Re: [PSES] Clearances >30 kHz

Remarkable difference between 29.9 kHz and 30.1 kHz! On 2023-07-25 23:39, Ryan Jazz wrote: Dear Members, Hope you can help me understand the requirement for the clearance needed between the bottom PCB of power supply to metal chassis. Looking up UL 62368-1 Third Edition, and using the

[PSES] Clearances >30 kHz

Dear Members, Hope you can help me understand the requirement for the clearance needed between the bottom PCB of power supply to metal chassis. Looking up UL 62368-1 Third Edition, and using the 'Voltage up to an including peak' of 2000 V for overvoltage category II Table 10 for <30 kHz. I see

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

The residential level of 3m V/m was in IEC 1000-4-3 predates portable phones, WiFi, Bluetooth and all the other mobile and portable transmitters widely in use today. The 20+ V/m field strengths in these standards are what is obtained from a cellular phone at maximum power, or WiFi device, at

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

Hi Brian, In IEC 61000-4-3 the level is defined as the unmodulated rms field strength. The modulation (1kHz 80% AM) is applied symmetrically around that level. >From memory this means that the peak is 5.1dB higher than the level. The opposite is true in ISO 11452-2 for automotive where the

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

Yes. The standards need to allow for possibilities. I have about a 3 dB gain antenna that is about a meter away from the charger port. It transmits about 15 watts at 144.39 MHz to send out an APRS position packet. I recently bought a PHEV, although my 2 minute timer is not yet installed, but

Re: [PSES] Order of attenuators

Hi All, It turns out the signal generator has an average output of only mW, but a peak power of 5000W or so. This is a small battery powered hand-held EFT like pulse generator, from Fischer Custom Communications, that I use for circuit troubleshooting. It will deliver thousands of Watts of

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

Piling on, while one may compute very high field intensities from say a mobile phone or other such microwave handheld transmitter, these field intensities will not illuminate a 1.5 m square area at such levels.  If such levels are in fact justified, it might make sense to reduce the required

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

While the vehicle is on charge or vey near a charger? On 2023-07-24 23:12, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote: John, I have transmitter that transmits on a VHF Frequency about 2 minutes after I shut the car off. A number of setups allow a person to use a hand held device to access a higher powered

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

John, I have transmitter that transmits on a VHF Frequency about 2 minutes after I shut the car off. A number of setups allow a person to use a hand held device to access a higher powered transceiver that is in the car. It's fairly common setup for highway patrol vehicles, due to distance from

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

AM transmissions obviously have different amplitudes when modulated than when not.  Above 1 GHz, where transmissions are primarily digitally encoded (phase/frequency shift modulation techniques where the amplitude is constant), I don’t believe this is the case.  So it may be that above (for

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

There are, but 20 V/m still is a very high value. One wouldn't expect a transmitter to be used in a car while it is on charge. On 2023-07-24 22:57, Jim Bacher, WB8VSU wrote: Wi-Fi and cell phones are not the only transmitters near cars. There are police, fire and ham radio transceivers in

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

Wi-Fi and cell phones are not the only transmitters near cars. There are police, fire and ham radio transceivers in cars. Some of which are on gain antennas and can be remotely accessed to transmit. Not to mention hand held transceivers that might walk by. Jim, WB8VSU On July 24, 2023

Re: [PSES] Woodgate's reply on residential Immunity field strength

The reference for 20 V/m to EV chargers comes from UL 2231-2. This is not a medical standard, but Annex A does call out the medical standard 60601-1-2 as a reference, as well as CENELEC 50204. We can't figure out why; cell phones produce less than half that, and our WiFi transmitter is

Re: [PSES] Order of attenuators

6, 3, 20. The calculations are left as an exercise for thereader.  On 2023-07-24 20:14, doug emcesd.com wrote: Hi All, Here is a puzzle. I have a signal source of average power less than 10 mW and I want to put three attenuators on the output, 20 dB, 6 dB and 3 dB.  All are two Watt

[PSES] Order of attenuators

Hi All, Here is a puzzle. I have a signal source of average power less than 10 mW and I want to put three attenuators on the output, 20 dB, 6 dB and 3 dB. All are two Watt attenuators. What order should I put them on to minimize the chance of burning some of them out? This is a situation I

Re: [PSES] Stability

Steve If IEC61010 is insufficient in some way, You might also consider IEC62368-1(AV, ICT) or IEC60601-1 (Medical) Both have stability requirements associated with equipment that is primarily moved on castors for basic stability and installation and additional safeguards for equipment and

Re: [PSES] Stability

Hi Steve, IMO, EN 60204-1 is the wrong standard. You said that the cart is used in a lab setting. You need to use a lab equipment standard, and for the EU EN 61010-1 is the correct choice. If not that, then you really need to add a bunch of additional machinery related standards, which I also

Re: [PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

Hello All and Thank you for all your help. !! The knowledge base here is exceptional! On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 1:29 AM James Pawson (U3C) < ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk> wrote: > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk * >

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

IEC 62061 is for safety related control systems, and also calls out swept 20 V/m for 80-1000 MHz. It doesn’t seem an unreasonably high level for testing, particularly in industrial environments that may have higher emissions. IEC 62061:2021 specifies requirements and makes recommendations for

Re: [PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

Hi Charles, Why not flip it around? The circuit under your shield is an antenna which will be as good at receiving as transmitting. Illuminate the circuit with a known field intensity (radiated RF immunity test IEC 61000-4-3 for example) and measure the noise voltage at the key point on the

Re: [PSES] Stability

Steve Have a look at EN 61010-1 covers laboratory equipment and includes stability requirements. EN 60204-1 only really covers electrical risks – so unless the equipment falls under the Machinery Directive, you should consider other standards to ensure requirements of LVD Annex I are met.

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Stability

Hi Steve, I don't know what would apply in Europe. However, I can suggest taking a look at UL 1678. It's intended to cover carts for audio/video equipment, but it does address potential hazards that might affect a products

[PSES] Stability

A client has a product which is a mobile cart intended for a laboratory setting in which it can be moved to whatever lab station it is needed at. It is on casters and when wheeled to the working location, leveling feet which are located in the center of the castor mount, are lowered and locked

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

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:44:29 GMT, Brian Gregory wrote: ... > We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US) > and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2. It calls > out IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a > requirement for a field

Re: [PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

Hi Chaz, My thought is that concern over the simulated antenna can be neglected if the the source is "electrically short dipole" at the frequency of interest.  Simulating with the radiated field from such a source, with and without the shield, at a far field distance, should give you a

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

Like John, I have no idea why a "medical electrical device" standard has gotten tangled up with EV chargers.  I was one of the authors of the 2nd edition of the IEC standard, and the only devices under that standard that weren't patient connected were systems that connected those devices to

Re: [PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

Speaking in general – not acquainted with any work specific to your concern. The real antenna is/are the IC (s) covered by the shield, and any internal connections between them. If you properly simulate that, you need not worry about the effect of the shield on the antenna, because it

Re: [PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

I suggest that a suitable source for evaluating the shielding effectiveness of a BLS is a multivibrator (square-wave source), with attention to rise and fall times: not too slow and not ridiculously fast. It's more representative of emitting sources than a canned antenna.

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

Well, obviously 60601-1-2 doesn't apply, unless some clown claims that EV chargers are medical devices. The higher limits in 60601-1-2 for home healthcare are probably due to the expected absence of immediate intervention when a medical device misbehaves.

[PSES] Simulation of signal source under a pwb shield

Hello experts and gurus!! I need to simulate the performance of a BLS (board level shield) and I am considering using the IEEE Std 2716-2022 IEEE Guide for the Characterization of the Effectiveness of Printed Circuit Board Level Shielding document. This document is however an adaptation of the

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

Hi Brian, The UL standard actually references IEC 61000-4-3 only for the test method. Per the UL standard, the test level, 20 V/m, comes from EN 60601-1-2, which is the CENELEC EMC standard for medical devices. Per this article

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

Hi Brian, Just for your information, in Europe residential EV chargers (for charging an EV with AC voltage), typically needs to fulfill the requirements of EN 61851-21-2 (product standard for off-board EV chargers). In this standard you will find the applicable test levels for immunity

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

== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) Forwarded Message

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

FCC Part B has nothing to do with immunity. It protects radio receivers.  20 V/m simply means they are taking into account higher power or closer rf transmitters. Your cell phone, transmitting at 0.5 W, theoretically can generate 5 V/m a meter away.  That will scale up in closer, although the

[PSES] Immunity test field strength, residential setting

Hello colleagues, We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US) and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2. It calls out IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a requirement for a field strength of 20V/m. Our EMC expert says typically

[PSES] IEEE EMC + SIPS 2023 Symposium in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Who is planning to attend this event? I will be there on Tuesday wandering around the vendor booths (autographs are free☺ hee-hee). Look for me and say "Howdy!!". I will have my "The Other Brian" name tag on. It would be nice to put a face with the names. I know many of you will be

[PSES] "Morning with Doug" experiment session

Hi All, I was thinking of doing a morning's presentation of just live experiments, no slides, just a series of live experiments that most engineers will find interesting, and may demonstrate that circuits and measurements do not always act like we think they do. Here is a proposed list:

Re: [PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

I agree that your procedures are what is necessary. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.

Re: [PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

John: In this case I would ask manufacturer (thru your purchasing channel) regarding marking requirements agreed as a certification requirement from the UL. That should be condition of acceptability. Have that letter or document available at time of UL inspection. Other way, I handed was to

Re: [PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

Hi John; Is this battery used in a higher-level product? Is your problem that a certifying agency won't complete the certification, or that the end product is already certified, but failing FUS/ inspections at the manufacturer because they can't verify the battery is UR? PS: When you say UR,

Re: [PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

John, the original manufacturer is allowed to Mark the shipping box instead of the part. To buy the battery from someone else, that someone else needs to be a UL Recognized repackager. A repackager is allowed to break the cells into smaller boxes and Mark the smaller shipping boxes with the UL

[PSES] Lithium Button Cell Battery - NRTL markings

Hi guys, We are having a heck of time proving a button cell is actually UR - CR2354. UL IQ says it's UR. The Battery is not marked. The Guide Card allows the marking to be on "packaging". Our customer purchases the CR2354 on-line. The packaging it comes in is not marked. Is it possible

Re: [PSES] Current Probe for Surge Immunity Calibration Validation

I have found Fischer Custom Communication probes to be of the highest quality. I have found that with some other probes, significant E-field response is a problem, and you need to measure E-field response yourself. I have seen current probes with an E-field response as much as the intended

[PSES] Current Probe for Surge Immunity Calibration Validation

Greetings Everyone. To validate a Surge Immunity Generator and CDN, the IEC 61000-4-5 standard refers to a "Current Probe" for measuring the Short-Circuit Current. I wish to buy one. Can anyone recommend a model and supplier/manufacturer of a current probe that they like and will do a good job

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Paolo, All, Also of note is that CISPR and ANSI Antenna calibration standards for “commercial use” have a VSWR requirement as part of their standards, that means broadband antennas (Biconicals) and (Bilog / Combilog) or other broadband antennas that operated from 30 to 200 (300) MHz should be

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Regarding the 10 dB internal attenuation use, and “hoping it doesn’t increase the noise floor too much.” You need not rely on hope; you can calculate it beforehand. The EMI receiver manufacturer states the typical and maximum noise floor under some set of conditions. Typically these are

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Hi Ken and all others, Thanks again for your comments and inputs. I checked the data sheets of the two antennas that I'm using in the 30M-6G range and considering CISPR 16-1-4 sec.4.5.3 "c) The return loss of the antenna with the antenna feeder connected shall not be less than 10 dB. A matching

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

The typical spectrum analyzer / EMI receiver input only looks like 50 Ω with some input attenuation. Typically, they specify vswr in a 50 Ω system with 10 dB internal attenuation selected. -- Ken Javor (256) 650-5261 From: Richard Nute Reply-To: Date: Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:28

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

This discussion not only applies to EMI testing, it also applies to high-frequency and fast risetime pulse voltage measurements. A 6 dB (2x voltage attenuation) or 10 dB (~3x voltage attenuation) in a 50-ohm system which would otherwise be subject to reflections due to impedance

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

See previous response.  A transmission line needs a good match at each end to control vswr-related reflection uncertainty.  Assuming both antenna and EMI receiver provide that, no extra attenuation is required. -- Ken Javor (256) 650-5261 From: Paolo Roncone Date: Saturday, July 15,

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Receiver vswr is specified with 10 dB attenuation because the mixer itself is not 50 Ω. Antenna vswr is usually best in the middle of the usable frequency range.  Worst case at the low end for EMI antennas used down to 30 MHz, because except for half-wave dipoles, they are electrically

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Hi Ken and Tom Thanks for your inputs. Yes, the 6 dB pad is at the receiver input, in addition or not (depending on the signal level) to the built-in attenuator of the receiver. If the same 6dB pad is put at the antenna output instead of receiver input, it's at the other end of the cable

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Hi Ken Thanks for your feedback. Why should the VSWR be specified with 10 dB attenuation? That would alter (for the better) the specified VSWR itself. I checked th e data sheets of 3 antennas that I'm using (a hybrid bilog, a log-periodic and a horn) and in all of them a "typical" VSWR is

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

But he is placing the pad at the receiver input in lieu of an internally selected 10 dB, not at the antenna's output port. -- Ken Javor (256) 650-5261 On 7/14/23, 6:00 PM, "T.Sato" wrote: On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:53:41 +0200, Paolo Roncone wrote: > I'm having a discussion

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:53:41 +0200, Paolo Roncone wrote: > I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB > attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the > range 30MHz - 6GHz. > The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm. > My colleague

Re: [PSES] 6dB pad

Not expressing an opinion, just listing some facts. Absent any input attenuation, vswr will be higher than manufacturer specifies, because the specification is with 10 dB input attenuation (typically). Therefore, the use of a 6 dB pad, absent any internal attenuation, will not meet the

[PSES] 6dB pad

Hi all, I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the range 30MHz - 6GHz. The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm. My colleague says the pad is an unnecessary element in the measurement

[PSES] 6dB pad

Hi all, I'm having a discussion with my colleague about the use of a fixed 6dB attenuation pad at the input of the EMI receiver for radiated EMI in the range 30MHz - 6GHz. The pad I'm using is a Weinschel 6dB N-type 50ohm. My colleague says the pad is an unnecessary element in the measurement

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Hi Scott, At this point, that’s my best guess. There is nothing to say that the UK will adopt the new MR, as there is nothing legally binding them to do so. -- Doug Nix d...@mac.com "The problem with common sense is that it's not too common." - Mark Twain > On Jul 13, 2023, at 23:16,

[PSES] NRTL for PCIE cards?

Hi Everyone From a previous post, I see that in principle OSHA requires any electrical product being used in the workplace to be tested and certified by an NRTL, and that there's no lower voltage or power limit. The product in question is a PCIE card for fitting inside a computer of some

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Patrick,Put me down as an MU abolitionist. I don’t see it adding any value, just workload and cost. I’d like to see it gone completely Yes I know others don’t agree, such is life. Derek Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 14, 2023, at 3:30 AM, Patrick wrote:I've been busy last couple of days and only now

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Dear Doug, Thanks for your detailed explanation! It seems the goods for the UK market do not legally need to change to the new EU MR until an updated regulation replacing the current one (old EU MD) is issued in the UK. Best regards, Scott On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 09:13, Doug Nix wrote: > Hi

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

I've been busy last couple of days and only now seeing the additional convo around measurement uncertainty(MU). I like the comments. Most folks appear to be either agnostic or in support of MU for use as a quality and confidence builder. I notice there are no MU-deniers?? Ok, I'll break the

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Hi Scott, Don’t I wish I could. At this point I’d need a well-tuned crystal ball. I don’t believe that the UK is quite sure where things will go. Since the UK is no longer a member of the EU, none of the law relating to the Machinery Regulation (MR) applies. For EU Members, the MR does not

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

> Dear Doug, > > Regarding the UK implementation part in your article, can you elaborate > the details of the UK implementation after the end of the transition date > of 31/12/2024? > > Thanks and regards, > > Scott > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 00:59, wrote: > >> Thanks, Doug! >> >> >> >> Scott >>

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

I think we're bundling independent errors here.  The lab's 17025 measurement uncertainty is independent of the EUT.  That said, you are certainly correct that measurement _variability_, due to the complexity of the EUT, generally swamps the lab MU, especially in the case you mention when

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Every measurement uncertainty seminar I've ever been to, since the mid 80s, has concentrated on it as a measure of the labs ability to control uncertainty.  In every case, from NIST to NPL, they have been adamant that uncertainty has _nothing_ to do with the pass/fail criteria.  The ironic

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Quite right. We don't need to add uncertainty to EMC measurements, because they are uncertain enough already. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

A fun thing to do if you have access to a semi-anechoic chamber is use lots of duct tape to make sure absolutely nothing changes between measurements other than a certain design change--one accepted long ago that already went into production, which cost $$$ (cable ferrites, wrapping cables

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

MU seems like a decent idea but is at best just an added cost for labs. It seems like magical thinking - as long as this number is 'good' your results are good. I've been working in labs 20 years. The biggest sources of error are completely ignored by MU - operator errors and poor methods to

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hello Patrick, Deferring to others that have the history, as far as I can remember the impetus was good engineering practice. On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:03 AM Patrick wrote: > * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: > conwa...@gmail.com * > -- >

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

what year did measurement uncertainty become a required component of lab accreditation? was there massive radio interference at homes and in offices that suddenly ceased the year after? asking for a friend. On Tue, Jul 11, 2023, 10:28 Chas Grasso wrote: > When the concept of measurement

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

When the concept of measurement uncertainty came about, the company I worked for at the time decided that irrespective of the technical niceties of statistics if emission exceeded the spec but was within the stated MU, then that was still considered a FAIL. The difficulty came when the emission

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Not in the commercial sector, but people try this argument all the time when failing a MIL-STD-461 limit by less than 3 dB, on account of the measurement system integrity check has to be within that margin.  They never express such concerns when they pass within 3 dB of the limit, however.

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

If I may pile on late, keep in mind that measurement uncertainty is Plus or Minus (±). Years ago when I was with a previous company, we had a buy/sell piece of junk product that we were selling with our company's brand/name on it. It was audited in Sweden as part of their surveillance program and

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hi everyone / Brian I do not know if someone else may have added this and I missed in the thread so apologies if redundant.  Brian, CFR Title 47 [Telecommunication Subchapter A] can be accessed online at  https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A Hope this helps if you need a

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hi John, I believe you mean EN 50715:2022 https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=305:110:0FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_PROJECT,FSP_LANG_ID:1258289,68318,25=1F3EE324B714B7C6895A8362CA3F1B47B Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

The basic unintentional limits in 15.109 are QP below 1 GHz and CISPR average above 1 GHz, per 15.35. Also, 15.35(b) specifies that peak values are limited to 20 dB above any average limits (above or below 1 GHz) unless otherwise stated in the CFR. Thanks,

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

The European Commission's lawyers object to mentioning statistical methods in standards, so the '80/80' rule texts are eliminated from the EN 550xx versions and are replaced by EN 50175, which is advice to manufacturers about determining what margin is necessary.

Re: [PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

I can answer the first question: A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47. Does the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg and Peak. When do peak readings trigger the need to report QP? I'm pretty sure Part 15 has AVG and QP limits listed. CHAS] The selection

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

The EN has more up-to-date information. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 -

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

I agree with Jim.  The measurement uncertainty I mentioned is only for the measurement chain.  Product uncertainty usually swamps that.  As you would expect, it's all about the product.  I currently work with robot vacuum cleaners and their docks.  No cables and battery powered is as simple as

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

That's why EN 50715 is important. It explains all about that margin and the associated statistics. == Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I

[PSES] Fwd: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

== Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk Rayleigh, Essex UK I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand. Xunzi (340 - 245 BC) Forwarded Message

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Brian, for margins it's not required by the standards. It is a "Personal Preference". I have always used and recommended 6 dB for prototypes / first production and 3 dB margin for production audits. As Brent mentioned there is variation in measured levels between test sites. However, your

[PSES] List Admins

It's time to cycle in new list Admins. Thanks to the list being on automatic and the great members of the list, it takes very little effort. If you are willing to assist, please contact me off list. I would like to thank the old admins Scott Douglas, Mike Cantwell and Dave Heald for their

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hi Brian, F.Y.I. You can find the FCC rules online (so also Part 47) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart -B Greetings, Bart From: Brian Gregory Sent: zaterdag 8 juli 2023 6:38 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] FCC Part B

Re: [PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hi Brian.  It's not entirely clear which measurement range you are asking about, but I'll assume conducted emissions in the range of 150 kHz to 30 MHz. Short answer: You can skip QP and Avg detection if the peak detection level is below the Avg detection limit. No margin is "required" to

[PSES] FCC Part B questions

Hi there, A question came up that I can't answer w/o a copy of Part 47.Does the FCC report require Quasi-Peak (QP) data, or just Avg and Peak. When do peak readings trigger the need to report QP? I'm pretty sure Part 15 has AVG and QP limits listed. Next was what sort of margin is expected

[PSES] Hypervisor as a part of India TEC MTCTE Phase-V Scope Expansion

Hi! India Telecommunications Engineering Centre recently announced a Phase 5 scope expansion with a deadline 1 July 2024. See the details below. https://www.mtcte.tec.gov.in/filedownload?name=downloadDocument_20230623115821.pdf This list includes Hypervisor which is "a purely software product"

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Yes. See articles 23 and 24. Doug Nix d...@ieee.org +1 (519) 729-5704 > On Jul 4, 2023, at 12:45, Scott Xe wrote: > > Dear Doug, > > Many thanks for your brief and useful information! I wonder if this > regulation still requires a DoC. > > Best regards, > > Scott > -

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Still requires a DoC. Mike Sherman Sherman PSC LLC > On 07/04/2023 11:45 AM CDT Scott Xe wrote: > > > Dear Doug, > > Many thanks for your brief and useful information! I wonder if this > regulation still requires a DoC. > > Best regards, > > Scott > > - >

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Dear Doug, Many thanks for your brief and useful information! I wonder if this regulation still requires a DoC. Best regards, Scott - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Hi All, I just published short article that includes links to the official version of the regulation and to a guide published in English by ETUI and Eurogip. Hope it’s helpful for you. https://machinerysafety101.com/2023/07/03/the-new-eu-machinery-safety-regulation-is-coming-are-you-ready/

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Brian If you’ve not come across it already, I recommend joining the LinkedIn group “Machinery Safety, Regulations and Standards for CE/UKCA” https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3995029/ Best regards Charlie Charlie Blackham Sulis Consultants Ltd Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317 Web:

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Hello Brian, I can only partly answer your questions. See article 52, “Transitional provisions”. It notes that EU member states must accept products declared to 2006/42/EC until 14 January 2027, so there is a fairly long transition period. However, there is additional information on the

Re: [PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

Is there a good source of information on the application of this new directive? Are there any good articles or summaries comparing the new directive to the old? Are there implementation dates? Can we declare compliance to the new directive now, or are their other hurdles that need to be put into

[PSES] Help guide the development of a new machinery EMC standard

Colleagues, You are invited to complete the IEEE Standards Association 1848-MSSV Survey. The survey is designed to help the 1848-MSSV committee better understand the kinds of EMC resilience techniques and measures your organization employs when designing and building the control systems for

[PSES] EU Machinery Regulation official version

FYI - now published in the OJ -- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1230 Best Regards, -Lauren LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, "E-mail

Re: [PSES] Machine status visual Indicators

In the province of Québec, they use stoplights that have shape coding. The lights are mounted horizontally above the roadway. the left and right ends have larger, circular, red lights. The amber light is diamond shaped and immediately to the right of the left-most red light. The green light is

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >