boss is informing me that we simply have to fill out the EC Type Declaration of Conformity and put the label on it. The system will then be ok to send out. No documentation is needed until the system itself is questioned by the authorities or the customer. If we do get questioned, what sort of documentation will I need. Especially if I have not got the system officially tested. END QUOTE ?? This is maybe just because their own philosophy about safety and spectrum protection exceeds the requirements of current standards .. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor >>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:05 PM >>To: Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>Subject: Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC >>standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >> >> >> >>My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a >>manufacturer or >>business in general was a very important part of the success of that >>company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high >>quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That >>is part of >>a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, >>gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not >>work and it is more efficient to impose external political >>control. This is >>untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose >>rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to >>be gained by >>exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding >>ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, >>industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product >>into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this >>way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the >>marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the >>integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of >>individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a >>simple example >>that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit >>Insurance >>Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast >>about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the strength of >>the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no >>interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank >>looks pretty much like another to the average depositor. >> >>-- >>>From: "Gregg Kervill" >>>To: "'John Woodgate'" , >> >>>Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New >>EMC standards; >>now CISPR24/EN55024 query >>>Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM >>> >> >>> >>> I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while >>deliberation may not >>> always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industr
Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote (in <20011101170447.RTSO12020.femail23.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27] >) about 'Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Thu, 1 Nov 2001: >My opinion only. No, it is shared by a significant number of others. > There was a time when the reputation of a manufacturer or >business in general was a very important part of the success of that >company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high >quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That is part of >a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, >gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not >work and it is more efficient to impose external political control. It doesn't work well for consumer electronic products, because the purchasers would not understand claims of, for example, superior EMC performance. In fact, in the present paranoid atmosphere about 'radiation', even a mention of EMC terminology might provoke mass panic! > This is >untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose >rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to be gained by >exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding >ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, >industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product >into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this >way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the >marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the >integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of >individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Your argument is far less easy to counter if you restrict it to 'professional' equipment, for which the purchasers may be assumed to understand the technical specification of the product. EN55103-2 imposes no immunity limits, it simply specifies methods of measurement and requires the manufacturer to disclose the immunity performance of the product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Thu, 1 Nov 2001: >I feel that immunity is >a product quality issue and is best left to a manufacturer as a customer >satisfaction issue and should not be a regulatory matter. A lot of people agree with you, but in Europe we don't have a choice - it IS a regulatory matter and the SLIM review of the Directive decided not to recommend changing that. In Germany, there was a major problem of lack of immunity in TV sets in the 70s and 80s. Consequently, the German authorities do not favour relaxation in this matter. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I believe the philosophical debate is whether industry can take care of itself (a free market) or whether gov't must step in and take control. Regardless of the technical issues, dense spectrum occupancy/safety/whatever, industry standards can solve the issue. For instance, EN 55022 comes from CISPR 22. Why did it HAVE to be an EN? The work that went into the FCC CE and RE limits in this country were developed by an industry group, the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers' Association (CBEMA - now superseded by a TC working group). Why couldn't it have simply been an agreement within industry? I buy oil for my car that meets SAE requirements for weight and viscosity, etc. and if that oil were no good it would invalidate the warranty on my engine and this has all been worked out not within an industry but between industries... -- >From: "CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more..." >To: "Ken Javor" , "Gregg Kervill" , "'John Woodgate'" , >Subject: RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 1:54 PM > > You are right ??? > > May I add the following quoted part of an email inquiry we received > today from one "reputable" USA manufacturer I received today in my mail box > : > > QUOTE > I apologize for the delay in responding back to you, but my boss is > informing me that we simply have to fill out the EC Type Declaration of > Conformity and put the label on it. The system will then be ok to send > out. No documentation is needed until the system itself is questioned > by the authorities or the customer. If we do get questioned, what sort > of documentation will I need. Especially if I have not got the system > officially tested. > END QUOTE > > > ?? > > > This is maybe just because their own philosophy about safety > and spectrum protection exceeds the requirements of current standards . > > Regards, > > Gert Gremmen, (Ing) > > ce-test, qualified testing > > === > Web presence http://www.cetest.nl > CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm > /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ > === > > >>>-Original Message- >>>From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor >>>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:05 PM >>>To: Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>>Subject: Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC >>>standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >>> >>> >>> >>>My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a >>>manufacturer or >>>business in general was a very important part of the success of that >>>company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high >>>quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That >>>is part of >>>a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, >>>gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not >>>work and it is more efficient to impose external political >>>control. This is >>>untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose >>>rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to >>>be gained by >>>exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding >>>ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, >>>industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product >>>into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this >>>way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the >>>marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the >>>integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of >>>individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a >>>simple example >>>that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit >>>Insurance >>>Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast >>>about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the strength of >>>the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no >>>interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank >>>looks pretty much like ano
RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Hmmm, Interesting point. I agree with Ken's assesment for the most part. Setting a minimum level for marketability levels the playing field (which governments like). But they lend the same customer credibility to the minimally compliant as the super compliant (which consumers may or may not like). It also lessens the incentive to innovate (which engineers hate). Perhaps a ranking system could be used similar to that used for crash testing automobiles. Any car that meets the government's minimum crash test rating can be sold. However, there are now "star" ratings given out for cars that meet and exceed the requirements. Anybody in the US who hasn't lived in a cave knows that the Ford Windstar has a "5 Star" crash test rating. It's screamed all over the TV in commercials about 25 times a night. There you have it, an incentive for not only meeting the standards, but beating it. Maybe a sliding scale could be created that tracks the state of the art (compliance wise). Equipment could then be certified as level 1, level 2 ... up to level 5 "5 Star" if you want. Then, companies that meet and exceed the safety, emissions or immunity standard could claim "5 Star emissions compliance" or "5 star safety compliance"... If the scale is adjusted from time to time; when a company improves compliance performance, they would then raise the bar for the rest of the world. Interesting discussion. Got to get back to the ball and chain Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | > -Original Message- > From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:05 PM > To: Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New > EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query > > > My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a > manufacturer or > business in general was a very important part of the success of that > company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to > high > quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That is > part of > a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards > (indeed, > gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does > not > work and it is more efficient to impose external political control. > This is > untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you > impose > rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to be > gained by > exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by > finding > ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, > industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique > product > into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In > this > way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of > the > marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the > integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of > individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a simple > example > that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit > Insurance > Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to > boast > about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the > strength of > the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no > interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One > bank > looks pretty much like another to the average depositor. > > -- > >From: "Gregg Kervill" > >To: "'John Woodgate'" , > > >Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC > standards; > now CISPR24/EN55024 query > >Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM > > > > > > > I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while deliberation > may not > > always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer > must > > always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! > > -- > > > > However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and > > commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. > > > > Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was with a > company > > making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out emissions > on all > > of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out
RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
You are right ??? May I add the following quoted part of an email inquiry we received today from one "reputable" USA manufacturer I received today in my mail box : QUOTE I apologize for the delay in responding back to you, but my boss is informing me that we simply have to fill out the EC Type Declaration of Conformity and put the label on it. The system will then be ok to send out. No documentation is needed until the system itself is questioned by the authorities or the customer. If we do get questioned, what sort of documentation will I need. Especially if I have not got the system officially tested. END QUOTE ?? This is maybe just because their own philosophy about safety and spectrum protection exceeds the requirements of current standards . Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === >>-Original Message- >>From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor >>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:05 PM >>To: Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >>Subject: Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC >>standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >> >> >> >>My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a >>manufacturer or >>business in general was a very important part of the success of that >>company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high >>quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That >>is part of >>a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, >>gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not >>work and it is more efficient to impose external political >>control. This is >>untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose >>rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to >>be gained by >>exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding >>ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, >>industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product >>into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this >>way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the >>marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the >>integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of >>individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a >>simple example >>that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit >>Insurance >>Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast >>about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the strength of >>the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no >>interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank >>looks pretty much like another to the average depositor. >> >>-- >>>From: "Gregg Kervill" >>>To: "'John Woodgate'" , >> >>>Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New >>EMC standards; >>now CISPR24/EN55024 query >>>Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM >>> >> >>> >>> I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while >>deliberation may not >>> always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must >>> always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! >>> -- >>> >>> However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and >>> commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. >>> >>> Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was >>with a company >>> making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out >>emissions on all >>> of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out >>> susceptibility by wiring a BIG contactor as a buzzer and put x-y caps >>> between the open contact end of the coil and ground and >>neutral. IT wiped >>> out radios for about 50 feet! (But was only used sparingly >>maybe less than >>> 30 seconds a month) >>> >>> >>> GOOD - meant the unit continued to function normally. That was my EMC >>> pr
Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill wrote (in <002f01c162e8$ca3f3800$7300a8c0@MENHADEN>) about 'Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Thu, 1 Nov 2001: >Is there a need for a recognized EMC or safety credential? York University in UK offers a (post-graduate?) qualification in EMC. Others may as well, by now. I don't know of one for product safety. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Hi Ghery, >CISPR 24 / EN 55024:1998 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It applies to ITE, regardless of the installation location. So, an ITE would then be designed for all intended environments when testing to the single set of limits of CISPR 24 /EN55024? >There are no proposals in CISPR SC I at this time to create a new version >of CISPR 24 for an industrial location. Why not? There should be. IMHO, this appears to be a gaping hole in the ITE immunity requirement scenario. >EN 50082-2 does NOT apply as once a product specific standard (in this case, >EN 55024:1998) is published, the generic standard no longer applies to that >product family. This is all fine and good, but what do you do when your ITE is to be installed into an industrial-type environment? What requirements would you then use for ITE for an industrial-type environment? Also, my reference to EN50082-2 was in error. The reference should've been EN61000-6-2. >Keep in mind that the definitions of class A and B in CISPR 22 are based on >the limits met by the product. B is intended for residential environments >and the like, but there is a note in CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) that states >that class A products should not be limited in where they can be marketed, >just that a warning label should be added to them about potential >interference in a residential environment. I was just noting that CISPR 22 delineates two intended ITE emissions environments. So then (which brings us back to the point I was trying to make), why can't CISPR 24 define/delineate different immunity environments, as well? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a manufacturer or business in general was a very important part of the success of that company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That is part of a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not work and it is more efficient to impose external political control. This is untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to be gained by exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a simple example that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast about how "strong" they are, but for the average depositor the strength of the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank looks pretty much like another to the average depositor. -- >From: "Gregg Kervill" >To: "'John Woodgate'" , >Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query >Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM > > > I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while deliberation may not > always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must > always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! > -- > > However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and > commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. > > Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was with a company > making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out emissions on all > of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out > susceptibility by wiring a BIG contactor as a buzzer and put x-y caps > between the open contact end of the coil and ground and neutral. IT wiped > out radios for about 50 feet! (But was only used sparingly maybe less than > 30 seconds a month) > > > GOOD - meant the unit continued to function normally. That was my EMC > practice during the 1970's. Product Safety followed a similar pattern > > > Later I worked in a larger company that employed a few sages; although they > may have been a little past their prime in terms of innovation they were > wonderful mentors and ensured that we did not kill anyone with our designs! > In the same way that nurses protect patients from newly appointed doctors. > > > > During the last 10 years the mentors seem to have be down-sized (due to > efficiencies) - Old Traditional (empirical) practices are displaced - > standards (safety and EMC) are seen as intrusive and an excuse to design > down to minimal requirements (at best) or as a challenge to the integrity > (dare I say manhood) of designers. > > > During my 20 years in R&D I did some very dumb things and designed several > 'iffy power supplies - I know now that they are non-compliance but a few > escaped into the market place. > > Take away the mentors - allow companies to Self Assessment and Self > Certification in Safety are will things get better or worse. Do we need to > direct a change of design culture? > > Is there a need for a recognized EMC or safety credential? > > DISCUSS... > > > > > Gregg > > Eurolink Ltd. -One Link-199 Countries > P.O. Box 310 > Reedville, Virginia 22539 > Phone: (804) 453-3141 > Fax: (804) 453-9039 > Web:www.eu-link.com > > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net > &
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I meant 22. The last sentence might have been clearer had it read "To bring the FCC Rules into a discussion about CISPR 22 compliance levels is irrelevant." However, changing 22 to 24 still makes a true statement in my opinion. That would agree with your statement about emissions and immunity requirements being independent. No argument there. Ghery -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:26 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >My point about class A and B in CISPR 22 is NOT irrelevant. If a regulatory >body wishes to override the loose definition in CISPR 22 (as Taiwan has >done, for example), they are free to do so. What I stated about CISPR 22 >(and EN 55022) is true and still stands. The FCC Rules are specific about >when a product is class A or B. To bring them into a discussion about CISPR >22 is irrelevant. Would you care to read that again, because I would like to understand your point and I find it simply confusing. If '22' in the last line should be '24' Classification on the basis of emissions is almost independent of classification for immunity. Indeed, some products exist that have to meet Class B emission but industrial-level immunity requirements, not present in CISPR 24. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
John, I have no argument with you on that point. A product that will not function in its intended environment is rather useless. However, as an anarchist Yank (well, that might be putting it a bit too strongly, but I do believe in limited government - a topic for some other forum), I feel that immunity is a product quality issue and is best left to a manufacturer as a customer satisfaction issue and should not be a regulatory matter. The regulators have a vested interest in protecting licensed users of the radio spectrum, so emissions limits are in order. Immunity requirements do not serve a similar function, so should be left to the customer and vendor. In the U.S. the only commercial immunity requirements are contained in the NEBS documents for telco equipment. A customer written and administered requirement that works quite well. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >Even then, changes in CISPR >documents occur at glacial speed. This isn't always a bad thing, either. Things are changing, even in CISPR. And while deliberation may not always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while deliberation may not always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! -- However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was with a company making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out emissions on all of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out susceptibility by wiring a BIG contactor as a buzzer and put x-y caps between the open contact end of the coil and ground and neutral. IT wiped out radios for about 50 feet! (But was only used sparingly maybe less than 30 seconds a month) GOOD - meant the unit continued to function normally. That was my EMC practice during the 1970's. Product Safety followed a similar pattern Later I worked in a larger company that employed a few sages; although they may have been a little past their prime in terms of innovation they were wonderful mentors and ensured that we did not kill anyone with our designs! In the same way that nurses protect patients from newly appointed doctors. During the last 10 years the mentors seem to have be down-sized (due to efficiencies) - Old Traditional (empirical) practices are displaced - standards (safety and EMC) are seen as intrusive and an excuse to design down to minimal requirements (at best) or as a challenge to the integrity (dare I say manhood) of designers. During my 20 years in R&D I did some very dumb things and designed several 'iffy power supplies - I know now that they are non-compliance but a few escaped into the market place. Take away the mentors - allow companies to Self Assessment and Self Certification in Safety are will things get better or worse. Do we need to direct a change of design culture? Is there a need for a recognized EMC or safety credential? DISCUSS... Gregg Eurolink Ltd. -One Link-199 Countries P.O. Box 310 Reedville, Virginia 22539 Phone: (804) 453-3141 Fax: (804) 453-9039 Web:www.eu-link.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >Even then, changes in CISPR >documents occur at glacial speed. This isn't always a bad thing, either. Things are changing, even in CISPR. And while deliberation may not always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >My point about class A and B in CISPR 22 is NOT irrelevant. If a regulatory >body wishes to override the loose definition in CISPR 22 (as Taiwan has >done, for example), they are free to do so. What I stated about CISPR 22 >(and EN 55022) is true and still stands. The FCC Rules are specific about >when a product is class A or B. To bring them into a discussion about CISPR >22 is irrelevant. Would you care to read that again, because I would like to understand your point and I find it simply confusing. If '22' in the last line should be '24' Classification on the basis of emissions is almost independent of classification for immunity. Indeed, some products exist that have to meet Class B emission but industrial-level immunity requirements, not present in CISPR 24. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Ron, I did not mean to suggest that CISPR 24 provides an adequate level of test for all environments. Heck, my 5 watt 2 m / 70 cm amateur radio handheld hits my PC with a lot more than 3 V/m when I'm sitting at my computer talking to someone. I once measured it at 10 meters (on an 80 cm high non-conducting table) and found the field strength was 1 V/m at that distance. The standard does, however, provide a reasonable level of test for products in most environments. Keep in mind that EN 55024 is a legal requirement. If you feel that a more stringent standard is applicable for a particular installation, you are free to specify that your vendor meet that requirement. EN 55024 just provides a legal minimum level of immunity. CISPR SC I WG4 could investigate a different set of requirements in CISPR 24 for a heavy industrial environment. Nobody has proposed that it do so. Therefore, nothing is being done. As WG4 is just being formed due to the merger of CISPR SC E and SC G in Bristol this past June and will not meet until late September of next year, I wouldn't expect to see any movement in the near future. As one of the people being named to WG4 by the USNC to the IEC, I will see any such moves when they occur. Even then, changes in CISPR documents occur at glacial speed. This isn't always a bad thing, either. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:03 PM To: ghery.pet...@intel.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query Hi Ghery, >CISPR 24 / EN 55024:1998 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It applies to ITE, regardless of the installation location. So, an ITE would then be designed for all intended environments when testing to the single set of limits of CISPR 24 /EN55024? >There are no proposals in CISPR SC I at this time to create a new version >of CISPR 24 for an industrial location. Why not? There should be. IMHO, this appears to be a gaping hole in the ITE immunity requirement scenario. >EN 50082-2 does NOT apply as once a product specific standard (in this case, >EN 55024:1998) is published, the generic standard no longer applies to that >product family. This is all fine and good, but what do you do when your ITE is to be installed into an industrial-type environment? What requirements would you then use for ITE for an industrial-type environment? Also, my reference to EN50082-2 was in error. The reference should've been EN61000-6-2. >Keep in mind that the definitions of class A and B in CISPR 22 are based on >the limits met by the product. B is intended for residential environments >and the like, but there is a note in CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) that states >that class A products should not be limited in where they can be marketed, >just that a warning label should be added to them about potential >interference in a residential environment. I was just noting that CISPR 22 delineates two intended ITE emissions environments. So then (which brings us back to the point I was trying to make), why can't CISPR 24 define/delineate different immunity environments, as well? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
My point about class A and B in CISPR 22 is NOT irrelevant. If a regulatory body wishes to override the loose definition in CISPR 22 (as Taiwan has done, for example), they are free to do so. What I stated about CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) is true and still stands. The FCC Rules are specific about when a product is class A or B. To bring them into a discussion about CISPR 22 is irrelevant. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:00 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >CISPR 24 / EN 55024:1998 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It applies >to ITE, regardless of the installation location. There are no proposals in >CISPR SC I at this time to create a new version of CISPR 24 for an >industrial location. Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that there should not be. If not, sooner or later, an industrial computer will crash due to lack of immunity and result in a megabuck loss. >EN 50082-2 does NOT apply as once a product specific >standard (in this case, EN 55024:1998) is published, the generic standard no >longer applies to that product family. That is the position according to the rules, but I wouldn't buy an industrial computer that only met CISPR24 for installation in a heavy industrial site. > >Keep in mind that the definitions of class A and B in CISPR 22 are based on >the limits met by the product. B is intended for residential environments >and the like, but there is a note in CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) that states >that class A products should not be limited in where they can be marketed, >just that a warning label should be added to them about potential >interference in a residential environment. This is irrelevant, and, as you well know, out of step with other EMC standards, including FCC. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >CISPR 24 / EN 55024:1998 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It applies >to ITE, regardless of the installation location. There are no proposals in >CISPR SC I at this time to create a new version of CISPR 24 for an >industrial location. Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that there should not be. If not, sooner or later, an industrial computer will crash due to lack of immunity and result in a megabuck loss. >EN 50082-2 does NOT apply as once a product specific >standard (in this case, EN 55024:1998) is published, the generic standard no >longer applies to that product family. That is the position according to the rules, but I wouldn't buy an industrial computer that only met CISPR24 for installation in a heavy industrial site. > >Keep in mind that the definitions of class A and B in CISPR 22 are based on >the limits met by the product. B is intended for residential environments >and the like, but there is a note in CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) that states >that class A products should not be limited in where they can be marketed, >just that a warning label should be added to them about potential >interference in a residential environment. This is irrelevant, and, as you well know, out of step with other EMC standards, including FCC. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
I read in !emc-pstc that Ron Pickard wrote (in ) about 'New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query', on Wed, 31 Oct 2001: >Is the CISPR/G committee working on such a revision? Or will they? No, because CISPR/G and CISPR/E have merged to form CISPR/I. But your point is well made. For the industrial environment, in the absence of any limits in CISPR 24, you should apply the Generic IEC/EN61000-6-2 for new designs. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Ron, CISPR 24 / EN 55024:1998 is the ITE specific immunity standard. It applies to ITE, regardless of the installation location. There are no proposals in CISPR SC I at this time to create a new version of CISPR 24 for an industrial location. EN 50082-2 does NOT apply as once a product specific standard (in this case, EN 55024:1998) is published, the generic standard no longer applies to that product family. Keep in mind that the definitions of class A and B in CISPR 22 are based on the limits met by the product. B is intended for residential environments and the like, but there is a note in CISPR 22 (and EN 55022) that states that class A products should not be limited in where they can be marketed, just that a warning label should be added to them about potential interference in a residential environment. Ghery Pettit Intel Corporation -Original Message- From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:10 AM To: nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query Hi Nick et al, Your email on these standards has poked into the recesses and brought out a question that I've been meaning to ask relating to ITE immunity environment applicability. In the scope of CISPR 24/EN55024, ITE is defined in CISPR 22, which breaks down ITE into 2 classes (A & B). Unfortunately, CISPR24/EN 55024 make no such delineation. Also in the scope of CISPR 24/EN55024, it states "The object of this publication is to establish requirements which will provide an adequate level of intrinsic immunity so that the equipment will operate as intended in its environment" (in the scope of EN55024, a reference is made to ETSI harmonized standards for TNE taking precedence). Unfortunately, only a single test limit set is provided in these standards with no clear definition/description of the environment that the provided test limits are intended to emulate. Given this, does anyone know why only a single immunity test set is required and what environment the provided limits pertain to? Why weren't at least two environments (residential & industrial) and their related test limits/conditions provided? If I was to assume (ugh), I would say the test limits found in CISPR 24/EN55024 are residential, commercial & light industrial as they are essentially identical to those of EN50082-1. Will CISPR 24 and/or EN55024 be revised to provide an industrial focus? Or, is there or will there be an new industrial version of CISPR 24/EN55024 in the works? Or, does EN50082-2 simply apply in lieu of this deficiency? Is the CISPR/G committee working on such a revision? Or will they? Comments are welcome? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com nick.williams@conforman ce.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: New EMC standards o.ieee.org 10/30/01 04:00 PM Please respond to nick.williams Copies of BS EN 61000-6-1, -6-2, -6-3 and -6-4:2001 dropped through my letter box today. I am not, and have never claimed to be, an EMC specialist. I can read and understand much of the new standards but I don't have the level of familiarity required to quickly understand how they change the landscape in detail. Would someone closer to the matter care to provide a brief primer as to the relationship between these standards and their predecessors, whether there are any significant changes and when we have to start paying close attention? If this has been posted elsewhere already, a pointer to the resource would be helpful, although this seems to be an appropriate forum for such a description to appear as well. Regards Nick. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussio
Re: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
Hi Nick et al, Your email on these standards has poked into the recesses and brought out a question that I've been meaning to ask relating to ITE immunity environment applicability. In the scope of CISPR 24/EN55024, ITE is defined in CISPR 22, which breaks down ITE into 2 classes (A & B). Unfortunately, CISPR24/EN 55024 make no such delineation. Also in the scope of CISPR 24/EN55024, it states "The object of this publication is to establish requirements which will provide an adequate level of intrinsic immunity so that the equipment will operate as intended in its environment" (in the scope of EN55024, a reference is made to ETSI harmonized standards for TNE taking precedence). Unfortunately, only a single test limit set is provided in these standards with no clear definition/description of the environment that the provided test limits are intended to emulate. Given this, does anyone know why only a single immunity test set is required and what environment the provided limits pertain to? Why weren't at least two environments (residential & industrial) and their related test limits/conditions provided? If I was to assume (ugh), I would say the test limits found in CISPR 24/EN55024 are residential, commercial & light industrial as they are essentially identical to those of EN50082-1. Will CISPR 24 and/or EN55024 be revised to provide an industrial focus? Or, is there or will there be an new industrial version of CISPR 24/EN55024 in the works? Or, does EN50082-2 simply apply in lieu of this deficiency? Is the CISPR/G committee working on such a revision? Or will they? Comments are welcome? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com nick.williams@conforman ce.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: New EMC standards o.ieee.org 10/30/01 04:00 PM Please respond to nick.williams Copies of BS EN 61000-6-1, -6-2, -6-3 and -6-4:2001 dropped through my letter box today. I am not, and have never claimed to be, an EMC specialist. I can read and understand much of the new standards but I don't have the level of familiarity required to quickly understand how they change the landscape in detail. Would someone closer to the matter care to provide a brief primer as to the relationship between these standards and their predecessors, whether there are any significant changes and when we have to start paying close attention? If this has been posted elsewhere already, a pointer to the resource would be helpful, although this seems to be an appropriate forum for such a description to appear as well. Regards Nick. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussio
