Re: [PSES] Plasma generator

[sgbrody]

I trust you guys more!!Thanks,Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
 Original message From: "Grasso, Charles" 
 Date: 8/1/19  7:32 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Steve Brody 
, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Plasma 
generator 

Recommend you work with a Notified Body on this one.

 
 

Thanks!
 
Charles Grasso

W: 303-706-5467

 


From: Steve Brody [mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net]

Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Plasma generator


 
 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org

Experts:
One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI environment, 
that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings before glue is 
applied.  The plasma electron density is typically
 around 1011 cm-3 
 
There are two parts to this question:


an EMC test house told them that because it had a plasma generator it would 
need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which is for arc welders and associated 
equipment. This scope of this standard says, in part,
"IEC 60974-10:2014 specifies a) applicable standards and test methods for 
radio-frequency (RF) emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods for 
harmonic current emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker;
 c) immunity requirements and test methods for continuous and transient, 
conducted and radiated disturbances including electrostatic discharges. This 
standard is applicable to equipment for arc welding and allied processes, 
including power sources and ancillary
 equipment, for example wire feeders, liquid cooling systems and arc striking 
and stabilizing devices." 



So the question is to continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 if 
classified as machinery, or EN 61326-1 if classified as MCE equipment, or have 
a separate report done for EN 60974-10?
The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some 
modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which would 
normally be done for machinery or MCE.

 


The second part is safety evaluation of the complete product.  There is nothing 
in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has the word 'plasma'.  Operator safety meets 
requirements.  I am not aware of any special consideration
 that needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In fairness I have not 
contact the plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what if any standards 
their units are, I assume, approved to.
Thought and comments greatly appreciated.
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test

[Grasso, Charles]

This immunity set up  problem seems like the exact likeness of an emissions 
problem. The (as you correctly state)
complex problem of what to do with cable was eventually congealed  in ANSI 
C63.4 with pictures on how to set
up an emissions test. Given that the physics of emissions and currents on the 
shields of cables in immunity are
analogues of each other - could you not use an emissions test setup as a 
starting point?

Perhaps you can find a friendly reverb chamber some place - then the issue of 
cable placement is immediately resolved!

Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467

From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 10:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated 
Immunity Test


 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org
Hello experts,

I am performing some testing on a control panel with multiple cable connections 
and it has got me thinking about the radiated RF immunity testing. I know from 
the EN 61000-4-3 standard that "1m of cable is exposed to the electromagnetic 
field" in the Uniform Field Area (UFA). What is not covered is:


  *   Any required separation distance between separate cables/ports from the 
EUT?
  *   If the cables are zig-zagged to fit in the UFA then what separation 
distance between the zig and the zag?

Unfortunately my UFA isn't quite big enough to fit 1m of cabling laid straight 
out like I see many accredited test houses doing, often with little to no 
distance between the cables. I could always stretch out the cables over 1m and 
use partial illumination techniques but I'd prefer not to have to double the 
amount of time I spend on one of the time consuming (and most boring) tests 
that I do.

I can see in MIL-STD-461 that there is a 2cm gap recommended between the cables 
but it isn't clear if that is just for power cables or all cables.

Is there any guidance available on this potentially very complex subject? How 
do you approach this problem?

As always, your input is appreciated!
Many thanks in advance
James



James Pawson
EMC Problem Solver

Unit 3 Compliance
Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing / Consultancy / 
Environmental & Vibration
www.unit3compliance.co.uk -- 07811 139957
Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Plasma generator

[Grasso, Charles]

Recommend you work with a Notified Body on this one.


Thanks!

Charles Grasso
W: 303-706-5467

From: Steve Brody [mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 2:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Plasma generator


 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org

Experts:

One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI environment, 
that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings before glue is 
applied.  The plasma electron density is typically around 1011 cm-3



There are two parts to this question:

  *   an EMC test house told them that because it had a plasma generator it 
would need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which is for arc welders and 
associated equipment. This scope of this standard says, in part, "IEC 
60974-10:2014 specifies a) applicable standards and test methods for 
radio-frequency (RF) emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods for 
harmonic current emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker; c) immunity 
requirements and test methods for continuous and transient, conducted and 
radiated disturbances including electrostatic discharges. This standard is 
applicable to equipment for arc welding and allied processes, including power 
sources and ancillary equipment, for example wire feeders, liquid cooling 
systems and arc striking and stabilizing devices."
 *   So the question is to continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 if 
classified as machinery, or EN 61326-1 if classified as MCE equipment, or have 
a separate report done for EN 60974-10?
 *   The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some 
modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which would 
normally be done for machinery or MCE.



  *   The second part is safety evaluation of the complete product.  There is 
nothing in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has the word 'plasma'.  Operator 
safety meets requirements.  I am not aware of any special consideration that 
needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In fairness I have not contact the 
plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what if any standards their units are, 
I assume, approved to.

Thought and comments greatly appreciated.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test

[Ken Javor]

I haven¹t seen anyone respond to this, so I¹ll take a crack at it.  Not
authoritative though in terms of quoting chapter and verse from EN61000-4-3.

MIL-STD-461 using 2 cm cable separation is heritage clear back to the early
1950s, and has nothing to do with radiated immunity testing.

If it were me, I would try to separate cables as much as possible unless I
knew they would parallel closely in intended use.

Here¹s the reason.  Consider a single cable, say USB. The EM field impinging
upon it induces an rf potential and resultant rf current. That current flows
so as to oppose the field which caused it. You now place a second cable
adjacent to it, and it is in the ³shadow², so to speak, of the first cable.
The point is the field is changed.  Not always a shadow though. I am sure
many have experienced the phenomenon of listening to FM radio while driving,
and when the signal is getting weak, driving under an overpass or other
significant structure and momentarily receiving a much stronger signal.

So the lesson I draw from that is to separate unless the cables are known to
route together.

A second lesson is the EN61000-4-6 analog of EN61000-4-3. Say you are using
a BCI technique on a shielded cable. How many such cables do you put in the
clamp? Just one, right?  You wouldn't clamp around several cables unless you
knew they were bundled together.

I am sure someone can come up with a more elegant formulation, but I think
this makes the point.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Reply-To: "James Pawson (U3C)" 
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 17:10:32 +0100
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated
Immunity Test

Hello experts,
 
I am performing some testing on a control panel with multiple cable
connections and it has got me thinking about the radiated RF immunity
testing. I know from the EN 61000-4-3 standard that ³1m of cable is exposed
to the electromagnetic field² in the Uniform Field Area (UFA). What is not
covered is:
 
* Any required separation distance between separate cables/ports from the
EUT? 
* If the cables are zig-zagged to fit in the UFA then what separation
distance between the zig and the zag?
 
Unfortunately my UFA isn¹t quite big enough to fit 1m of cabling laid
straight out like I see many accredited test houses doing, often with little
to no distance between the cables. I could always stretch out the cables
over 1m and use partial illumination techniques but I¹d prefer not to have
to double the amount of time I spend on one of the time consuming (and most
boring) tests that I do.
 
I can see in MIL-STD-461 that there is a 2cm gap recommended between the
cables but it isn¹t clear if that is just for power cables or all cables.
 
Is there any guidance available on this potentially very complex subject?
How do you approach this problem?
 
As always, your input is appreciated!
Many thanks in advance
James
 
 
 
James Pawson
EMC Problem Solver
 
Unit 3 Compliance
Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing /
Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration
www.unit3compliance.co.uk   -- 07811
139957
Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.
 
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe) 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  
David Heald 



-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Plasma generator

[sgbrody]

Doug,My thoughts as well.Thanks,Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
 Original message From: Doug Powell  Date: 
8/1/19  4:38 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Steve Brody  Cc: EMC-PSTC 
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Plasma generator Steve,I've 
dealt with plasma generators before, in my case atmospheric plasma for 
cleaning. Unless the plasma wand is under some form of robotic control I would 
not think this is not machinery. And in my view it is not an arc welder. What I 
used in the past was use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 for Industrial and for 
Group 2 Class A invoking the clause "for treatment of material".  If you use 
IEC 61010-1 for the safety portion, you are then required to use  IEC 61326-1, 
which once again refers back to the same family of test standards with various 
tweaks to the test levels.Best of luck,  
Dougdougp01@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 
2:22 PM Steve Brody  wrote:


Experts:One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI 
environment, that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings before 
glue is applied.  The plasma electron density is typically around 1011 cm-3 
There are two parts to this question:an EMC test house told them that because 
it had a plasma generator it would need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which 
is for arc welders and associated equipment. This scope of this standard says, 
in part, "IEC 60974-10:2014 specifies a) applicable standards and test methods 
for radio-frequency (RF) emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods 
for harmonic current emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker; c) immunity 
requirements and test methods for continuous and transient, conducted and 
radiated disturbances including electrostatic discharges. This standard is 
applicable to equipment for arc welding and allied processes, including power 
sources and ancillary equipment, for example wire feeders, liquid cooling 
systems and arc striking and stabilizing devices."  So the question is to 
continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 if classified as machinery, or EN 
61326-1 if classified as MCE equipment, or have a separate report done for EN 
60974-10?The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some 
modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which would 
normally be done for machinery or MCE.The second part is safety evaluation of 
the complete product.  There is nothing in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has 
the word 'plasma'.  Operator safety meets requirements.  I am not aware of any 
special consideration that needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In 
fairness I have not contact the plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what 
if any standards their units are, I assume, approved to.Thought and comments 
greatly appreciated.
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.


Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
-- Douglas E Powelldougp01@gmail.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Plasma generator

[Doug Powell]

Steve,

I've dealt with plasma generators before, in my case atmospheric plasma for
cleaning. Unless the plasma wand is under some form of robotic control I
would not think this is not machinery. And in my view it is not an arc
welder. What I used in the past was use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 for
Industrial and for Group 2 Class A invoking the clause "for treatment of
material".  If you use IEC 61010-1 for the safety portion, you are then
required to use  IEC 61326-1, which once again refers back to the same
family of test standards with various tweaks to the test levels.

Best of luck,  Doug

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:22 PM Steve Brody  wrote:

> Experts:
>
> One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI
> environment, that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings
> before glue is applied.  The plasma electron density is typically around 10
> 11 cm-3
>
>
> There are two parts to this question:
>
>- an EMC test house told them that because it had a plasma generator
>it would need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which is for arc welders and
>associated equipment. This scope of this standard says, in part, *"IEC
>60974-10:2014 specifies a) applicable standards and test methods for
>radio-frequency (RF) emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods
>for harmonic current emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker; c)
>immunity requirements and test methods for continuous and transient,
>conducted and radiated disturbances including electrostatic discharges.
>This standard is applicable to equipment for arc welding and allied
>processes, including power sources and ancillary equipment, for example
>wire feeders, liquid cooling systems and arc striking and stabilizing
>devices."*
>   - So the question is to continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN
>   61000-6-4 if classified as machinery, or EN 61326-1 if classified as MCE
>   equipment, or have a separate report done for EN 60974-10?
> - The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some
>   modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which
>   would normally be done for machinery or MCE.
>
>
>
>- The second part is safety evaluation of the complete product.  There
>is nothing in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has the word 'plasma'.
>Operator safety meets requirements.  I am not aware of any special
>consideration that needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In fairness
>I have not contact the plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what if any
>standards their units are, I assume, approved to.
>
> Thought and comments greatly appreciated.
> -
> 
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
>
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
> well-used formats), large files, etc.
>
> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
> Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Plasma generator

[Steve Brody]

Experts:

One of my clients has a process tool for use in a controlled EMI environment, 
that incorporates a plasma generator for cleaning housings before glue is 
applied.  The plasma electron density is typically around 1011 cm-3


There are two parts to this question:

* an EMC test house told them that because it had a plasma generator it would 
need to be EMC tested to EN 60974-10 which is for arc welders and associated 
equipment. This scope of this standard says, in part, "IEC 60974-10:2014 
specifies a) applicable standards and test methods for radio-frequency (RF) 
emissions; b) applicable standards and test methods for harmonic current 
emission, voltage fluctuations and flicker; c) immunity requirements and test 
methods for continuous and transient, conducted and radiated disturbances 
including electrostatic discharges. This standard is applicable to equipment 
for arc welding and allied processes, including power sources and ancillary 
equipment, for example wire feeders, liquid cooling systems and arc striking 
and stabilizing devices." 
o So the question is to continue to use EN 61000-6-2 and EN 61000-6-4 if 
classified as machinery, or EN 61326-1 if classified as MCE equipment, or have 
a separate report done for EN 60974-10?
o The individual tests still use the EN 61000-4-x series, but with some 
modification.  It also requires testing to EN 61000-3-2, and 3-3, which would 
normally be done for machinery or MCE.


* The second part is safety evaluation of the complete product.  There is 
nothing in EN 61010-1 or EN 60204-1 that has the word 'plasma'.  Operator 
safety meets requirements.  I am not aware of any special consideration that 
needs to be given to the plasma generator.  In fairness I have not contact the 
plasma generator manufacturer yet to see what if any standards their units are, 
I assume, approved to.

Thought and comments greatly appreciated.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Safety Engineer position

[Kevin Robinson]

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has just posted a
position for an electrical engineer/auditor in the Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program.

Please share this with any individuals you think would be interested.

Interested parties may review the posting and apply at
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/541417400

Kevin Robinson

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Cable Arrangement and Separation in EN 61000-4-3 Radiated Immunity Test

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello experts,

 

I am performing some testing on a control panel with multiple cable
connections and it has got me thinking about the radiated RF immunity
testing. I know from the EN 61000-4-3 standard that "1m of cable is exposed
to the electromagnetic field" in the Uniform Field Area (UFA). What is not
covered is:

 

*   Any required separation distance between separate cables/ports from
the EUT?
*   If the cables are zig-zagged to fit in the UFA then what separation
distance between the zig and the zag?

 

Unfortunately my UFA isn't quite big enough to fit 1m of cabling laid
straight out like I see many accredited test houses doing, often with little
to no distance between the cables. I could always stretch out the cables
over 1m and use partial illumination techniques but I'd prefer not to have
to double the amount of time I spend on one of the time consuming (and most
boring) tests that I do.

 

I can see in MIL-STD-461 that there is a 2cm gap recommended between the
cables but it isn't clear if that is just for power cables or all cables.

 

Is there any guidance available on this potentially very complex subject?
How do you approach this problem?

 

As always, your input is appreciated!

Many thanks in advance

James

 

 

 

James Pawson

EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance

Design for EMC / Pre Compliance / Problem Solving / EMC Testing /
Consultancy / Environmental & Vibration

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk -- 07811
139957

Opening Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 0830 to 1800. Closed Monday.

 


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: