Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
I presented a long paper related to this subject about field-to-wire coupling in the commercial and military arenas, which really translates into building vs. vehicle installation, which in turn means electrically how close and how well-defined is the ground plane. Here is the reference: On Field-To-Wire Coupling Versus Conducted Injection Techniques,1997 IEEE EMC Symposium Record. Austin, Texas -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 9:40 AM Thanks Ken, Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft environment is entirely different than most other equipment installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft installations. I will take another look at this. Any other information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not a direct comparison to CISPR because a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, and b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached cables are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions relative to a CISPR test set up. -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
Thanks Ken, Yes, 25 dBuV/m not 25 uV/m. I also found the test set up rather strange. Certainly not consistent with CISPR but then the aircraft environment is entirely different than most other equipment installations. I agree, this makes it hard to compare to CISPR testing. We may have over simplified the requirements for aircraft installations. I will take another look at this. Any other information would be very helpful to the IEC working group. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:16 AM To: Jim Conrad; m.bushn...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad Subject: Re: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I think you mean 25 dBuV/m, but regardless of the number, it is not a direct comparison to CISPR because a) the DO-160 EUT-antenna separation is 1 meter, not 3 or 10 meters, and b) the test is performed without an antenna height search, and c) the EUT is fastened to a metallic ground plane, and EUT-attached cables are mounted directly above the ground plane, which reduces emissions relative to a CISPR test set up. -- From: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net To: m.bushn...@ieee.org, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Jim Conrad jc...@shore.net Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2002, 6:48 AM I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
I'm not sure if DO-199 or 233 has EMC requirements but I am very interested if you come with any. IEC 62A/MT 23 is in the process of amending 60601-1-2 for medical equipment used in the aircraft environment. We have based our requirements on the environment specified in DO-160. In general, the DO-160 requirement for RE are higher than CISPR except in the communications and navigation frequency bands. For example, RE dips to 25 uV/m in the 100 - 150 MHz band for category II equipment. Please let me know if you find anything in DO-233 that might alter our assumptions. Thanks. Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of m.bushn...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02
Late reply: I have not looked at DO-199, but I noticed that RTCA also has the following document: DO-233 Issued: 08/20/1996 Description: This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions. FYI, here is the descriptions for DO-199 Volumes I and II: DO-199 Issued: 09/16/1988 Description: Reports on the investigation to determine potential interference effects to aircraft electronic systems due to emissions from self-powered portable electronic and electrical devices operated aboard aircraft. Recommends regulatory actions relating to operation and identification of passenger- operated devices to assure control of possible sources of interference, and recommends standardized procedures for reporting suspected interference. Volume I is the basic report and includes background, data collection, data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Volume II provides amplification or background material for some of the summary data included in the basic report. Superseded DO-119 Sincerely, Mark E. Bushnell, Technical Writer IEEE EMC P299 WG m.bushn...@ieee.org L-3 communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas Tel. 903.457.6375 Fax 903.457.4413 This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons. -- From: Ron[SMTP:r...@vascor.com] Reply To: Ron Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 01:58 PM To: EMC Subject:RTCA document vs. IEC 60601-1-02 I recently came across a synopsis of document DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard. Since I don't have the complete document, does anyone know if this document contains EMC specs/limits on RF emissions, etc. Are these the same specs/limits as outlined in IEC 60601-1-02? ... same as CISPR 11? --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
