[PSES] FW: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

[Lovell, Paul]

Hi All,

I spoke to the Secretary of IEC TC 108 and he is happy to share the current 
state of affairs. However, it's in the form of an Excel spreadsheet which 
exceeds the maximum size permitted by this message board [I know, I tried to 
copy-and-paste it - the message bounced back].

If anyone can let me know how, I will send it on.

Best regards,

Paul


Paul Lovell
Senior Project Engineer
Health Sciences Regulatory Group
-
UL International (UK) Ltd.
Wonersh House, The Guildway, Old Portsmouth Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1LR, United Kingdom.
T: +44.1483.402006
T: +44.746.908.2581
F: +44.1483.302.230
W: ul.com


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

I doubt that it's an IEC policy, it's more a case of committee members not 
giving it  'a high priority'.  By the way, BSI itself couldn't supply the 
document, I think, but a committee member could obtain it for the organization 
he/she represents.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:20 PM
To: John Woodgate mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

Hello John.

Do you know why the IEC doesn't make this information available to the public?
It would be very useful to those manufacturers who sell their products 
worldwide.

Kind regards;

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 18 October 2016 12:31
To: McBurney, Ian 
mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

There is such a document but it is an internal IEC TC108 HBSDT document. If 
your company were a member of a trade association represented on BSI committee 
EPL108 you could obtain a copy, but I don't think there is any legitimate way 
otherwise.

I have proposed that the document (frequently updated) should be made publicly 
available, but without success.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

Dear Colleagues.

I have been informed that China, Japan & Australia have not adopted IEC 62368-1 
yet.
Does anyone know of a document or website where I can check to see which 
countries have adopted the above standard?
I am having to test products to the above standard but with the national 
deviations for the countries that have not adopted the standard tested to 
60065. This is adding a certain amount to the test cost.
Is anyone else experiencing this problem?

Thanks in advance;

Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.

Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com


Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


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

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

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

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

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

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-
--

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1

[John Woodgate]

Thank you very much. I hope the Central Office doesn't get palpitations as a
result.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Lovell, Paul [mailto:paul.lov...@ul.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 5:42 AM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62368-1
 
Hi All,
 
I spoke to the Secretary of IEC TC 108 and he is happy to share the current
state of affairs. I hope this is helpful.
 
 
 
Best regards,
 
Paul
 
Chairman EPL/108
 
 
Paul Lovell
Senior Project Engineer
Health Sciences Regulatory Group
-
UL International (UK) Ltd.
Wonersh House, The Guildway, Old Portsmouth Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU3 1LR, United Kingdom.
T: +44.1483.402006
T: +44.746.908.2581
F: +44.1483.302.230
W: ul.com
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1
 
I doubt that it's an IEC policy, it's more a case of committee members not
giving it  'a high priority'.  By the way, BSI itself couldn't supply the
document, I think, but a committee member could obtain it for the
organization he/she represents.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk   J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:20 PM
To: John Woodgate mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com> >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62368-1
 
Hello John.
 
Do you know why the IEC doesn't make this information available to the
public?
It would be very useful to those manufacturers who sell their products
worldwide.
 
Kind regards;
 
Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.
 
Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com  
 
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 October 2016 12:31
To: McBurney, Ian mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com> >; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 62368-1
 
There is such a document but it is an internal IEC TC108 HBSDT document. If
your company were a member of a trade association represented on BSI
committee EPL108 you could obtain a copy, but I don't think there is any
legitimate way otherwise. 
 
I have proposed that the document (frequently updated) should be made
publicly available, but without success.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk   J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: McBurney, Ian [mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1
 
Dear Colleagues.
 
I have been informed that China, Japan & Australia have not adopted IEC
62368-1 yet.
Does anyone know of a document or website where I can check to see which
countries have adopted the above standard?
I am having to test products to the above standard but with the national
deviations for the countries that have not adopted the standard tested to
60065. This is adding a certain amount to the test cost.
Is anyone else experiencing this problem?
 
Thanks in advance;
 
Ian McBurney
Design & Compliance Engineer.
 
Allen & Heath Ltd.
Kernick Industrial Estate,
Penryn, Cornwall. TR10 9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com  
 
 
Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the company. 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to

Re: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

[Ed Price]

When the military (the UK MoD) makes a purchase, it is done as a contract
between MoD and the vendor. The MoD can impose any requirement it wishes as
a condition to the contract. Most of the time, a Test Procedure is a
contractually required line item, and must be submitted to the MoD for
approval. This TP will often have variations to normal military standards
(they call it tailoring) to accommodate validating an unusual military
system to the spirit of the military standard. Further, the MoD can impose
requirements beyond the USA MIL-STD-461 or UK DEF-STAN 59-411. In this case,
if the MoD wants you to state the uncertainty of measurements used to obtain
your test data, they can stipulate that your TP define exactly how you
calculate those uncertainties for every test. 

 

The customer is king, whatever he wants (subject to his agreement to pay
for), he can demand, and if you want the sale, you will comply (although at
the TP stage, considerable technical negotiation is possible, hopefully you
and your customer are not adversarial). The MoD is not constrained to
accepting only what is printed in 59-411 or 461. When I was selling combat
instrumentation ranges to the MoD, they also required UK radiation safety
standards and also had provisions for compliance with some UK civilian
safety standards. How we intended to show compliance of a military system to
those civilian standards was defined in the TP.

 

Military products may use a lot of hazardous substances, so the contract
should define if certain parts (or all) of the delivered system are subject
to RoHS. Since military equipment will eventually be salvaged or sold
commercially, subsystems may either be required to never contain hazardous
substances, or, provision should be made for demilitarizing the subsystem at
the end of its life.

 

So, as John says, ask the customer (read the Request for Quotation in all
its intricate glory) and clarify as required. Indeed, I often received RFQ's
that were confusing, duplicative or even had impossible/conflicting
stipulations built-in; the first order of business was to create agreement
of the customer's desires with reality and what we thought was possible.

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

 

I think you have to ask the military customer what they want. I'm not sure
that RoHS even applies to military equipment. 

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

 

As far as I understand, military products shall be CE marked when used in
Europe.

 

What will be the case when CE marking a military computer used in a military
aircraft?

LVD does not apply (low DC voltage) and RTTE/RED does not apply because
there is no wifi or any radio module inside.

For EMC, the new 2014/30/EU says in Article 2: . shall not apply to
aeronautical products, parts and appliances to the Regulation (EC) No
216/2008 ..

 

I have to admit, I have not been through the entire Regulation (EC) No
216/2008, but it seems to me that EMC directive does not apply.

 

So what is left? ROHS? . Should the DoC for a military computer installed in
a military aircraft only makes reference to the ROHS directive? I would say
yes.

 

#Amund

-


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


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

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

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

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

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

-


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


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

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

Re: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

[Brian O'Connell]

Article 296 -> 'essential' to defense. But most stuff would have to be 
considered non-essential.

Brian

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:58 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

As far as I understand, military products shall be CE marked when used in 
Europe.

What will be the case when CE marking a military computer used in a military 
aircraft?
LVD does not apply (low DC voltage) and RTTE/RED does not apply because there 
is no wifi or any radio module inside.
For EMC, the new 2014/30/EU says in Article 2: ... shall not apply to 
aeronautical products, parts and appliances to the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 


I have to admit, I have not been through the entire Regulation (EC) No 
216/2008, but it seems to me that EMC directive does not apply.

So what is left? ROHS? ... Should the DoC for a military computer installed in 
a military aircraft only makes reference to the ROHS directive? I would say yes.

#Amund

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

[John Woodgate]

I think you have to ask the military customer what they want. I'm not sure
that RoHS even applies to military equipment. 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product
 
As far as I understand, military products shall be CE marked when used in
Europe.
 
What will be the case when CE marking a military computer used in a military
aircraft?
LVD does not apply (low DC voltage) and RTTE/RED does not apply because
there is no wifi or any radio module inside.
For EMC, the new 2014/30/EU says in Article 2: . shall not apply to
aeronautical products, parts and appliances to the Regulation (EC) No
216/2008 ..
 
I have to admit, I have not been through the entire Regulation (EC) No
216/2008, but it seems to me that EMC directive does not apply.
 
So what is left? ROHS? . Should the DoC for a military computer installed in
a military aircraft only makes reference to the ROHS directive? I would say
yes.
 
#Amund
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> >
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in
well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

[Ken Javor]

A mil product has to meet a mil limit, such as MIL-STD-461, DEF STAN 59-411,
some NATO STANAG, something.  But not CE, and also whether or not ROHS
applies it is hardly an alternative for some sort of EMC qualification.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Amund Westin 
Reply-To: Amund Westin 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:58:21 +0200
To: 
Subject: [PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

As far as I understand, military products shall be CE marked when used in
Europe.
 
What will be the case when CE marking a military computer used in a military
aircraft?
LVD does not apply (low DC voltage) and RTTE/RED does not apply because
there is no wifi or any radio module inside.
For EMC, the new 2014/30/EU says in Article 2: Š shall not apply to
aeronautical products, parts and appliances to the Regulation (EC) No
216/2008 Š.
 
I have to admit, I have not been through the entire Regulation (EC) No
216/2008, but it seems to me that EMC directive does not apply.
 
So what is left? ROHS? Š Should the DoC for a military computer installed in
a military aircraft only makes reference to the ROHS directive? I would say
yes.
 
#Amund
-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

Concur, as tolerance is not same stuff as uncertainty. But have seen 
uncertainty calculations as an additional requirement in some customer specs 
where MS461 was the referenced standard.

Just use the test lab's numbers that are on their ISO17025 registration, which 
Mr. Javor referenced for 'measurement system integrity check' per 4.3.1; and 
note that there is a multitude of test methods having a specific ' measurement 
system integrity check'.

Brian


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

It couldn't be easier.  MIL-STD-461 has no uncertainty requirements whatsoever, 
and anyone trying to mandate such has no military heritage authority to do so. 
The only accuracy-type requirement in MIL-STD-461 is the measurement system 
integrity check, performed right before making each pertinent measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
Reply-To: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:04:25 +
To: 
Conversation: Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
Subject: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

Hi all
 
Can anyone shed some light on working up the Uncertainty Measurement 
Calculations based on UKAS Lab34 for MIL-STD-461 CS115 and CS116.
I need to show the uncertainty values for these tests as follows:
Uncertainty in overall test level = 2.2dB, Uncertainty in time measurement = 
1.91%, Uncertainty in Amplitude measurement = 0.82%
 
MIL-STD-461 defines 
4.3.1 Measurement tolerances.
Unless otherwise stated for a particular measurement, the tolerance shall be as 
follows:
a. Distance: ±5%
b. Frequency: ±2%
c. Amplitude, measurement receiver: ±2 dB
d. Amplitude, measurement system (includes measurement receivers, transducers, 
cables,
and so forth): ±3 dB
e. Time (waveforms): ±5%
f. Resistors: ±5%
g. Capacitors: ±20%
 
Also what equipment do I include, ie. DSO, Current Probes, Calibration Jig, 
Transient Generator, etc. and what do I exclude
 
I hope there are some group members that have already done this process and can 
help.
 
Regards
Andy
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PSES] CE for military aeronautical product

[Amund Westin]

As far as I understand, military products shall be CE marked when used in
Europe.

 

What will be the case when CE marking a military computer used in a military
aircraft?

LVD does not apply (low DC voltage) and RTTE/RED does not apply because
there is no wifi or any radio module inside.

For EMC, the new 2014/30/EU says in Article 2: . shall not apply to
aeronautical products, parts and appliances to the Regulation (EC) No
216/2008 ..

 

I have to admit, I have not been through the entire Regulation (EC) No
216/2008, but it seems to me that EMC directive does not apply.

 

So what is left? ROHS? . Should the DoC for a military computer installed in
a military aircraft only makes reference to the ROHS directive? I would say
yes.

 

#Amund


-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[Doug Nix]

Interesting.

In North America, it’s not uncommon to see multi-unit industrial buildings 
where the supply is shared, so this would be Class A under EN 55011 as there is 
no domestic establishments sharing the supply, but reasonably could be called 
as RCLI I think, despite that. 

We also see lots of medium and large plants that are single tenant buildings 
that have their own MV supply, with a local substation that supplies LV to the 
loads in that building. All one user. I would class that as an industrial 
building, and call it Class A.

I think I’ll skip the read through CISPR 16-3, but thanks for the reference. :-)

Doug
 
> On 19-Oct-16, at 14:49, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> Yes, such a farm would be RCLI in Europe. I don't know what the maximum 
> current/power is normally permitted at LV in US, but in Europe the normal 
> limit is 75 A/phase, but the utility may permit a higher current if the 
> network can cope. So even quite a big machine would not force the need for an 
> MV supply. Even so, in Britain, there are 3.3 kV rural networks for large 
> farms and infrastructure such as water pumping stations.
>  
> I don't know where the 30 m. 10 m and 3 m separation distances are 
> documented, maybe in the huge CISPR 16-3 (a good read in the long winter 
> evenings in Alaska).
>  
> I didn't 'lump', but in most European countries (I mentioned France as an 
> exception) all LV distribution has both residential and non-residential 
> loads. Sharing is the norm, but there are exceptions, of course.
>  
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk  J M Woodgate and 
> Associates Rayleigh England
>  
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>  
> From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:29 PM
> To: John Woodgate 
> Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
> for EMC testing purposes
>  
> John,
>  
> You bring up a good point, in that we see rural properties in North America 
> where a single farm is fed with it’s own transformer from an MV line at say 
> 4.8 kV to LV, and that farm is the only load on the the transformer. Is that 
> an RCLI situation? IMO yes, because the family lives there (meets the 
> domestic establishments criteria) and it also meets your criteria of radio/tv 
> receivers within 30 m. They may employ equipment in their operation that 
> might reasonably be considered industrial in nature due to scale. 
>  
> Can you tell me, what is origin for the 30 m tv/radio criteria you have 
> mentioned on several occasions? Is there a specific document?
>  
> I have to say that I don’t believe that you can lump everything that is 
> supplied at LV into RCLI, because that position is inconsistent with the 
> class definitions in EN 55011, which makes the criterion the sharing of the 
> supply with domestic establishments.
>  
> Doug Nix
> d...@ieee.org 
> +1 (519) 729-5704
>  
>> On 19-Oct-16, at 12:23, John Woodgate > > wrote:
>>  
>> 1. Yes.
>>  
>> 2. 
>> Original statement is true only if the substation output is at MV or higher. 
>> If it is at LV, the location is strictly RCLI (residential, commercial and 
>> light industrial). 
>>  
>> a) In most countries in Europe, yes, but in France there are some separate 
>> industrial LV networks. You have to look at the location and decide whether 
>> there are likely to be broadcast radio or TV receivers within 30 m. If so, 
>> it's RCLI.
>>  
>> b) Yes.
>>  
>> There is no way to categorize. I know of a single dwelling house with its 
>> own LV transformer. They are not very rare in rural parts.
>>  
>> But please bear in mind that it's the *user* who decides where to use a 
>> product and the manufacturer has no control. Obviously, the most flexible 
>> solution is the most costly, Class B emissions and Class A immunity.
>>  
>> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk  J M Woodgate and 
>> Associates Rayleigh England
>>  
>> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>>  
>> From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com 
>> ] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:35 PM
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
>> for EMC testing purposes
>>  
>> Doug- Thanks very much for this.
>>  
>> Within this group, I often get responses before the initial email, so I 
>> missed this one the first time through. Two questions:
>>  
>> 1.  Is it safe to say that the same definitions hold true for immunity 
>> as well?
>> 2.  Would the following statements be true as well?
>> Original Statement: If a location is fed from its own substation and there 
>> are no dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, 
>> and therefore Class A.

Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

Any claim for uncertainty must be based on the lab's published numbers per 
their accreditation and registrations. But have seen some rather creative math 
from some labs where the particular test method was considered outside of their 
scope statement.

And all compliance engineering people are 'disturbed'; except myself - am 
perfectly normal, just ask the Klingon standing next to me...

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:22 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

It appears that regardless of the total lack of uncertainty type
requirements in MIL-STD-461, certain people/organizations nevertheless
mandate such - as I pointed out, without a shred of any military
heritage/authority to do so.

There is some economic rationale (level playing field) for uncertainty
measurements in the world of consumer/medical/industrial products which are
sold directly to the public without going through the intermediary stage of
being integrated into a larger system such as an automobile.

There is no such rationale present for military procurements. For them,
MIL-STD-461 qualification is not a barrier or gateway to market, and the
whole MIL-STD-461 qualification is a means to the end of system-level EMC.
If MIL-STD-461 performance doesn't support system-level EMC, more stringent
performance will be required. Likewise, if a unit fails MIL-STD-461 but
supports system-level EMC, that level of performance will be deemed
acceptable.

And when it comes to one particular MIL-STD-461 requirement, RE102, asking
about uncertainty breaks the rule that says, "If you can't stand the answer,
don't ask the question."

Just out of pure morbid curiosity, I would be fascinated to see what sort of
uncertainty people claim for RE102...

That may represent some sort of psychotic disturbance on my part, but I'm
just asking the question; it would have never occurred to me to mandate such
a requirement. 

I didn't crash the train, I'm just watching the wreck...

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Brian O'Connell 
> Reply-To: Brian O'Connell 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:01:18 +
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Should be 4.3.11
> 
> While my standards tolerance is 3 text lines, my published standards
> uncertainty is 7 paragraphs for 95%.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:54 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Concur, as tolerance is not same stuff as uncertainty. But have seen
> uncertainty calculations as an additional requirement in some customer specs
> where MS461 was the referenced standard.
> 
> Just use the test lab's numbers that are on their ISO17025 registration, which
> Mr. Javor referenced for 'measurement system integrity check' per 4.3.1; and
> note that there is a multitude of test methods having a specific ' measurement
> system integrity check'.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:57 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> It couldn't be easier.  MIL-STD-461 has no uncertainty requirements
> whatsoever, and anyone trying to mandate such has no military heritage
> authority to do so. The only accuracy-type requirement in MIL-STD-461 is the
> measurement system integrity check, performed right before making each
> pertinent measurement.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> From: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
> Reply-To: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:04:25 +
> To: 
> Conversation: Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> Subject: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Hi all
>  
> Can anyone shed some light on working up the Uncertainty Measurement
> Calculations based on UKAS Lab34 for MIL-STD-461 CS115 and CS116.
> I need to show the uncertainty values for these tests as follows:
> Uncertainty in overall test level = 2.2dB, Uncertainty in time measurement =
> 1.91%, Uncertainty in Amplitude measurement = 0.82%
>  
> MIL-STD-461 defines
> 4.3.1 Measurement tolerances.
> Unless otherwise stated for a particular measurement, the tolerance shall be
> as follows:
> a. Distance: ±5%
> b. Frequency: ±2%
> c. Amplitude, measurement receiver: ±2 dB
> d. Amplitude, measurement system (includes measurement receivers, transducers,
> cables,
> and so forth): ±3 dB
> e. Time (waveforms): ±5%
> f. Resistors: ±5%
> g. Capacitors: ±20%
>  
> Also what equipment do I include, ie. DSO, Current Probes, Calibration Jig,
> Transient Generator, etc. and wh

Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

[Ken Javor]

It appears that regardless of the total lack of uncertainty type
requirements in MIL-STD-461, certain people/organizations nevertheless
mandate such - as I pointed out, without a shred of any military
heritage/authority to do so.

There is some economic rationale (level playing field) for uncertainty
measurements in the world of consumer/medical/industrial products which are
sold directly to the public without going through the intermediary stage of
being integrated into a larger system such as an automobile.

There is no such rationale present for military procurements. For them,
MIL-STD-461 qualification is not a barrier or gateway to market, and the
whole MIL-STD-461 qualification is a means to the end of system-level EMC.
If MIL-STD-461 performance doesn't support system-level EMC, more stringent
performance will be required. Likewise, if a unit fails MIL-STD-461 but
supports system-level EMC, that level of performance will be deemed
acceptable.

And when it comes to one particular MIL-STD-461 requirement, RE102, asking
about uncertainty breaks the rule that says, "If you can't stand the answer,
don't ask the question."

Just out of pure morbid curiosity, I would be fascinated to see what sort of
uncertainty people claim for RE102...

That may represent some sort of psychotic disturbance on my part, but I'm
just asking the question; it would have never occurred to me to mandate such
a requirement. 

I didn't crash the train, I'm just watching the wreck...

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


> From: Brian O'Connell 
> Reply-To: Brian O'Connell 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:01:18 +
> To: 
> Conversation: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Should be 4.3.11
> 
> While my standards tolerance is 3 text lines, my published standards
> uncertainty is 7 paragraphs for 95%.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian O'Connell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:54 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Concur, as tolerance is not same stuff as uncertainty. But have seen
> uncertainty calculations as an additional requirement in some customer specs
> where MS461 was the referenced standard.
> 
> Just use the test lab's numbers that are on their ISO17025 registration, which
> Mr. Javor referenced for 'measurement system integrity check' per 4.3.1; and
> note that there is a multitude of test methods having a specific ' measurement
> system integrity check'.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:57 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> It couldn't be easier.  MIL-STD-461 has no uncertainty requirements
> whatsoever, and anyone trying to mandate such has no military heritage
> authority to do so. The only accuracy-type requirement in MIL-STD-461 is the
> measurement system integrity check, performed right before making each
> pertinent measurement.
> 
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
> 
> 
> From: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
> Reply-To: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:04:25 +
> To: 
> Conversation: Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> Subject: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
> 
> Hi all
>  
> Can anyone shed some light on working up the Uncertainty Measurement
> Calculations based on UKAS Lab34 for MIL-STD-461 CS115 and CS116.
> I need to show the uncertainty values for these tests as follows:
> Uncertainty in overall test level = 2.2dB, Uncertainty in time measurement =
> 1.91%, Uncertainty in Amplitude measurement = 0.82%
>  
> MIL-STD-461 defines
> 4.3.1 Measurement tolerances.
> Unless otherwise stated for a particular measurement, the tolerance shall be
> as follows:
> a. Distance: ±5%
> b. Frequency: ±2%
> c. Amplitude, measurement receiver: ±2 dB
> d. Amplitude, measurement system (includes measurement receivers, transducers,
> cables,
> and so forth): ±3 dB
> e. Time (waveforms): ±5%
> f. Resistors: ±5%
> g. Capacitors: ±20%
>  
> Also what equipment do I include, ie. DSO, Current Probes, Calibration Jig,
> Transient Generator, etc. and what do I exclude
>  
> I hope there are some group members that have already done this process and
> can help.
>  
> Regards
> Andy
> David Heald 
> 
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> 
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
> 
> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphi

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[Paasche, Dieter]

If this helps, some time ago I heard about how the testing of class B  - 3m 
distance was determined for radiated emission. It looks that 3m would be a 
distance that two electronic devices could be when located in an apartment 
house. For example the TV from one guy to the TV of his neighbor living wall to 
wall.

That been said, if the your equipment can be close by 3m from an apartment 
house than it would be a residential and therefore have to meet residential 
requirements. The rest I would just called it not residential and therefore a 
class A product  For most standards and mainly emissions it would not matter if 
it is industrial, heavy industrial or light industrial because they all have to 
comply with class A limits. Immunity you might see some differences.

As you mentioned there are many people that manufacture equipment in different 
environments complying with class B residential limits for emissions and use 
the stricter levels for immunity. It is very common practice.


Sincerely,

Dieter Paasche

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 3:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

Thanks all – at least I am not the only one unsure.

I am trying to establish a set of criteria that I can ask our engineers and 
marketers that will determine the classification. A decision tree, if you will. 
 This arose from a device that met the less stringent criteria, but not the 
more stringent and then what to do. To prevent the need to debate this topic 
over and over, I was hoping to establish a go forward approach.  Ideally, that 
approach would be “design for both industrial AND non-industrial and be done 
with it.” However, other factors are at play than just my druthers.

-Jamison

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

For Europe, the sources are the Generic standards, which are substantially 
consistent with CISPR 11.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):

5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.

Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. In 
the
documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention to 
the fact that
there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
in other
environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and 
in
establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
supplies
buildings used for domestic purposes.
Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.

The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If the 
equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic establishments, 
then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.

If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the power 
supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then Class A 
performance is acceptable.

The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments. 
If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and therefore Class 
A.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison 
mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com>> wrote:

Good Morning,

What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which a 
device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.

It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
products in the i

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[Doug Nix]

John,

You bring up a good point, in that we see rural properties in North America 
where a single farm is fed with it’s own transformer from an MV line at say 4.8 
kV to LV, and that farm is the only load on the the transformer. Is that an 
RCLI situation? IMO yes, because the family lives there (meets the domestic 
establishments criteria) and it also meets your criteria of radio/tv receivers 
within 30 m. They may employ equipment in their operation that might reasonably 
be considered industrial in nature due to scale. 

Can you tell me, what is origin for the 30 m tv/radio criteria you have 
mentioned on several occasions? Is there a specific document?

I have to say that I don’t believe that you can lump everything that is 
supplied at LV into RCLI, because that position is inconsistent with the class 
definitions in EN 55011, which makes the criterion the sharing of the supply 
with domestic establishments.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

> On 19-Oct-16, at 12:23, John Woodgate  wrote:
> 
> 1. Yes.
>  
> 2. 
> Original statement is true only if the substation output is at MV or higher. 
> If it is at LV, the location is strictly RCLI (residential, commercial and 
> light industrial). 
>  
> a) In most countries in Europe, yes, but in France there are some separate 
> industrial LV networks. You have to look at the location and decide whether 
> there are likely to be broadcast radio or TV receivers within 30 m. If so, 
> it's RCLI.
>  
> b) Yes.
>  
> There is no way to categorize. I know of a single dwelling house with its own 
> LV transformer. They are not very rare in rural parts.
>  
> But please bear in mind that it's the *user* who decides where to use a 
> product and the manufacturer has no control. Obviously, the most flexible 
> solution is the most costly, Class B emissions and Class A immunity.
>  
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk  J M Woodgate and 
> Associates Rayleigh England
>  
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>  
> From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:35 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
> for EMC testing purposes
>  
> Doug- Thanks very much for this.
>  
> Within this group, I often get responses before the initial email, so I 
> missed this one the first time through. Two questions:
>  
> 1.  Is it safe to say that the same definitions hold true for immunity as 
> well?
> 2.  Would the following statements be true as well?
> Original Statement: If a location is fed from its own substation and there 
> are no dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, 
> and therefore Class A.
> a.  If a location is not fed from its own substation, but there are no 
> dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and 
> therefore Class B.
> b.  If a location is fed from its own substation and there are dwellings 
> supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and therefore 
> Class B.
>  
> Without knowing the details of every installation, is there a relatively 
> simple way of categorizing types of buildings that would be fed by its own 
> substation, for example?
>  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jamison
>  
> From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org ] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:25 AM
> To: Kortas, Jamison  >
> Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC  >
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
> for EMC testing purposes
>  
> My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
> CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):
>  
>> 5.3 Division into classes
>> Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
>> than domestic and
>> those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
>> supplies buildings used
>> for domestic purposes.
>>  
>> Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
>> 
>> Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. 
>> In the
>> documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention 
>> to the fact that
>> there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic 
>> compatibility in other
>> environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
>> 
>> Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments 
>> and in
>> establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network 
>> which supplies
>> buildings used for domestic purposes.
>> 
>> Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.
> 
> The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If 
> the equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic 
> establishments, then it must mee

Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

[Brian O'Connell]

Should be 4.3.11

While my standards tolerance is 3 text lines, my published standards 
uncertainty is 7 paragraphs for 95%.

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:54 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

Concur, as tolerance is not same stuff as uncertainty. But have seen 
uncertainty calculations as an additional requirement in some customer specs 
where MS461 was the referenced standard.

Just use the test lab's numbers that are on their ISO17025 registration, which 
Mr. Javor referenced for 'measurement system integrity check' per 4.3.1; and 
note that there is a multitude of test methods having a specific ' measurement 
system integrity check'.

Brian


From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

It couldn't be easier.  MIL-STD-461 has no uncertainty requirements whatsoever, 
and anyone trying to mandate such has no military heritage authority to do so. 
The only accuracy-type requirement in MIL-STD-461 is the measurement system 
integrity check, performed right before making each pertinent measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
Reply-To: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:04:25 +
To: 
Conversation: Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
Subject: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

Hi all
 
Can anyone shed some light on working up the Uncertainty Measurement 
Calculations based on UKAS Lab34 for MIL-STD-461 CS115 and CS116.
I need to show the uncertainty values for these tests as follows:
Uncertainty in overall test level = 2.2dB, Uncertainty in time measurement = 
1.91%, Uncertainty in Amplitude measurement = 0.82%
 
MIL-STD-461 defines 
4.3.1 Measurement tolerances.
Unless otherwise stated for a particular measurement, the tolerance shall be as 
follows:
a. Distance: ±5%
b. Frequency: ±2%
c. Amplitude, measurement receiver: ±2 dB
d. Amplitude, measurement system (includes measurement receivers, transducers, 
cables,
and so forth): ±3 dB
e. Time (waveforms): ±5%
f. Resistors: ±5%
g. Capacitors: ±20%
 
Also what equipment do I include, ie. DSO, Current Probes, Calibration Jig, 
Transient Generator, etc. and what do I exclude
 
I hope there are some group members that have already done this process and can 
help.
 
Regards
Andy
David Heald  

-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[John Woodgate]

1. Yes.
 
2. 
Original statement is true only if the substation output is at MV or higher. If 
it is at LV, the location is strictly RCLI (residential, commercial and light 
industrial). 
 
a) In most countries in Europe, yes, but in France there are some separate 
industrial LV networks. You have to look at the location and decide whether 
there are likely to be broadcast radio or TV receivers within 30 m. If so, it's 
RCLI.
 
b) Yes.
 
There is no way to categorize. I know of a single dwelling house with its own 
LV transformer. They are not very rare in rural parts.
 
But please bear in mind that it's the *user* who decides where to use a product 
and the manufacturer has no control. Obviously, the most flexible solution is 
the most costly, Class B emissions and Class A immunity.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes
 
Doug- Thanks very much for this.
 
Within this group, I often get responses before the initial email, so I missed 
this one the first time through. Two questions:
 
1.  Is it safe to say that the same definitions hold true for immunity as 
well?
2.  Would the following statements be true as well?
Original Statement: If a location is fed from its own substation and there are 
no dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and 
therefore Class A.
a.  If a location is not fed from its own substation, but there are no 
dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and 
therefore Class B.
b.  If a location is fed from its own substation and there are dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and therefore 
Class B.
 
Without knowing the details of every installation, is there a relatively simple 
way of categorizing types of buildings that would be fed by its own substation, 
for example?
 
 
Thanks,
 
Jamison
 
From: Doug Nix [  mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:25 AM
To: Kortas, Jamison <  
jamison.kor...@ecolab.com>
Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC <  
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes
 
My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):
 
5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.
 
Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. In 
the
documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention to 
the fact that
there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
in other
environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and 
in
establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
supplies
buildings used for domestic purposes.
Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.

The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If the 
equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic establishments, 
then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.
 
If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the power 
supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then Class A 
performance is acceptable.
 
The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments. 
If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and therefore Class 
A.
 
Doug Nix
  d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704
 
On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison <  
jamison.kor...@ecolab.com> wrote:
 
Good Morning,
 
What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which a 
device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.
 
It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
products in the immediate vicinity (a mechanical room in a grocery store = 
industrial due to the equipment in its immediate environment).
 
I am familiar with some of the definitions in places, but am not so sure that 
those are what 

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[Doug Nix]

Jamison,

IMO, it’s the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments that is the 
key to the application of the definition of the classes. Clearly, a large 
industrial facility could be fed at MV and have MV loads as well as LV loads, 
so the question of whether there is a substation or not might be moot. What we 
know for certain is that there are no domestic establishments that are fed at 
MV. :-)

If you have a look at the scope of EN 61000-6-2, Electromagnetic compatibility 
(EMC) – Part 6-2: Generic standards-Immunity for industrial environments, 
you’ll find that they call out ISM equipment based on Class A as defined in EN 
55011, so while the classes are not explicitly part of the Generic standard, 
they are referenced.

Look for the sharing of the supply as the criterion. If it’s shared with 
domestic users, it’s Class B as far as I’m concerned.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

> On 19-Oct-16, at 10:34, Kortas, Jamison  wrote:
> 
> Doug- Thanks very much for this.
>  
> Within this group, I often get responses before the initial email, so I 
> missed this one the first time through. Two questions:
>  
> 1.   Is it safe to say that the same definitions hold true for immunity 
> as well?
> 2.   Would the following statements be true as well?
> Original Statement: If a location is fed from its own substation and there 
> are no dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, 
> and therefore Class A.
> a.   If a location is not fed from its own substation, but there are no 
> dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and 
> thereforeClass B.
> b.   If a location is fed from its own substation and there are dwellings 
> supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and therefore 
> Class B.
>  
> Without knowing the details of every installation, is there a relatively 
> simple way of categorizing types of buildings that would be fed by its own 
> substation, for example?
>  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Jamison
>  
> From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:25 AM
> To: Kortas, Jamison 
> Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial 
> for EMC testing purposes
>  
> My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
> CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):
>  
> 5.3 Division into classes
> Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
> than domestic and
> those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
> buildings used
> for domestic purposes.
>  
> Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
> 
> Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. 
> In the
> documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention 
> to the fact that
> there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
> in other
> environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
> 
> Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments 
> and in
> establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
> supplies
> buildings used for domestic purposes.
> 
> Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.
> 
> The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If 
> the equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic 
> establishments, then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.
>  
> If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the 
> power supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then 
> Class A performance is acceptable.
>  
> The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic 
> establishments. If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no 
> dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and 
> therefore Class A.
>  
> Doug Nix
> d...@ieee.org 
> +1 (519) 729-5704
>  
> On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison  > wrote:
>  
> Good Morning,
>  
> What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which 
> a device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
> have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.
>  
> It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
> products in the immediate vicinity (a mechanical room in a grocery store = 
> industrial due to the equipment in its immediate environment).
>  
> I am familiar with some of the definitions in places, but am not so sure that 
> those are what are typically followed in practice.
>  
> I appreciate any thoughts. 
>  
> Thank you.
>  
>  
> -
> 
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society em

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[Kortas, Jamison]

Doug- Thanks very much for this.

Within this group, I often get responses before the initial email, so I missed 
this one the first time through. Two questions:


1.   Is it safe to say that the same definitions hold true for immunity as 
well?

2.   Would the following statements be true as well?

Original Statement: If a location is fed from its own substation and there are 
no dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and 
therefore Class A.

a.   If a location is not fed from its own substation, but there are no 
dwellings supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and 
therefore Class B.

b.   If a location is fed from its own substation and there are dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s not an industrial location, and therefore 
Class B.

Without knowing the details of every installation, is there a relatively simple 
way of categorizing types of buildings that would be fed by its own substation, 
for example?


Thanks,

Jamison

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:25 AM
To: Kortas, Jamison 
Cc: IEEE EMC PSTC 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):

5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.

Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. In 
the
documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention to 
the fact that
there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
in other
environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and 
in
establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
supplies
buildings used for domestic purposes.
Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.

The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If the 
equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic establishments, 
then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.

If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the power 
supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then Class A 
performance is acceptable.

The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments. 
If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and therefore Class 
A.

Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org
+1 (519) 729-5704

On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison 
mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com>> wrote:

Good Morning,

What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which a 
device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.

It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
products in the immediate vicinity (a mechanical room in a grocery store = 
industrial due to the equipment in its immediate environment).

I am familiar with some of the definitions in places, but am not so sure that 
those are what are typically followed in practice.

I appreciate any thoughts.

Thank you.


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.
Website:  
http://www.ieee-pses.org/

Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

[Rajneesh Raveendran]

Hello All,

Thank you for your comments... Surely i have been exposed to few options
that i could explore...

Regards,
Rajneesh


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Ghery S. Pettit  wrote:

> Charlie,
>
>
>
> They are using the “test to harmonized standards” route.  Read the
> original post.  That said, as you note, EN 55022 is no good after March 5,
> 2017.  I doubt they want to change approaches to meeting the essential
> requirements in the EMC Directive, so showing compliance with EN 55032 will
> then become necessary.  Note in an earlier post I mentioned that it might
> not be necessary to re-test.  Indeed, for many products all that will be
> necessary is to get the lab to amend the report, or issue some sort of
> documentation, showing that the previous testing to EN 55022 has shown
> compliance with EN 55032.  No new testing and away they go.
>
>
>
> Ghery
>
>
>
> *From:* Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:34 AM
> *To:* Ghery S. Pettit; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> Ghery
>
>
>
> Ø  How do you figure that?
>
> Because there are a number of options permitted in the Directive so that
> route is not mandatory
>
>
>
> Ø  If they are using testing to harmonized standards as the means for
> issuing the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no use
>
> Indeed it would be – but other options are available and the manufacturer
> may wish to consider them for legacy products and they don’t necessarily
> need to be re-tested.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net ]
> *Sent:* 19 October 2016 06:16
> *To:* Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> How do you figure that?  If they are using testing to harmonized standards
> as the means for issuing the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no
> use.  Anything placed on the market (not just manufactured) as of that date
> must have been evaluated against EN 55032.  To the original poster – it’s
> the date a product is placed on the market in the EU, not the date of
> manufacture.  If it takes a while for a product to get from manufacturing
> to the market you need to start a bit earlier.
>
>
>
> Ghery
>
>
>
> *From:* Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:56 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> > What is not correct?
>
>
>
> The statement
>
> “Products leaving the factory after that must meet EN 55032”
>
> Is not correct
>
> There is no requirement for that anywhere.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *From:* John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com
> ]
> *Sent:* 18 October 2016 21:50
> *To:* Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> A simple, undefined assertion is of no value. What is not correct?
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
> 
> J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manent.
>
>
>
> *From:* Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:31 PM
> *To:* John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> Your previous comment…..
>
>
>
> *>From:* John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com
> ]
> *>Sent:* 18 October 2016 18:24
> *>To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *>Subject:* Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> >Yes, the docopocoss for EN 55022 is 5 March 2017. Products leaving the
> factory after that must meet EN 55032.
>
>
>
> …was simple, but it wasn’t correct
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *From:* John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com
> ]
> *Sent:* 18 October 2016 20:38
> *To:* Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032
>
>
>
> Mediaeval scholars used to answer any question by beginning with the
> Creation. I think that answers should be kept strictly simple and not
> explore the whole Universe.
>
>
>
> With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
>
> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
> 
> J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
>
>
>
> Sylvae in aeternum manen

Re: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

[Ken Javor]

It couldn¹t be easier.  MIL-STD-461 has no uncertainty requirements
whatsoever, and anyone trying to mandate such has no military heritage
authority to do so. The only accuracy-type requirement in MIL-STD-461 is the
measurement system integrity check, performed right before making each
pertinent measurement.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)" 
Reply-To: "Price, Andrew (Leonardo, UK)"

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:04:25 +
To: 
Conversation: Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]
Subject: [PSES] Uncertainty Measurement Calculations [General Use]

Hi all
 
Can anyone shed some light on working up the Uncertainty Measurement
Calculations based on UKAS Lab34 for MIL-STD-461 CS115 and CS116.
I need to show the uncertainty values for these tests as follows:
Uncertainty in overall test level = 2.2dB, Uncertainty in time measurement =
1.91%, Uncertainty in Amplitude measurement = 0.82%
 
MIL-STD-461 defines
4.3.1 Measurement tolerances.
Unless otherwise stated for a particular measurement, the tolerance shall be
as follows:
a. Distance: ±5%
b. Frequency: ±2%
c. Amplitude, measurement receiver: ±2 dB
d. Amplitude, measurement system (includes measurement receivers,
transducers, cables,
and so forth): ±3 dB
e. Time (waveforms): ±5%
f. Resistors: ±5%
g. Capacitors: ±20%
 
Also what equipment do I include, ie. DSO, Current Probes, Calibration Jig,
Transient Generator, etc. and what do I exclude
 
I hope there are some group members that have already done this process and
can help.
 
Regards
Andy
 
 
   LEONARDO
 Land & Naval Division
 Andrew Price
 Land & Naval Defence Electronics Division
 Prinicpal Environmental Engineer (EMC)
 
 Leonardo MW Ltd
 Sigma House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon SS14 3EL, UK
 Tel  EMC LAB : +44 (0)1268 883308
 Mobile: +44 (0)7507 854888
andrew.p.pr...@leonardocompany.com

leonardocomapany.com


HELICOPTERS / AERONAUTICS / ELECTRONICS, DEFENCE AND SECURITY SYSTEMS /
SPACE
 
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
 
 
 
Leonardo MW Ltd
Registered Office: Sigma House, Christopher Martin Road, Basildon, Essex
SS14 3EL
A company registered in England & Wales.  Company no. 02426132

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.

-


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


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

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

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

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

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



-

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Charlie,

 

They are using the “test to harmonized standards” route.  Read the original 
post.  That said, as you note, EN 55022 is no good after March 5, 2017.  I 
doubt they want to change approaches to meeting the essential requirements in 
the EMC Directive, so showing compliance with EN 55032 will then become 
necessary.  Note in an earlier post I mentioned that it might not be necessary 
to re-test.  Indeed, for many products all that will be necessary is to get the 
lab to amend the report, or issue some sort of documentation, showing that the 
previous testing to EN 55022 has shown compliance with EN 55032.  No new 
testing and away they go.

 

Ghery

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 1:34 AM
To: Ghery S. Pettit; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

Ghery

 

Ø  How do you figure that?  

Because there are a number of options permitted in the Directive so that route 
is not mandatory

 

Ø  If they are using testing to harmonized standards as the means for issuing 
the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no use

Indeed it would be – but other options are available and the manufacturer may 
wish to consider them for legacy products and they don’t necessarily need to be 
re-tested.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

 

From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net] 
Sent: 19 October 2016 06:16
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

How do you figure that?  If they are using testing to harmonized standards as 
the means for issuing the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no use.  
Anything placed on the market (not just manufactured) as of that date must have 
been evaluated against EN 55032.  To the original poster – it’s the date a 
product is placed on the market in the EU, not the date of manufacture.  If it 
takes a while for a product to get from manufacturing to the market you need to 
start a bit earlier.

 

Ghery

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

> What is not correct?

 

The statement

“Products leaving the factory after that must meet EN 55032”

Is not correct

There is no requirement for that anywhere.

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 October 2016 21:50
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

A simple, undefined assertion is of no value. What is not correct?

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:31 PM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

Your previous comment…..

 

>From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
>Sent: 18 October 2016 18:24
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

>Yes, the docopocoss for EN 55022 is 5 March 2017. Products leaving the factory 
>after that must meet EN 55032.

 

…was simple, but it wasn’t correct

 

Regards

Charlie

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 18 October 2016 20:38
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

Mediaeval scholars used to answer any question by beginning with the Creation. 
I think that answers should be kept strictly simple and not explore the whole 
Universe.

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

 

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

 

Rajneesh

 

Please note, compliance with EN 55032 is not “required” after March 2017 any 
more than EN 55022 is “required” now – it might be heavily recommended, but it 
is not “required”.

 

A Harmonised Standard:

· Provides a presumption of Conformity with a Directive

· Is what market enforcement authorities “expect to see” (and is what I 
would typically recommend that you apply)

 

The legal requirement is to comply with the Directive and the Directive does 
provide more than one way to do that.

 

The other thing to note, is that a presumption of conformity is obtained when a 
Harmonised Standard is “applied” and not “tested against”.

You may find that an a

Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

[Charlie Blackham]

Ghery


Ø  How do you figure that?
Because there are a number of options permitted in the Directive so that route 
is not mandatory


Ø  If they are using testing to harmonized standards as the means for issuing 
the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no use
Indeed it would be – but other options are available and the manufacturer may 
wish to consider them for legacy products and they don’t necessarily need to be 
re-tested.

Regards
Charlie


From: Ghery S. Pettit [mailto:n6...@comcast.net]
Sent: 19 October 2016 06:16
To: Charlie Blackham; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

How do you figure that?  If they are using testing to harmonized standards as 
the means for issuing the DoC, after 5 March 2017 EN 55022 is of no use.  
Anything placed on the market (not just manufactured) as of that date must have 
been evaluated against EN 55032.  To the original poster – it’s the date a 
product is placed on the market in the EU, not the date of manufacture.  If it 
takes a while for a product to get from manufacturing to the market you need to 
start a bit earlier.

Ghery

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 1:56 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

> What is not correct?

The statement
“Products leaving the factory after that must meet EN 55032”
Is not correct
There is no requirement for that anywhere.

Regards
Charlie

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 18 October 2016 21:50
To: Charlie Blackham; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

A simple, undefined assertion is of no value. What is not correct?

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:31 PM
To: John Woodgate mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com>>; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

Your previous comment…..

>From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
>Sent: 18 October 2016 18:24
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

>Yes, the docopocoss for EN 55022 is 5 March 2017. Products leaving the factory 
>after that must meet EN 55032.

…was simple, but it wasn’t correct

Regards
Charlie

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 18 October 2016 20:38
To: Charlie Blackham; 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

Mediaeval scholars used to answer any question by beginning with the Creation. 
I think that answers should be kept strictly simple and not explore the whole 
Universe.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates 
Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

Rajneesh

Please note, compliance with EN 55032 is not “required” after March 2017 any 
more than EN 55022 is “required” now – it might be heavily recommended, but it 
is not “required”.

A Harmonised Standard:

· Provides a presumption of Conformity with a Directive

· Is what market enforcement authorities “expect to see” (and is what I 
would typically recommend that you apply)


The legal requirement is to comply with the Directive and the Directive does 
provide more than one way to do that.

The other thing to note, is that a presumption of conformity is obtained when a 
Harmonised Standard is “applied” and not “tested against”.
You may find that an analysis of your test set-up and results allow you to make 
a technical justification that the product meets 55032, so you can “apply” the 
new standard without necessarily having to re-test

The responsibility remains with the manufacturer and not with the test lab – 
they should be expert at testing, but it is the manufacturer who must 
demonstrate compliance with the Directive.


Regards
Charlie

From: Rajneesh Raveendran [mailto:08500acb6cd4-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: 18 October 2016 17:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Working towards compliance as per the EN 55032

Hi All

For all our new programs, we would be testing for compliance as per the EN 
55032 standard. But i have one question about 

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[John Woodgate]

Ah, yes, I forgot about the new 18.2.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 9:04 AM
To: John Woodgate ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

>The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices to the 
>user – a 'shot in foot' result.

Article 18.2 2014/30/EC requires such a warning on the EUT itself if meant for 
Industrial

The EU is rather undecided -as John says- on what is "Industrial", or is it 
"Heavy Industrial"
and the generic standard for "heavy Industrial" refers to " Industrial" 
environment only, and even worse refers to the definition in CISPR11 for 
Industrial, a standard it is supposed to *guide* , instead to refer to.
But of course EN 61000-6-2 is written by Cenelec , not by the European 
Commission. A smart way of circular reasoning.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday 19 October 2016 09:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

I'm not unsure. Class A is for heavy industry, powered from MV or higher, with 
no broadcast receivers likely within 30 m.

The real difference between Europe and the Americas is that in Europe, there is 
a vain attempt to prohibit the use of Class A devices out of industrial areas, 
whereas in the Americas it is recognized that this can (fairly rarely) occur 
and requires the *user* to be warned accordingly.

The attempt to prohibit is vain because the *user* is not addressed by the 
legislation, and unless actual interference occurs, the transgression passes 
unnoticed. The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices 
to the user – a 'shot in foot' result.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

Thanks all – at least I am not the only one unsure. 

I am trying to establish a set of criteria that I can ask our engineers and 
marketers that will determine the classification. A decision tree, if you will. 
 This arose from a device that met the less stringent criteria, but not the 
more stringent and then what to do. To prevent the need to debate this topic 
over and over, I was hoping to establish a go forward approach.  Ideally, that 
approach would be “design for both industrial AND non-industrial and be done 
with it.” However, other factors are at play than just my druthers.

-Jamison

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

For Europe, the sources are the Generic standards, which are substantially 
consistent with CISPR 11.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

M

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices to the 
>user – a 'shot in foot' result.

Article 18.2 2014/30/EC requires such a warning on the EUT itself if meant for 
Industrial

The EU is rather undecided -as John says- on what is "Industrial", or is it 
"Heavy Industrial"
and the generic standard for "heavy Industrial" refers to " Industrial" 
environment only, and even worse refers to the definition in CISPR11 for 
Industrial, a standard it is supposed to *guide* , instead to refer to.
But of course EN 61000-6-2 is written by Cenelec , not by the European 
Commission. A smart way of circular reasoning.


Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
    - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
    - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
    - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
    - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing
+ Education

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information 
that is confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights 
and are intended for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial reproduction, communication or 
distribution in any form) by persons other than the designated 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and 
delete the material from any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday 19 October 2016 09:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

I'm not unsure. Class A is for heavy industry, powered from MV or higher, with 
no broadcast receivers likely within 30 m.

The real difference between Europe and the Americas is that in Europe, there is 
a vain attempt to prohibit the use of Class A devices out of industrial areas, 
whereas in the Americas it is recognized that this can (fairly rarely) occur 
and requires the *user* to be warned accordingly.

The attempt to prohibit is vain because the *user* is not addressed by the 
legislation, and unless actual interference occurs, the transgression passes 
unnoticed. The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices 
to the user – a 'shot in foot' result.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

Thanks all – at least I am not the only one unsure. 

I am trying to establish a set of criteria that I can ask our engineers and 
marketers that will determine the classification. A decision tree, if you will. 
 This arose from a device that met the less stringent criteria, but not the 
more stringent and then what to do. To prevent the need to debate this topic 
over and over, I was hoping to establish a go forward approach.  Ideally, that 
approach would be “design for both industrial AND non-industrial and be done 
with it.” However, other factors are at play than just my druthers.

-Jamison

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

For Europe, the sources are the Generic standards, which are substantially 
consistent with CISPR 11.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes

My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):

5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.

Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an

Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for EMC testing purposes

[John Woodgate]

I'm not unsure. Class A is for heavy industry, powered from MV or higher, with 
no broadcast receivers likely within 30 m.
 
The real difference between Europe and the Americas is that in Europe, there is 
a vain attempt to prohibit the use of Class A devices out of industrial areas, 
whereas in the Americas it is recognized that this can (fairly rarely) occur 
and requires the *user* to be warned accordingly.
 
The attempt to prohibit is vain because the *user* is not addressed by the 
legislation, and unless actual interference occurs, the transgression passes 
unnoticed. The 'prohibition' also results in no requirement for warning notices 
to the user – a 'shot in foot' result.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes
 
Thanks all – at least I am not the only one unsure. 
 
I am trying to establish a set of criteria that I can ask our engineers and 
marketers that will determine the classification. A decision tree, if you will. 
 This arose from a device that met the less stringent criteria, but not the 
more stringent and then what to do. To prevent the need to debate this topic 
over and over, I was hoping to establish a go forward approach.  Ideally, that 
approach would be “design for both industrial AND non-industrial and be done 
with it.” However, other factors are at play than just my druthers.
 
-Jamison
 
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes
 
For Europe, the sources are the Generic standards, which are substantially 
consistent with CISPR 11.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 

 www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Doug Nix [mailto:d...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Criteria for determining industrial vs. non-industrial for 
EMC testing purposes
 
My understanding has always been based on the Class and Group designations in 
CISPR 11 / EN 55011 for ISM equipment (based on the 2009 edition):
 
5.3 Division into classes
Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other 
than domestic and
those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies 
buildings used
for domestic purposes.
 
Class A equipment shall meet class A limits.
Warning: Class A equipment is intended for use in an industrial environment. In 
the
documentation for the user, a statement shall be included drawing attention to 
the fact that
there may be potential difficulties in ensuring electromagnetic compatibility 
in other
environments, due to conducted as well as radiated disturbances.
Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and 
in
establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which 
supplies
buildings used for domestic purposes.
Class B equipment shall meet class B limits.

The key in all of this is the source of power supply for the equipment. If the 
equipment is supplied from mains that are shared with domestic establishments, 
then it must meet Class B requirements IMO.
 
If the equipment is intended for industrial use, i.e., Class A, where the power 
supply from the mains is not shared with domestic establishments, then Class A 
performance is acceptable.
 
The deciding factor is the sharing of the supply with domestic establishments. 
If a location is fed from its own substation and there are no dwellings 
supplied from that substation, it’s an industrial location, and therefore Class 
A.
 
Doug Nix
d...@ieee.org  
+1 (519) 729-5704
 
On 18-Oct-16, at 08:44, Kortas, Jamison mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com> > wrote:
 
Good Morning,
 
What do you use for criteria when reviewing the intended environment in which a 
device will be placed to determine if it is industrial or non-industrial? I 
have seen and read varying opinions on what criteria to use.
 
It ranges from a transformer isolated factory to the nature of the other 
products in the immediate vicinity (a mechanical room in a grocery store = 
industrial due to the equipment in its immediate environment).