RE: IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition
Hi Ned, I think everyone is asking the same question. You have received the correct interpretation from the FDA. The 2nd edition is effective as of 10-2001 and if you claim compliance with it on your 510k, the FDA will not come back and ask for more information regarding EMC. They are however reasonable and do not expect manufactures to comply on such short notice but they then also reserve the right to come back and ask you additional questions regarding the EMC performance of you product which may include why you did not choose to comply with the 2nd edition of 60601-1-2. Call me if you want more information regarding this. You asked: Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? The risk analysis that is call for in the 2nd edition is only to determine which functions of the equipment will be tested for immunity. Only those functions that are associated with essential performance need be tested. A risk analysis does not allow essential performance to pass at reduced levels. Yes, Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? Your justification for lower immunity levels must be based on physical, technological or physiological limitations. You stated and asked: The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? No you cannot use this as a justification because it is not based on physical, technological or physiological limitations of your equipment. Please contact me directly if you need more help. Best regards, Jim -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:24 PM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject: IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition Hi, I need some help from the EMC experts. According to FDA Acting Chief of the Brach I am dealing with, since the FDA has recognized IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition (October 2001), then ...If they submit a new 510(k) (or even a modification for an existing device) and we have recognized the more recent standard, then they would need to comply with the new standard. Making the new edition immediately effective seems a little harsh. I am appealing his interpretation, but I don't know if I will have any luck. Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? Or does Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? Thanks Ned Ned Devine Program Manager Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 1 616 248 9671 Phone 1 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail --- 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
Re: Voluntary EN standards
I read in !emc-pstc that Koh koh...@starhub.net.sg wrote (in 3c5ff8b2.6c99c...@starhub.net.sg) about 'Voluntary EN standards', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: Hi group, My company had just OEM a speaker product from another company, I had request them to provide the following EMI/EMC test report. EN55013, EN55020 EN61000-3-2, EN61000-3-3 The speaker is mains connected/powered. They only provided EN55013 report and reply as below regarding the other standards. The standards mentioned (EN55020/A12/A13/14, EN61000-3-2, and EN61000-3-3) are for Immunity and Line Harmonics, which as per the standards are not mandatory. These tests currently fall into the voluntary category (in fact for the Immunity test the pass criteria is defined by the submitter) There MAY be no immunity requirements in EN55020 that apply to your product; the standard is so badly written that one cannot be entirely sure! But it APPLIES to the product and thus must be cited in the DOC. Therefore the speaker is not required and was not submitted for testing to these standards. Is this true? Absolutely not. Only A12 to EN55020 is not yet mandatory, but will be from August this year. A13 and A14 have been mandatory since August last year. EN61000-3-2 and -3 have been mandatory since 2001-01-01. You should have copies of the standard, so that you can see this information yourselves. If they provide the DofC to us stating only EN55013 and safety (EN60065), can we sell the product in Europe? What possible problem will we encounter? Seizure of the product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EMC stds
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote (in f7e9180f6f7f5840858d3db815e4f7ad1f2...@cms21.t-yuden.com) about 'EMC stds', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: Current D of C for a component SMPS lists basic stds (e.g., 61000-4-x), but customer wants product family stds listed. Based on my limited understanding of ITE EMC stds (55022/4), it would seem that only referenced basic stds can be listed; and that the product family std can only apply to the end-use item. Correct? Comments appreciated. Partly correct, I think. There will be a product-family EMC standard for stand-alone SMPS at some date, but it is not published yet AFAIK. But Basic Standards must NOT be cited in a DOC; they are not 'notified' in the OJ and a product cannot be said to conform to them. They only specify methods of measurement. Tables of proposed limits in such standards must be regarded as **advice to product standards committees** only, not limits applicable by manufacturers, test houses or regulatory authorities. You can, of course, cite the Generic Standards. Maybe that will suffice. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in b8855fd1.e9f%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com) about 'Conducted noise emission diagnosis device', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: Later he built and patented its sibling, a cmrn. I suppose I shouldn't REALLY be surprised that one can patent a balun again in the USA. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in 17b.31edfe2.299 12...@aol.com) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive devices (such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is a possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and Annex III in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be taken against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant harmonised EMC standard in every detail. It's probably most unwise of me to comment on that, but it concerns in practice only a very dire situation - probably interference with safety- of-life communications. It is not a situation that is at all likely to arise if John Doe stands his radio on top of the equipment and then complains of interference. If such a case did occur, the first step that the regulatory authority SHOULD take is to invoke Article 8 of the Directive and report to the Commission that the harmonised EMC standard is not, in the case in point, ensuring compliance with Article 4. The manufacturer can hardly be held responsible if the relevant standard is defective. Furthermore 'enforcement action' in most countries is very much the last resort - usually triggered by the manufacturer refusing to co-operate in solving the problem. I think we had enough 'headless chicken syndrome' in past years about the EMC Directive, and no new outbreak should be encouraged. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition
Ned, At a recent AAMI/FDA conference I asked Jeffery Silberberg of the FDA a similar question and his response was that the new standard would apply upon the date of recognition by the FDA. As a matter of business, I have been using the new standard (in Draft form) for the last year or two. I do have some products that will not meet the new standard but will be re-designed when a modification is made. For products that are Life Supporting, this will have a MAJOR impact. Good luck and let me know how it works out for you. Regards, __ Kevin J. Hight - Principal Compliance Engineer Colorado MEDtech, Inc. 6175 Longbow Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80301 Phone: (303) 530-8288 x-3111 Fax: (303) 581-1003 Email: k...@cmed.com mailto:k...@cmed.comhttp://www.cmed.com http://www.cmed.com -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [SMTP:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:24 AM To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (E-mail) Subject:IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition Hi, I need some help from the EMC experts. According to FDA Acting Chief of the Brach I am dealing with, since the FDA has recognized IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition (October 2001), then ...If they submit a new 510(k) (or even a modification for an existing device) and we have recognized the more recent standard, then they would need to comply with the new standard. Making the new edition immediately effective seems a little harsh. I am appealing his interpretation, but I don't know if I will have any luck. Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? Or does Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? Thanks Ned Ned Devine Program Manager Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 1 616 248 9671 Phone 1 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail --- 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: Safety Link Offers Classifed Ads to EMC-PSTC members (no-charge)
Agree, worthwhile. All the newspaper articles in the Career section of the newspapers say that after being laid off to take off a few weeks, gain bearings, then look for your new position. I totally disagree. I say take 20 minutes, shake your head, and go for new places as agressively and thoroughly as if looking for a position were the new job. Usually, there are severance packages that allow for the following gap in income. Any reduction in that gap is free money. Also, you maintain the mental advantage of not needing the new position so you'll just have a different attitude while you're looking, one of more power. Years ago when I was hiring people, I always was more impressed with the person who hits the pavement the next day, even better, the same day. That makes them look like a self starter, agressive, *and* someone who actually likes to work, wants to be back at work. Just my two cents here. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com To: Art Michael amich...@connix.com; ieee pstc list emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:52 AM Subject: Re: Safety Link Offers Classifed Ads to EMC-PSTC members (no-charge) Art, What a nice thing to do! I am just getting ready to pick up my stuff from the office, and then ... Why wait for the outplacement firm? Forward momentum! Cortland (I cannot speak for Alcatel They cannot speak for me; OF all that we might choose to say, The other now is free!) --- 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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Thanks to everyone that responded to my query. Here is my original question and a synopsis of the replies. Question: We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Replies: My business/commercial/industrial ITE clients have usually aimed for Class B but if they did not get there, Class A has always been accepted by their customers. Most customers do not know the difference very few will insist on Class B (tending toward laoratories and such locations where small signals are involved, and interference would be likely). Class A business ITE is the norm from my perspective. I see very few products of this category subjected to the more severe Class B limits. I surveyed our customers and changed from Class B to Class A a few years ago, and have had no issues. We are an OEM provider and have not had any issues marketing and selling class A products. We have found that the requirement of being Class B Certified was a perception of our marketing department and was not consistent with our customer's requirements or needs. As such, we have found it viable and feasable to move Class A ITE product to customers in all parts of the world without issue. We have sold class A video products (intended for business use only) via distributors for the whole life of the EMC Directive and have never been questioned. There are many business products that are labeled or otherwise identified as Class A when used in a commercial environment and Class B when used in a residential environment. Although it can be argued that my products are Class A, we design our products to meet Class B. I have had the occassion where I was at the limit and was under pressure to release the product that I have taken Class A. Primarily we've designed for Class B as a 'specmanship'game with the competitors who mostly have Class A. Thanks again to all who replied. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Dr. Clayton Paul
Hi George, All, Actually, Clayton did not completely retire but rather moved to Mercer University where he is: Sam Nunn Eminent Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have the pleasure of working with Clayton on some IEEE EMC Society activities and always enjoy the opportunity to exchange ideas with him. Best Regards John Howard geor...@lexmark.com wrote: A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- 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: EMC stds
Basic standards do not provide the presumption of compliance with the essential requirements. Only generic, family or product standards can do that. If you component is legally subject to a directive, then you must apply the appropriate generic, family or product standard or use the Tecnical Construction File route. The standards that you apply will depend, as you say, upon the end applications that you envision for your component. You may have to use several family standards. If your component is not legally subject to a directive, you only have to do what is necessary to keep your customers happy. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:15 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC stds Good People of EMC-PSTC: Current D of C for a component SMPS lists basic stds (e.g., 61000-4-x), but customer wants product family stds listed. Based on my limited understanding of ITE EMC stds (55022/4), it would seem that only referenced basic stds can be listed; and that the product family std can only apply to the end-use item. Correct? Comments appreciated. R/S, Brian --- 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: Voluntary EN standards
I have found that many OEM suppliers are not fully aware of EU compliance issues. Compliance with all ENs is voluntary. However, compliance with the standards provides a presumption of compliance with the essential requirements of the EMC Directive. Compliance with the essential requirements is mandatory. If standards are not applied, one must construct a Technical Construction File and submit it to a Competent Body for an opinion of conformity with the essential requirements. The compliance route to take - standards vs. TCF - is your choice. Assuming the product is in compliance with the standards, I recommend using the standards route. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Koh [mailto:koh...@starhub.net.sg] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 10:22 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Voluntary EN standards Hi group, My company had just OEM a speaker product from another company, I had request them to provide the following EMI/EMC test report. EN55013, EN55020 EN61000-3-2, EN61000-3-3 The speaker is mains connected/powered. They only provided EN55013 report and reply as below regarding the other standards. The standards mentioned (EN55020/A12/A13/14, EN61000-3-2, and EN61000-3-3) are for Immunity and Line Harmonics, which as per the standards are not mandatory. These tests currently fall into the voluntary category (in fact for the Immunity test the pass criteria is defined by the submitter) Therefore the speaker is not required and was not submitted for testing to these standards. Is this true? Could anyone able to give some advice. If they provide the DofC to us stating only EN55013 and safety (EN60065), can we sell the product in Europe? What possible problem will we encounter? Regards Koh --- 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: Dr. Clayton Paul
Greetings All, Actually, Clayton did not retire but rather moved to Mercer University where he is the Sam Nunn Eminent Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I work with Clayton on some IEEE EMC Society activities and always enjoy the opportunity to exchange ideas with him. Best Regards John geor...@lexmark.com wrote: A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- 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: Safety Link Offers Classifed Ads to EMC-PSTC members (no-charge)
Art, What a nice thing to do! I am just getting ready to pick up my stuff from the office, and then ... Why wait for the outplacement firm? Forward momentum! Cortland (I cannot speak for Alcatel They cannot speak for me; OF all that we might choose to say, The other now is free!) --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
I read in !emc-pstc that John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote (in ke$8bqa3m8x8e...@jmwa.demon.co.uk) about 'Conducted noise emission diagnosis device', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: If C is the common-mode (CM) component and D is the differential-mode (DM) component (both in linear units, not decibels), then one output of the LISN gives C + D and the other gives C - D. This follows from the definitions of CM and DM. Correction. The outputs are 2(C+D) and 2(C-D). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
I read in !emc-pstc that John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com wrote (in 2a1845f4cde8d511b4400090279c703b938...@bctexc10.na.ilxi.net) about 'ITE Class A vs B Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: I believe the push to ensure Class B for other than 'heavy' industrial, 'Push' is not the appropriate word. It is *established* in the Generic Standards that Class B is for residential, ***commercial and light industrial** environmentS (plural); in the process lumping all three together as one homogenous EMC environment, which they certainly are not. results from the fact that real estate is (or is becoming) a premium in many areas in Europe and you find 'light' industrial directly in a residential environment. This is even apparent within many metropolitan areas in the U.S. Indeed, that is the reason why the three environments were lumped together, but it is an over-simplification. For example, if John Doe complains that he can't listen to his radio at work, he will probably be told that he doesn't come to work to listen to the radio, but to search for pictures of ladies on the Web. (;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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.
Dr. Clayton Paul
Update on Dr. Paul provided by a colleague: Clayton retired from U of K, however, he resumed his teaching at Mercer University. Shortly after moving to Georgia and beginning a teaching position at Mercer, he received an endowed chair, given by former United States Ga. Senator Sam Nunn at Mercer U. His title: Sam Nunn Eminent Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering School of Engineering Mercer University He's enjoying his life in Georgia and lives on a small farm outside Macon. A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- 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.
Safety Link Offers Classifed Ads to EMC-PSTC members (no-charge)
Hello Cortland et al, In light of and reaction to the current depressed business cycle - the Safety Link www.safetylink.com, is offering a new no-charge service that should be of interest and value to you. A Classified Ads section has been added; you can find it's link near the top of the Safety Link's website. At present, the no-chage ads are limited to: 1) Individuals seeking employment in the Electrical Product Safety and EMC conformity assessment fields; If you are among those on-the-street (or nearly so) you are invited to input your own Classified Ad of up to 500 characters. You can include your contact info and a web address where your resume can be found. And, if you don't have a place to mount your resume, I'll mount it at no charge within the Safety Link's webspace; just email it to me in Text (preferred), MSWord or Adobe PDF format after you've submitted your ad and I'll mount a pointer to it from your Classified Ad. Send it to jobwan...@safetylink.com Should you find work, please advise so I can remove your ad in a timely manner. 2) Individuals(*) who have used conformity assessment equipment for sale, or seek same. As business needs shrink and grow, conformity assessment test equipment needs follow. Use this opportunity to either sell your surplus gear or to seek used conformity assessment test equipment. As noted above, you can input your own advert after clicking on the Classifieds Ad link/button on the Safety Link. (*) Individuals meaning - those not engaged in the buying and selling of used equipment as a regular business. Best regards Good Luck, Art Michael Int'l Product Safety News A.E. Michael, Editor 166 Congdon St. East P.O. Box 1561 Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A. Phone : (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 Email : i...@safetylink.com Website: http://www.safetylink.com ISSN : 1040-7529 --- 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.
Dr. Clayton Paul
A word about Dr. Paul From 1981 to 1993 I managed several of our lab functions, including EMC. At the time, Dr. Paul taught EMC courses at the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, where our (then) IBM lab was also located. As a result, we were able to hire Dr. Paul as an EMC consultant during several summers. While I was never enough of a practicing EMC guy to understand the bulk of his book (remember I was only the manager), he made many significant contributions to our EMC design practices, which lowered the cost of EMI suppression in our products. Beyond his technical competence, Clayton is a heck of a nice guy, who developed some good fishing buddies in my department. As I understand it, he has retired to a farm in Georgia. Although I am not competent to endorse his book, I do endorse Dr. Paul, who never tired of explaining to me the difference between differential and common mode noise, until I finally got it. Clayton, if you see this, I hope your retirement is great! George Alspaugh Lexmark Product Safety --- 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.
IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition
Hi, I need some help from the EMC experts. According to FDA Acting Chief of the Brach I am dealing with, since the FDA has recognized IEC 60601-1-2 Second Edition (October 2001), then ...If they submit a new 510(k) (or even a modification for an existing device) and we have recognized the more recent standard, then they would need to comply with the new standard. Making the new edition immediately effective seems a little harsh. I am appealing his interpretation, but I don't know if I will have any luck. Has anyone had any success in doing a risk analysis to use lower immunity compliance levels than specified in IEC 60601-1-2, Second Edition, Section 36.202.1 a) or using different compliance criteria (36.202.1 j))? Or does Clause 6.8.3.201 a) 5), These justification shall be based only on physical, technological or physiological limitations... pretty much preclude the use of lower limits? The device in question meets IEC 60601-1-2 First Edition, but will not pass the requirements in the Second Edition. Can the justification be that since there are no known risks on the device, the current level of immunity is adequate? Thanks Ned Ned Devine Program Manager Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 1 616 248 9671 Phone 1 616 574 9752 Fax ndev...@entela.com e-mail --- 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.
Voluntary EN standards
Hi group, My company had just OEM a speaker product from another company, I had request them to provide the following EMI/EMC test report. EN55013, EN55020 EN61000-3-2, EN61000-3-3 The speaker is mains connected/powered. They only provided EN55013 report and reply as below regarding the other standards. The standards mentioned (EN55020/A12/A13/14, EN61000-3-2, and EN61000-3-3) are for Immunity and Line Harmonics, which as per the standards are not mandatory. These tests currently fall into the voluntary category (in fact for the Immunity test the pass criteria is defined by the submitter) Therefore the speaker is not required and was not submitted for testing to these standards. Is this true? Could anyone able to give some advice. If they provide the DofC to us stating only EN55013 and safety (EN60065), can we sell the product in Europe? What possible problem will we encounter? Regards Koh --- 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.
EMC stds
Good People of EMC-PSTC: Current D of C for a component SMPS lists basic stds (e.g., 61000-4-x), but customer wants product family stds listed. Based on my limited understanding of ITE EMC stds (55022/4), it would seem that only referenced basic stds can be listed; and that the product family std can only apply to the end-use item. Correct? Comments appreciated. R/S, Brian --- 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: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Isn't there a another gotcha? I recall a connection between with the Class A emissions being coupled to the Heavy Industrial Immunity standard. My old company shipped with Class A emissions and 024 as the immunity. We based our decision on our installed base prior to the EU having acceptable EM performance. From: am...@westin-emission.no Reply-To: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 09:29:30 +0100 From chapter 4.1 in CISPR 22:1997: Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment and my include: - equipment with no fixed place of use; for example, portable equipment powered by built-in batteries; - telecommunication terminal equipment powered by a telecommunication network; - personal computers and auxiliary connected equipment From chapter 4.2 in CISPR 22:1997: Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A ITE limits but no the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for use: WARNING - This is a class A product. In a domestic environment this product may cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate measures. So, you have the possibility to go for Class A. But I also recall that may test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial environment. Business/office environment are often classified as residential, commercial and light industrial and therefore class B. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 4. februar 2002 22:40 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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. _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Hi - I must ask: Has the CE+CE=CE idea been adopted? If so then the discussion on emissions levels is moot as non-compliant products are being released on the market place anyway. From: CE-TEST cet...@cetest.nl Reply-To: CE-TEST cet...@cetest.nl To: am...@westin-emission.no, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: ITE Class A vs B Emissions Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:22:36 +0100 For export to Europe: The CISPR22 Class A limits are equal to the ones for Generic heavy Industrial equipment. Using (not selling) CISPR22 Class A equipment in a residential or light industrial equipment may very well be contrary to the essential requirements of the EMC directive and the CISPR22/EN55022 Class A limits may not automatically create presumption of compliance with them. This may lead to prosecution if your equipment is causing interference and is being checked by the authorities. I do not say the risk is very high, but this clause in the EN55022 has already drawn attention from the EC EMC consultant as being different from the generic class system, and may be modified in the future. (in spite of CENELEC objections). For now selling and using Class A ITE is allowed, but *I* would not rely on that for future developments. Gert Gremmen -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of am...@westin-emission.no Sent: dinsdag 5 februari 2002 9:30 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions From chapter 4.1 in CISPR 22:1997: Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment and my include: - equipment with no fixed place of use; for example, portable equipment powered by built-in batteries; - telecommunication terminal equipment powered by a telecommunication network; - personal computers and auxiliary connected equipment From chapter 4.2 in CISPR 22:1997: Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A ITE limits but no the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for use: WARNING - This is a class A product. In a domestic environment this product may cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate measures. So, you have the possibility to go for Class A. But I also recall that may test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial environment. Business/office environment are often classified as residential, commercial and light industrial and therefore class B. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 4. februar 2002 22:40 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Hi Mat, The book is: Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility Author: Clayton R. Paul The copy that I have is copywrite 1992, John Wiley Sons. There is a whole bunch of library of congress data...in the front cover. I'm not sure what is helpful, except for maybe the ISBN which is, 0-471-54927-4 Chris -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [SMTP:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:33 AM To: Chris Maxwell; mur...@eel.ufsc.br Cc: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device What is that title of the Clayton Paul book? -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [SMTP:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:16 AM To: mur...@eel.ufsc.br Cc: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject:RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hi Muriel, After I read your reply. I got a little scared. I actually forgot how I did it. (It has been a few years.) I too have a commercial LISN that has a switched output. It won't work with the separator. I had to actually walk over to the lab and pick through the cobwebs to figure out what was missing. The BIG detail that I forgot to tell you was that I built a prototype of the LISN that is in Clayton Paul's book as well. This LISN has the phase and neutral emissions brought out to separate outputs, not switched. So, in order to take the measurements, I had to use this LISN and the separator. Both were built for less than $100 in parts. And as you can see, both haven't been used for quite a while. The LISN was built before I got into safety design, so I leave it on the shelf and use the nice safe one that we purchased. When I get the time, I'll share some of the components... off line. For now, it would be helpful to refer to the LISN schematic in Clayton R. Paul's book. That will answer the question of how a single LISN could work. Sorry for the confusion. Chris -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:02 AM To: Chris Maxwell Subject: RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hi Chris, I have a LISN (RohdeSchwarz) that have changing from Neutral/Phase by a switch. Most separators from common-mode and differential mode use 2 LISN's to obtain their noise currents separated. Is there a way of building this separator with my type of LISN? And, if it's not asking too much, do you have or know any schematic with construtive details of a separator? Thanks for the help! Regards, Muriel -- Original Message -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:43:43 -0500 Hi Muriel, I have the same book by Clayton Paul as it was used as a textbook for a graduate course in EMC at SUNY Binghamton. After SUNY Binghamton, I started was working as a design engineer. That was the year before the EMC directive became mandatory. My boss saw Mr Paul's book in my office... and well...next thing you know, I'm suddenly the EMC guy with Captain Zap for a nickname... Enough about my sad fall from grace :-) One of the first things I did was to build one of these devices. I never have seen one for sale. Honestly, until your email, I thought I was the only person who actually tried to make one. (other than Mr. Paul himself) I don't use it too much any more. We have gotten fairly good at guessing whether the emission is differential mode or common mode. If we guess correctly, it's quicker to just put in the capacitor or choke and give it a try. It's been a while since I built it, so my memory is fuzzy. But I may be able to help if you have a question or two. 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: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:38 PM To:EMC-PSTC Subject: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and
RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
What is that title of the Clayton Paul book? -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [SMTP:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:16 AM To: mur...@eel.ufsc.br Cc: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hi Muriel, After I read your reply. I got a little scared. I actually forgot how I did it. (It has been a few years.) I too have a commercial LISN that has a switched output. It won't work with the separator. I had to actually walk over to the lab and pick through the cobwebs to figure out what was missing. The BIG detail that I forgot to tell you was that I built a prototype of the LISN that is in Clayton Paul's book as well. This LISN has the phase and neutral emissions brought out to separate outputs, not switched. So, in order to take the measurements, I had to use this LISN and the separator. Both were built for less than $100 in parts. And as you can see, both haven't been used for quite a while. The LISN was built before I got into safety design, so I leave it on the shelf and use the nice safe one that we purchased. When I get the time, I'll share some of the components... off line. For now, it would be helpful to refer to the LISN schematic in Clayton R. Paul's book. That will answer the question of how a single LISN could work. Sorry for the confusion. Chris -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:02 AM To: Chris Maxwell Subject:RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hi Chris, I have a LISN (RohdeSchwarz) that have changing from Neutral/Phase by a switch. Most separators from common-mode and differential mode use 2 LISN's to obtain their noise currents separated. Is there a way of building this separator with my type of LISN? And, if it's not asking too much, do you have or know any schematic with construtive details of a separator? Thanks for the help! Regards, Muriel -- Original Message -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:43:43 -0500 Hi Muriel, I have the same book by Clayton Paul as it was used as a textbook for a graduate course in EMC at SUNY Binghamton. After SUNY Binghamton, I started was working as a design engineer. That was the year before the EMC directive became mandatory. My boss saw Mr Paul's book in my office... and well...next thing you know, I'm suddenly the EMC guy with Captain Zap for a nickname... Enough about my sad fall from grace :-) One of the first things I did was to build one of these devices. I never have seen one for sale. Honestly, until your email, I thought I was the only person who actually tried to make one. (other than Mr. Paul himself) I don't use it too much any more. We have gotten fairly good at guessing whether the emission is differential mode or common mode. If we guess correctly, it's quicker to just put in the capacitor or choke and give it a try. It's been a while since I built it, so my memory is fuzzy. But I may be able to help if you have a question or two. 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:Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent:Monday, February 04, 2002 10:38 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor
Re: CISPR 20
I read in !emc-pstc that KC CHAN [PDD] kcc...@hkpc.org wrote (in sc5ff0d9@smtp.hkpc.org) about 'CISPR 20', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: I heard that there wll be some major changes of CISPR 20, 5th edition. Anyone has ideas the major changes? The publication is being printed at present. The CDV document CIS/I/15/CDV may be available to you indirectly but you cannot get it from the IEC web site without a password. There was a number of negative votes on the CDV so the final document may have important differences. Amendments 1 and 2 to the 5th edition are already being drafted! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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.
EN 300 390
Is there a simpler, cheaper way to perform the BER testing for Rx? If given two computers, the right software, and a simple FSK modulator demodulator, it seems that they could it done without having to purchase an expensive, special purpose BER testing device. Those devices seem well equipped for high level coded formats, but a little excessive for sending raw data. Any ideas? Sincerely, Stuart Lopata --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Dear Muriel, The Differential- or Common-mode Box design is in the IEEE Transactions on EMC, Vol. 30, No.4, November 1988, pages 553-560. Figure 2 shows the schematic and Figure 3 has an inside picture. The box is very easy to make. It is made from two transformers, two resistors, and a switch. The picture has enough detail that one can see that it matches the schematic. The VARI-L transformer LF428 may have to be back ordered and you have to buy a minimum of 5 parts. We still use the one in the picture. If you do not want to make your own, Pointsix is a company that has made some in the past. You could try them at www.pointsix.com. I have a call into them to see if they still make it. They are based here in Lexington, Kentucky. I'll let you know what I find out. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Regards, Keith Hardin Senior Technical Staff Member Lexmark International Inc. Muriel Bittencourt de Liz muriel%eel.ufsc...@interlock.lexmark.com on 02/04/2002 10:37:35 PM Please respond to Muriel Bittencourt de Liz muriel%eel.ufsc...@interlock.lexmark.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Keith Hardin/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC Brazil --- 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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Although it can be argued that my products are Class A, we design our products to meet Class B. I have had the occassion where I was at the limit and was under pressure to release the product that I have taken Class A. Primarily we've designed for Class B as a 'specmanship' game with the competitors who mostly have Class A. Additionally I believe there's still debate in Europe that unless your product is 'heavy'industrial, it should be Class B - this reinforces my desire toward avoiding Class A entirely. I am certain the Class B will prevail. As a Boy Scout leader I believe in the scout motto 'Be Prepared'. I believe the push to ensure Class B for other than 'heavy' industrial, results from the fact that real estate is (or is becoming) a premium in many areas in Europe and you find 'light' industrial directly in a residential environment. This is even apparent within many metropolitan areas in the U.S. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY - Original Message - From: richwo...@tycoint.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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.. --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Hi, A very descriptive device is presented in the following book: Power Line Filter Design for Switched Mode Power Supplies. By Mark Nave. It is out of print, and if you see a copy for sale, it's worth buying. He also took out a patent for his device under the following no: US Patent No: 4,849,685 Dated Jul 18, 1989. If you want a more detailed description I recommend you buy a copy from the US Patent office. 3 US Dollars for an internet download. Not free, but cheap enough to make it worth buying the PDF version. His device basically cancels out the DM noise, then you design a filter for the CM noise. Fit the CM filter, and remove the device, then measure again and the difference will mostly be the DM noise making it easier to design the filter. Simple really and from the looks of the design cheap!( the parts you probably have laying around in your workshop!) I keep meaning to make one but have yet to get around it. Oh yes, symmetry is important and you will need a LISN with two outputs. Enci At 00:37 05/02/02 -0300, you wrote: Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC Brazil --- 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.
SV: Notification form for Liechtenstein
Hello Richard, I have never heard of notification in Liechtenstein, you may try to contact the authorities on: Amt für Kommunikation Kirchstrasse 10 Postfach 684 9490 Vaduz Liechtenstein Telefon: +423 236 6488 Fax: +423 236 6489 E-Mail: off...@ak.llv.li Internet: www.ak.li Best regards Helge Knudsen Test Approval manager Niros Telecommunication Hirsemarken 5 DK-3520 Farum Denmark Tel +45 44 34 22 51 Fax +45 44 99 28 08 email h.knud...@niros.com -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sendt: 4. februar 2002 15:38 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Notification form for Liechtenstein Does anyone have an RTTE Notification form for Liechtenstein? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Hi Muriel, After I read your reply. I got a little scared. I actually forgot how I did it. (It has been a few years.) I too have a commercial LISN that has a switched output. It won't work with the separator. I had to actually walk over to the lab and pick through the cobwebs to figure out what was missing. The BIG detail that I forgot to tell you was that I built a prototype of the LISN that is in Clayton Paul's book as well. This LISN has the phase and neutral emissions brought out to separate outputs, not switched. So, in order to take the measurements, I had to use this LISN and the separator. Both were built for less than $100 in parts. And as you can see, both haven't been used for quite a while. The LISN was built before I got into safety design, so I leave it on the shelf and use the nice safe one that we purchased. When I get the time, I'll share some of the components... off line. For now, it would be helpful to refer to the LISN schematic in Clayton R. Paul's book. That will answer the question of how a single LISN could work. Sorry for the confusion. Chris -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:02 AM To: Chris Maxwell Subject: RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hi Chris, I have a LISN (RohdeSchwarz) that have changing from Neutral/Phase by a switch. Most separators from common-mode and differential mode use 2 LISN's to obtain their noise currents separated. Is there a way of building this separator with my type of LISN? And, if it's not asking too much, do you have or know any schematic with construtive details of a separator? Thanks for the help! Regards, Muriel -- Original Message -- From: Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:43:43 -0500 Hi Muriel, I have the same book by Clayton Paul as it was used as a textbook for a graduate course in EMC at SUNY Binghamton. After SUNY Binghamton, I started was working as a design engineer. That was the year before the EMC directive became mandatory. My boss saw Mr Paul's book in my office... and well...next thing you know, I'm suddenly the EMC guy with Captain Zap for a nickname... Enough about my sad fall from grace :-) One of the first things I did was to build one of these devices. I never have seen one for sale. Honestly, until your email, I thought I was the only person who actually tried to make one. (other than Mr. Paul himself) I don't use it too much any more. We have gotten fairly good at guessing whether the emission is differential mode or common mode. If we guess correctly, it's quicker to just put in the capacitor or choke and give it a try. It's been a while since I built it, so my memory is fuzzy. But I may be able to help if you have a question or two. 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: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:38 PM To:EMC-PSTC Subject: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC
Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3
Dear Jim Just a couple of points on your item 2, which you and most others are probably well aware of anyway... If you are making 'multifunction' equipment (e.g. a refrigerator with an LCD display and internet browser) you may have to apply two different product-family standards. For the fridge example this could be EN 55014-1 and EN 55014-2 for the domestic appliance functions, plus EN 55022 and EN 55024 for the Internet functions. (Refer to EMCTLA Technical Guidance Note No. 40 at www.emctla.org) A presumption of conformity to the EMCD is only a presumption of conformity. Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive devices (such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is a possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and Annex III in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be taken against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant harmonised EMC standard in every detail. Regards, Keith Armstrong www.cherryclough.com In a message dated 01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time, jim.eich...@xantrex.com writes: Subj:RE: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 Date:01/02/02 21:16:44 GMT Standard Time From:jim.eich...@xantrex.com (Jim Eichner) Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: A HREF=mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com;jim.eich...@xantrex.com/A (Jim Eichner) To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Thanks to Enci, and the link he provided, I have my answer, and perhaps it will cut through some of the semantics discussion, by introducing the one term that seems to really count in discussing the standards route: presumption of conformity. The New Approach guideline seems pretty clear: a standard is NOT considered to provide a presumption of conformity until it has been published in the OJ. That tells us 2 things: 1. Until it is published in the OJ it does not satisfy the standards route to compliance. You can use it but you're not within the bounds of the standards route. 2. If a single standard applicable to your equipment is published in the OJ without limitations, it provides presumption of conformity for your equipment. You do not need to use any other standard, even if others that appear also to cover your equipment have been published in the OJ. Comments? Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. Mobile Power phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com
RE: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Hi Muriel, I have the same book by Clayton Paul as it was used as a textbook for a graduate course in EMC at SUNY Binghamton. After SUNY Binghamton, I started was working as a design engineer. That was the year before the EMC directive became mandatory. My boss saw Mr Paul's book in my office... and well...next thing you know, I'm suddenly the EMC guy with Captain Zap for a nickname... Enough about my sad fall from grace :-) One of the first things I did was to build one of these devices. I never have seen one for sale. Honestly, until your email, I thought I was the only person who actually tried to make one. (other than Mr. Paul himself) I don't use it too much any more. We have gotten fairly good at guessing whether the emission is differential mode or common mode. If we guess correctly, it's quicker to just put in the capacitor or choke and give it a try. It's been a while since I built it, so my memory is fuzzy. But I may be able to help if you have a question or two. 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: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:38 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC Brazil --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
I read in !emc-pstc that Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@eel.ufsc.br wrote (in 017b01c1adf6$74216430$55ddbfc8@marx) about 'Conducted noise emission diagnosis device', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. If you are referring to the CISPR16-1 LISNs, it is true that they don't separate the common- and differential-mode currents, ***but you can**. If C is the common-mode (CM) component and D is the differential-mode (DM) component (both in linear units, not decibels), then one output of the LISN gives C + D and the other gives C - D. This follows from the definitions of CM and DM. This approach is suitable for wide-band measurements using an r.f. voltmeter or narrow-band measurements using a receiver, but for measurements with a spectrum analyser you need to derive the sum and difference voltages in real time, using a balun transformer, as described in the Armstrong-Williams article in 'EMC and Compliance Journal Issue 34. **Note that the diagram Figure 12 does not show the essential earth/ground connection to the enclosure.*** -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in LFENJLPMMJB mhpeibnilkejlccaa.am...@westin-emission.no) about 'SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: But I also recall that may test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial environment. Business/office environment are often classified as residential, commercial and light industrial and therefore class B. This is true. However, we know that a lot of Class A equipment IS used in commercial, light industrial and even residential environments, in Europe as well as elsewhere, and, AFAIK, the level of complaints of interference is not excessive. I presume that this is due to the low usage of AM reception now, in most areas, and the low expectations of those that do receive it, on $10 trannies or $50 boom boxes, not magnificent Grundig-type table radios with 4.495 kHz overall bandwidth. So there are good grounds, IMO, for a single set of limits, nearer Class A than Class B. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
I read in !emc-pstc that Enci e...@cinepower.com wrote (in 3.0.6.32.2 0020205082333.00aed...@mail.cinepower.com) about 'ITE Class A vs B Emissions', on Tue, 5 Feb 2002: I have often wondered exactly why there are two classes in EN55022. The limits are pretty similar, does a 13dB difference in conducted emission QP limits really make a difference above 5MHz? I know the 23dB difference 5MHz (conducted emissions) helps with products that have a SMPS, for example. In the radiated emissions the difference is 10dB. In the real world is there really a need for two limits? Probably not. The CISPR Class B limits were probably (even I am too young to know!) influenced by the situation in Germany in the 1950s, when their AM (only sort available) broadcasting was severely restricted to low powers and frequencies that no-one else wanted. Consequently, man-made noise had to be kept low as well. I suppose CISPR/H is considering a single set of limits, but that might be the Class B limits if people who want something else don't bother to take part in the work. Note that this is a matter of general interest, not just for ITE, so it should not be a matter for CISPR/I alone. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Dear Muriel Separating CM from DM at the output of a LISN was covered by Michel Mardiguian and Joel Raimbourg in a paper they presented at the IEEE EMC Symposium held in Seattle in August 1999, titled: An alternate, complementary method for characterising EMI filters (Volume 2 of the Symposium Record, pages 882-886). They describe using a 'CM/DM splitter transformer' which is available from AEMC, a French company about whom I have no further details. But it does not seem difficult to make your own 'splitter' transformer as it appears to be a simple type of transformer. I referred to this paper and redrew their figure for the transformer in the article I wrote with Tim Williams for the EMC + Compliance Journal, April 2001, titled: EMC Testing Part 2 -Conducted emissions (pages 22 - 32, available on-line in their Archive section at www.compliance-club.com). Regards, Keith Armstrong www.cherryclough.com In a message dated 05/02/02 02:44:29 GMT Standard Time, mur...@eel.ufsc.br writes: Subj:Conducted noise emission diagnosis device Date:05/02/02 02:44:29 GMT Standard Time From:mur...@eel.ufsc.br (Muriel Bittencourt de Liz) Sender:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Reply-to: A HREF=mailto:mur...@eel.ufsc.br;mur...@eel.ufsc.br/A (Muriel Bittencourt de Liz) To:emc-p...@ieee.org (EMC-PSTC) Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC Brazil
RE: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
For export to Europe: The CISPR22 Class A limits are equal to the ones for Generic heavy Industrial equipment. Using (not selling) CISPR22 Class A equipment in a residential or light industrial equipment may very well be contrary to the essential requirements of the EMC directive and the CISPR22/EN55022 Class A limits may not automatically create presumption of compliance with them. This may lead to prosecution if your equipment is causing interference and is being checked by the authorities. I do not say the risk is very high, but this clause in the EN55022 has already drawn attention from the EC EMC consultant as being different from the generic class system, and may be modified in the future. (in spite of CENELEC objections). For now selling and using Class A ITE is allowed, but *I* would not rely on that for future developments. Gert Gremmen -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of am...@westin-emission.no Sent: dinsdag 5 februari 2002 9:30 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions From chapter 4.1 in CISPR 22:1997: Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment and my include: - equipment with no fixed place of use; for example, portable equipment powered by built-in batteries; - telecommunication terminal equipment powered by a telecommunication network; - personal computers and auxiliary connected equipment From chapter 4.2 in CISPR 22:1997: Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A ITE limits but no the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for use: WARNING - This is a class A product. In a domestic environment this product may cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate measures. So, you have the possibility to go for Class A. But I also recall that may test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial environment. Business/office environment are often classified as residential, commercial and light industrial and therefore class B. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 4. februar 2002 22:40 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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. --- 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
SV: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
From chapter 4.1 in CISPR 22:1997: Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment and my include: - equipment with no fixed place of use; for example, portable equipment powered by built-in batteries; - telecommunication terminal equipment powered by a telecommunication network; - personal computers and auxiliary connected equipment From chapter 4.2 in CISPR 22:1997: Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A ITE limits but no the class B ITE limits. Such equipment should not be restricted in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for use: WARNING - This is a class A product. In a domestic environment this product may cause radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate measures. So, you have the possibility to go for Class A. But I also recall that may test laboratories / notified body classifies class A as a heavy industrial environment. Business/office environment are often classified as residential, commercial and light industrial and therefore class B. Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av richwo...@tycoint.com Sendt: 4. februar 2002 22:40 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
I have often wondered exactly why there are two classes in EN55022. The limits are pretty similar, does a 13dB difference in conducted emission QP limits really make a difference above 5MHz? I know the 23dB difference 5MHz (conducted emissions) helps with products that have a SMPS, for example. In the radiated emissions the difference is 10dB. In the real world is there really a need for two limits? Enci - Original Message - From: richwo...@tycoint.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Stand Alone SMPS
Hi, Two good places to start: LVD: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/stand.htm Click on LVD standards. It's a big page and takes a while to load. EMC: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/stand.htm Click on the List of harmonised standards. Again, a big page and takes a little time to load. Enci At 09:54 05/02/02 +0800, you wrote: Group,immunity) to apply to test a Stand Alone SMPS unit for CE marking. This SMPS is a power source for the Audio Amplifier. EN55020 standards, since it is an associated equipment of broadcast receivers? What about If I want to export to Japan? Thanks in Advance Kuga ** P. Kuganesan EMC Engineer LabOne Singapore Pte Ltd Tel: 8969 861 Fax: 7769 102 / 8969 189 ** --- 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.
CISPR 20
Hi I heard that there wll be some major changes of CISPR 20, 5th edition. Anyone has ideas the major changes? Best Regards KC Chan --- 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: Haz Loc Testing
Hi Richard, It has been a while since I worked with UL 698, but I was involved in some of the testing that was performed to get Square D Co.'s Haz Loc units Listed. I witnessed some relatively primitive testing in the basement of UL's Ohio St. building (before Northbrook UL was in downtown Chicago), where engineers and techs crouched behind file cabinets and columns when they touched off a test. I built and operated a slightly more refined version of that system at Square D had UL witness data for certification. UL Northbrook later built a very sophisticated test lab. The test unit was often a cast iron or aluminum box with wide, flat machined flanges bolted together to house an electromagnetically actuated switch , sometimes with a shaft for a mechanically actuated switch. The idea is that the ambient flammable mixture will get into the unit there will be a switch arc that will ignite that mix. The enclosure is supposed to contain the flame front either by brute strength, or by cooling the expanding flame front below combustion temperature in the flange or shaft sleeve passage from inside to ambient. Conduit wire runs were sealed near the box with glands poured with plaster of paris. The EUT was placed into a larger box with a Saran Wrap lid. For the category we wanted, the test method called for a stoichiometric mixture (optimized for maximum combustion) of hydrogen air to be fed into top of the eut enclosure (lighter than air mix fills from the top down) via a small pipe that passed through a shutoff valve, through the outer box, tapped in to the EUT casting. A similar pipe exhausted at the bottom of the EUT and outside the outer box through a shutoff valve. That mix was piped through another shutoff valve into the top of the outer box and exhausted from the bottom of that box via a shutoff valve. After sampling inlet and outlet mixtures until they read the same, all valves were shut pipes disconnected, isolating the EUT inside an envelope of flammable mix. The mix in the EUT was then ignited by its own contacts and/or by a spark plug. If the Saran Wrap lid remained intact it was a pass. If not, everybody within 1/4 mile knew about it. The pressure pulse inside the EUT was measured by a piezoelectric transducer. A series of tests was run to find the maximum pressure. That maximum pressure was used as basis for a hydrostatic pressure test, which I vaguely recall might have been at 4X the pulse reading.No cracks permitted. Other tests are involved for other categories, such as temperature under a dust blanket, for units intended for grain mills, etc., but above is the exciting part. Caveat - Don't try it at home! Hydrogen molecule is very small so it leaks lots the flame front moves briskly, so the pressure pulse is steep but farly narrow. Forget about acetylene - it is with good reason in a class by itself! If you look at the area (energy) under the pressure pulse, it is phenomenal, and it's tendancy to self-ignite (unless compressed under special atmosphere) levels cheapskate shade-tree mechanic garages every year - it's a Darwin thing. I hope this was what you were looking for. The code books tell about what flammables are in which groups classes, but they do not tell about the tests. Check out UL 698 for containment-type enclosure testing methods. Intrinsically safe is a low-energy ignition-prevention method for haz loc, but that is another story. Mike Harris/Teccom - Original Message - From: richwo...@tycoint.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:59 AM Subject: Haz Loc Testing It would be appreciated if someone would provide me with a brief overview of the testing that is performed in order to classify electronic equipment for use in a hazardous location where fuel vapors are located. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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
Re: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Hi Richard, My business/commercial/industrial ITE clients have usually aimed for Class B but if they did not get there, Class A hass always been accepted by their customers. Most customers do not know the difference very few will insist on Class B (tending toward laoratories and such locations where small signals are involved, and interference would be likely). Mike Harris/Teccom - Original Message - From: richwo...@tycoint.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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.
Conducted noise emission diagnosis device
Hello Group, I am looking for a device that will differentiate the dominant component (either common-mode or differential-mode current) in the total conducted noise emission current of a product measuring through its' power cord using a LISN. This device can be called common/differential mode current separator. In conducted noise emission measurement, both common-mode and differential mode noise current are measured by LISN and the LISN can't tell which mode is the dominant current. I came across a paper by Clayton Paul and Keith Hardin which explain the usefulness of a separator like this that would identified the dominant current from the total current. Hence, the correct capacitor value(either X-caps or Y-caps) can be changed accordingly so to reduce the overall conducted noise. The book by Clayton Paul Introduction to Eletromagnetic Compatibility has also mention about this device. I have contacted a few persons trying to look for the person who have actually built this separator himself and I am also looking for any vendor who have this product for sale. So far, my effort has yield no results. Can anybody point me to the right person so that i can try to built this separator myself. Any other suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Best Regards, ** Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Ph.D. Student Federal University at Santa Catarina Florianópolis, SC Brazil --- 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.
Stand Alone SMPS
Group, Can anyone on this board help me to find out which standards (emission immunity) to apply to test a Stand Alone SMPS unit for CE marking. This SMPS is a power source for the Audio Amplifier. Can I use EN55013 EN55020 standards, since it is an associated equipment of broadcast receivers? What about If I want to export to Japan? Thanks in Advance Kuga ** P. Kuganesan EMC Engineer LabOne Singapore Pte Ltd Tel: 8969 861 Fax: 7769 102 / 8969 189 **
RE: Japan
Check out the following URL: http://www3.jetro.go.jp/se/j/jousa/kikaku/jpbook/index.html Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ | Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age | | eighteen. - Albert Einstein | +=+ -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:56 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Japan Hi Does any one have the DENAN list of electrical equipment which is under the approval scheme in Japan. And also information to which standards equipment have to be tested Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning --- 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.
