Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

We have an answer from UL508A for industrial panels but the question was, “ 
SCCR ratings on industrial machinery”

 

Perhaps it is the question that is the difficulty here.

 

Ralph

 

From: Bill Lawrence  
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 2:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Assume UL 508A

 

Marking is:

 



-Original Message-
From: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> >
Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM
To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> >
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Brian —

 

I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could 
network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say.  

Mike Sherman 

Sherman PSC LLC

On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

 

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

 

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 

 

SCCR: 10kA

 

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as

 

SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum

 

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  

 

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  

 

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  

 

Thanks again for your help.

The Other Brian

 

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote:

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Bill Lawrence]

Assume UL 508A

Marking is:


-Original Message-
From: MIKE SHERMAN 
Sent: May 15, 2024 10:38 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Brian 
 
I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could 
network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say.  


Mike Sherman 
Sherman PSC LLC
On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde  wrote:
 
 
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  
Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 
 
SCCR: 10kA
 
but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as
 
SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum
 
What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  
 
In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  
 
I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  
 
Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian
 


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
(mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org)> wrote:
Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org)> wrote:
 
Hi Brian:
 
See the very last line of:
 
https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
 
Best regards,
Rich
 
 
 
 
From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com)> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG)
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question


 
Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
 
The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
 
Ralph
 
From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com)> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG)
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 
Greetings to all.  
 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net (mailto:msherma...@comcast.net)
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org (mailto:linf...@ieee.org) 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org (mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org) 

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTCA=1 

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG) 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I suggest that John has “nailed it”, as he often does.

 

Ralph

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language problem 
and I think I can help with that, in the context of 'confusion'. The 'SSCR 
voltage' on the nameplate  actually means  'Minimum permitted value of the 
Maximum voltage of the SSCR'. Obviously those words are too long to put on the 
nameplate. In your case, obviously, the Max voltage of the SSCR must be at 
least 480 V if the motor is wired for 480 V operation, but could be lower if 
it's wired for a lower voltage. To document this, you  would need a BIG 
nameplate. Some standards allow a sign, usually a '!', to mean 'Refer to 
manual' or words to that effect, where you can put a full explanation.

On 2024-05-15 15:05, Brian Kunde wrote:

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

 

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 

 

SCCR: 10kA

 

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", 
such as

 

SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum

 

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max 
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate 
label?  We cannot find such a source.  

 

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR 
rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from 
the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To 
resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we 
do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  

 

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it 
is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  

 

Thanks again for your help.

The Other Brian

 

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote:

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial 
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over 
the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component 
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for 
the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, 
in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a 
nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

 

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[MIKE SHERMAN]

 
 
  
   Brian —
   
  
    
   
  
   I am equally mystified by qualifying an SCCR with a voltage. Perhaps you could network into a friendly UL 408a panel shop and see what they say. 
   
   
   
  
   Mike Sherman 
   
  
   Sherman PSC LLC
   
   
   
On 05/15/2024 9:05 AM -05 Brian Kunde  wrote:

   
 

   
 

   
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am seeking.  

  
 

 Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as 
 

  
 

 SCCR: 10kA
 

  
 

 but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max Voltage", such as
 

  
 

 SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum
 

  
 

 What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.  
 

  
 

 In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in the code or some standard.  
 

  
 

 I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.  
 

  
 

 Thanks again for your help.
 

 The Other Brian
 

  
 




 On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous <0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
 
 
 
  Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.
  
  
  
  
   On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
   
   

 
  
    
  Hi Brian: 
    
  See the very last line of: 
    
  https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf 
    
  Best regards, 
  Rich 
    
    
    
    
   

From: Ralph McDiarmid  Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question 

   
    
  Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the interrupting voltage is an important parameter? 
    
  The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type. 
    
  Ralph 
    
   
   From: Brian Kunde  Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question 
   
    
   
   Greetings to all.   

  


I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as; 


  


SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum 


  


Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of "Max 600V". 


  


Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac? 


  


Thanks for any replies. 


The Other Brian 


  


  

   
  
   
   
  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
  All emc-pstc postings are 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[John Woodgate]

I cant help you with a reference to a standard, but there is a language 
problem and I think I can help with that, in the context of 'confusion'. 
The 'SSCR voltage' on the nameplate  actually means  'Minimum permitted 
value of the Maximum voltage of the SSCR'. Obviously those words are too 
long to put on the nameplate. In your case, obviously, the Max voltage 
of the SSCR must be at least 480 V if the motor is wired for 480 V 
operation, but could be lower if it's wired for a lower voltage. To 
document this, you  would need a BIG nameplate. Some standards allow a 
sign, usually a '!', to mean 'Refer to manual' or words to that effect, 
where you can put a full explanation.


On 2024-05-15 15:05, Brian Kunde wrote:
I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am 
seeking.


Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as

*SCCR: 10kA*

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max 
Voltage", such as


*SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum*

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the 
Max Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the 
Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.


In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V 
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has 
a SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting 
push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR 
rating is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference 
to the Max Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it 
is mandated in the code or some standard.


I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. 
Maybe it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just 
guessing.


Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous 
<0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:


Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also
references UL 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of
determining SCCR for industrial control panels without test. The
method at a high level involves carrying over the SCCR rating of
the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective component
standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
been used for the machinery in question, with a component level
voltage rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end
device. Note that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its
definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

Hi Brian:

See the very last line of:


https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

Best regards,

Rich

*From:*Ralph McDiarmid 
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker
and so the interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information
an electrician needs during installation and selection of wire
size and type.

Ralph

*From:*Brian Kunde 
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

Greetings to all.

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery. The ratings
I have seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the
machine had a line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the
SCCR rating had a voltage rating of "Max 600V".

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can
operate at 600Vac?

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
(including how to unsubscribe)

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Brian Kunde]

I appreciate the replies, but I am not getting the information I am
seeking.

Some machines have just the SCCR Rating, such as

*SCCR: 10kA*

but a few machines we have looked at include a reference to the "Max
Voltage", such as

*SCCR: 10kA RMS Symmetrical, 480V Maximum*

What is the source, code, standard, directive, etc. that calls out the Max
Voltage as a requirement in the SCCR rating that is printed on the
Nameplate label?  We cannot find such a source.

In our case, we have a machine that can operate at 230V, 380V, or 480V
depending on how the motor is wired. So on a machine rated 230V it has a
SCCR rating that includes the Max Voltage of 480V.  We are getting
push-back from the field saying that having the voltage on the SCCR rating
is confusing. To resolve this, we want to remove the reference to the Max
Voltage, but before we do that, we want to find out if it is mandated in
the code or some standard.

I can see where the max voltage might be required on some components. Maybe
it is an old requirement that is no longer required.  I am just guessing.

Thanks again for your help.
The Other Brian


On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:54 PM Scott Aldous <
0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL
> 508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial
> control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying
> over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective
> component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
> been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage
> rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note
> that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian:
>>
>>
>>
>> See the very last line of:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>>
>>
>>
>> Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the
>> interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
>>
>>
>>
>> The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an
>> electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Brian Kunde 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings to all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have
>> seen sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;
>>
>>
>>
>> SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum
>>
>>
>>
>> Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a
>> line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage
>> rating of "Max 600V".
>>
>>
>>
>> Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at
>> 600Vac?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any replies.
>>
>> The Other Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
>> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>> 
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>> --
>>
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
>> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
>> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>> 
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list 

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Scott Aldous]

Starting on page 7, the white paper that Rich linked to also references UL
508A, supplement SB, which is a method of determining SCCR for industrial
control panels without test. The method at a high level involves carrying
over the SCCR rating of the "weakest link in the chain" from a protective
component standpoint to the overall panel. I wonder if that method may have
been used for the machinery in question, with a component level voltage
rating (improperly, in my opinion) shifted over to the end device. Note
that UL 508A includes "at a nominal voltage" in its definition of SCCR.

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:33 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> Hi Brian:
>
>
>
> See the very last line of:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ralph McDiarmid 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>
>
>
> Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the
> interrupting voltage is an important parameter?
>
>
>
> The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an
> electrician needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Kunde 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] SCCR Rating Question
>
>
>
> Greetings to all.
>
>
>
> I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen
> sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;
>
>
>
> SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum
>
>
>
> Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a
> line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage
> rating of "Max 600V".
>
>
>
> Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at
> 600Vac?
>
>
>
> Thanks for any replies.
>
> The Other Brian
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>


-- 
Scott Aldous | Regulatory Compliance Manager | scottald...@google.com |
650-253-1994 <(650)%20253-1994>

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Brian:

 

See the very last line of:

 

https://www.mouser.com/pdfDocs/littelfuse_industrial_whitepaper_increase_sccr.pdf

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid  
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Could this number to used to select a suitable circuit breaker and so the 
interrupting voltage is an important parameter?

 

The nameplate rating on the machine should be the information an electrician 
needs during installation and selection of wire size and type.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 11:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SCCR Rating Question

 

Greetings to all.  

 

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen 
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

 

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

 

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a line 
voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage rating of 
"Max 600V".

 

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at 600Vac?

 

Thanks for any replies.

The Other Brian

 

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] SCCR Rating Question

[Brian Kunde]

Greetings to all.

I am new to SCCR ratings on industrial machinery.  The ratings I have seen
sometimes has a "Maximum Voltage" included, such as;

SCCR: 22kA, 600V Maximum

Where does the voltage value come from?  In one case, the machine had a
line voltage rating of "120/208 Vac", but the SCCR rating had a voltage
rating of "Max 600V".

Can this be confusing? Might something think the machine can operate at
600Vac?

Thanks for any replies.
The Other Brian

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Glyn,

I understand that there should not be hazard in all expected situations 
(normal / abnormal use and fault condition) and USB cable is too short 
to consider transients.
What I am trying to do is to understand 62368-1 and reading it I came to 
5.4.11 that was hard for me to understand what are exact listed there 
requirements and if they touch my devices.


That laptop I described is an example of device that looks as being not 
excluded from 5.4.11, and USB is looking (for me) as being external 
circuits according to 62368-1 definition of this therm and being 
indicated in table 14.
The only way to solve this laptop problem, I see, is if we have to 
assume that the note in table 14 of not considering transients (as USB 
is wholly in the same building) makes USB being not indicated in table. 
When first time writing my question I was not sure if I can assume this. 
Now I suppose that I have to assume this (if transients are not taken 
into account than cable is not indicated in table 14).


The device I have in mind is 12V powered access controller hawing RS485 
(not isolated) and because of this RS485 I am trying to understand 5.4.11.

Now I suppose that:
1. It is permanently connected equipment so 5.4.11 not apply, and even 
it is not permanently connected (as being isolated from Mains by 12V 
supply) then
2. RS485 as being whole in one building (transients are not taken into 
account) is not indicated in table 14 so 5.4.11 not apply.


The typical 12V supply used (MEAN WELL DRC-40A) specification says:
  SAFETY STANDARDS:   UL60950-1, TUV EN60950-1 approved
  WITHSTAND VOLTAGE:    I/P-O/P:3KVAC I/P-FG:2KVAC O/P-FG:0.5KVAC

I always assumed that it is better to not Earth DC12V (its negative pole).
Reading 62368-2 5.4.11 description I confirm myself in this belief. Not 
Earthing 12V we not provide (by RS485) Earth potential to a remote 
environment making it being still save even if by any other fault the 
Mains potential can be there.

Do you agree with me?

Best Regards
Piotr Galka


W dniu 2024-05-10 o 17:26, Glyn Payne pisze:


Hi Piotr,

Maximum USB cable lengths are quite short, a few meters, and they are 
not designed to be part of the ‘building or structure’, hence 
transients are not considered for these ports. If a USB extender or 
hub is used to extend the USB and this is wired through the building 
or structure then transients would be the problem of the hub 
manufacturer and not your product.



There was/is /IEC 62368-//3/: /Safety aspects for DC power
transfer through communication cables and ports/, which is
referenced by IEC 62368-1 however this being reworked by TC108 and
as far as I can tell few people are using it in it’s present form.


When testing your product under 62368-1 the test house will
determine the maximum voltage and current the USB (or serial) port
can provide, under normal, abnormal and fault conditions, to
ensure that there is no hazard.


Best regards,


Glyn Payne

*From:*Piotr Galka 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11




You don't often get email from piotr.ga...@micromade.pl. Learn why 
this is important 




Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according 
to my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients 
in table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 
2 steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written 
answering to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish 
Standard Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as
circuit with transients. I think you should check other standard
like IEC 62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not
considered as external circuit in the sense of clause, where
requirements between external circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards

Bostjan

Poslano iz Outlook za Android 



*Od:* Piotr Galka 

*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Glyn Payne]

Hi Piotr,

Maximum USB cable lengths are quite short, a few meters, and they are not 
designed to be part of the ‘building or structure’, hence transients are not 
considered for these ports. If a USB extender or hub is used to extend the USB 
and this is wired through the building or structure then transients would be 
the problem of the hub manufacturer and not your product.

There was/is IEC 62368-3: Safety aspects for DC power transfer through 
communication cables and ports, which is referenced by IEC 62368-1 however this 
being reworked by TC108 and as far as I can tell few people are using it in 
it’s present form.
When testing your product under 62368-1 the test house will determine the 
maximum voltage and current the USB (or serial) port can provide, under normal, 
abnormal and fault conditions, to ensure that there is no hazard.

Best regards,
Glyn Payne

From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

You don't often get email from 
piotr.ga...@micromade.pl. Learn why this is 
important
Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: Piotr Galka 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11


Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Bill Owsley]

 I have been watching this subject for a while.
i vaguely recall that in some front matter in some standards is a statement 
that indicates that this is the minimum requirements to go to market.
 So in the interests of the Corp/s that I worked for at the time, and any 
quality targets, that they may have, or not, regardless of their awareness of 
such targets...
I often figured out tests that were needed/useful ... but maybe not required in 
the strict minimum requirements.
And reported the results.  
And fixes to meet those "not strictly required" minimum standards.
And did this early in the development process, thus EMC First,
First off product could ship !!!
And then I/they could spend time and money on cost reducing at our leisure.
Cuz product was shipping and bringing in revenue.
On time, or even early before plans.






 

On Thursday, May 9, 2024, 7:44:05 AM EDT, James Pawson (U3C) 
 wrote:  
 
 
Hi Piotr,

  

Just to add to the debate:

  

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients”

  

If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will call up a 
requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it explicit that this 
should be only for cables leaving a building or site, some do not…

  

All the best

James

  

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

  

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

  

www.unit3compliance.co.uk | ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

  

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times for testing 
and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

  

  

  

  

From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

  

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:


Hi Piotr

  

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

  

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

  

Did you also check 62368-2?

  

Best regards 

Bostjan

  

  

  

  

  

Poslano iz Outlook za Android

  

Od: Piotr Galka 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11





Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having 
all that in mind it is 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi James,

Thank you for drawing attention to this but my sentence was in context 
of 62368-1 only.


When in 2004 (few days after we joined EU) I went with my devices for 
the first time to EMC lab (it was an internal company laboratory that 
also offered external services) they didn't had a capacitors needed in 
surge testing transmission lines. So we tested them using only 40 ohm 
resistor. Since then I design my not isolated RS485 to withstand 25A 
50us current pulse (Surge generator loaded with 40ohm gives current 
pulse of a shape rather like its voltage pulse then its current pulse).
As I have encountered EMC problems in 90s (devices with RS485 having 
only ICs ESD protection routed between buildings standing on the top of 
hill were hanging after every storm) I was well prepared in 2004 and 
they were surprised that all my devices passed all the tests for the 
first time.


Regards
Piotr

W dniu 2024-05-09 o 13:43, James Pawson (U3C) pisze:


Hi Piotr,

Just to add to the debate:

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients”


If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will 
call up a requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it 
explicit that this should be only for cables leaving a building or 
site, some do not…


All the best

James

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

*Unit 3 Compliance Ltd*

*EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : 
Consultancy*


www.unit3compliance.co.uk  | 
ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 


+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

/Office hours:/

/Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects. I’m 
available/contactable between 1300h to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri./


/For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email 
on he...@unit3compliance.co.uk or call 01274 911747. Our lead times 
for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks./


*From:*Piotr Galka 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according 
to my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients 
in table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 
2 steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written 
answering to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish 
Standard Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as
circuit with transients. I think you should check other standard
like IEC 62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.

From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not
considered as external circuit in the sense of clause, where
requirements between external circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards

Bostjan

Poslano iz Outlook za Android 



*Od:*Piotr Galka 

*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

*Zadeva:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11



Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit
that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in
62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse,
keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from
mains
connected to laptop is 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Piotr,

 

Just to add to the debate:

 

“I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients”

 

If a cable is longer than 30m then most product EMC standards will call up a 
requirement for line-to-earth surge testing. Some do make it explicit that this 
should be only for cables leaving a building or site, some do not…

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk   or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

 

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered being 
without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says about circuits 
being external and indicated in table 14 and according to my understanding 
3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in table 14 for me didn't 
make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up to 50V 
temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 steps 
protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning struck directly 
into the building, many systems stopped working, but ours did.
I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering to 
Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard Committee offer.

Best regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

 

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

 

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

 

Did you also check 62368-2?

 

Best regards 

Bostjan

 

 

 

 

 

Poslano iz Outlook za Android  

 

  _  

Od: Piotr Galka   
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG    
 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11





Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having 
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is 
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building) 
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller 
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to 
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply 
has isolation in it.
If I 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Ralph and John,

62368-1 I have bought from PKN is in form "first and last page Polish 
and everything inside English".
I suppose they with pleasure will charge me for 62368-2 if I ask them 
for it. The only question is how much time is needed to prepare these 2 
pages.
As I remember from times when I was writing here from time to time - we 
came to conclusion that PKN prices were clearly lower then in other sources.


What I am surprised the most: Do really I (a guy from a company with 4 
employees) am the first one in Poland being interested in 62368-2 :)


Best Regards
Piotr Galka



W dniu 2024-05-08 o 23:07, Ralph McDiarmid pisze:

Signature

The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs.   Ouch.

*From:*John Woodgate 
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, 
but it is rather costly.


On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:

After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've
just checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy
62368-1 what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying





Virus-free.www.avg.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 EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 





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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Ralph McDiarmid]

The IEC store has IEC TR 62368-2:2019 RLV for 553 Swiss Francs.   Ouch.

 

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

 

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but it is 
rather costly.

On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:

After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just checked 
that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what I have done 
long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 


 

 

Virus-free. 

 www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

You can get 62368-2 from: https://www.evs.ee/en/iec-tr-62368-2-2019, but 
it is rather costly.


On 2024-05-08 21:00, Piotr Galka wrote:
After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just 
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 
what I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Bostjan,

I know that if circuit is not going out of building it is considered 
being without transients. My doubt is mainly because in 5.4.11 says 
about circuits being external and indicated in table 14 and according to 
my understanding 3.3.1.1 USB was external and note about transients in 
table 14 for me didn't make for me USB being not indicated in table.
In my RS485 design even it is in one building I assume during storm up 
to 50V temporary difference between several grounding points and I use 2 
steps protection. I know of two such incidents that after lightning 
struck directly into the building, many systems stopped working, but 
ours did.

I acknowledge that USB is not external circuit.
Thanks a lot.

I have never bought any standard abroad and as I have written answering 
to Johns post I see that 62368-2 is not in current Polish Standard 
Committee offer.


Best regards
Piotr Galka


W dniu 2024-05-08 o 18:45, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit 
with transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 
62151 and IEC 62102 which clasify external circuits.


From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered 
as external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between 
external circuit and PE are specified.


Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android 


*Od:* Piotr Galka 
*Poslano:* sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Zadeva:* Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
> Hi Piotr
>
> USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on 
USB. Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

>
> Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old 
times (analogue network, ISDN,...).

>
> I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.
>
> Best regards,
> Boštjan
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Piotr Galka 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.

>
>
> Trying to understand 62368-1...
>
> I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not 
excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.

> For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
> 2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 
'Any other conductors').
> The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for 
external circuits installed wholly within the same building is only 
about transients so I 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi John,

I hoped you will answer my question and I got important information from 
you. Thanks.


After reading your post my decision was to buy 62368-2 but I've just 
checked that in PKN (Polish Standards Committee) I can buy 62368-1 what 
I have done long ago but they don't have 62368-2 :( .


Even not seeing explanations the requirements should be so written that 
there should be no doubts when reading them. I really don't know how to 
read 3.3.1.1 to understand USB as internal, but I accept to understand 
it as internal.


This laptop and USB is an example that should help me to understand the 
standard and I think I got pointing in the right direction (I am using 
USB (desktop RFID card readers/writers, pen-drive like devices 
implementing crypto functions)).


Our access control devices accept 12 or 24V supply (I think 99% 
installations use 12V because such supplies/batteries are more popular). 
We use RS485 that we require the whole bus being in one building. We use 
Ethernet but when connecting many controllers to it the routers/switches 
also are close to them so we also specify that this connection have to 
be in one building.


Since 2020 we had very hard time because ATXmega microcontrollers (and 
also other ICs) we used disappeared from marked and we had to redesign 
all our products to the other IC that happened to be able to buy. The 
side effect is that all our CE declarations are outdated. I want to 
issue new ones. And because of this I want to understand 62368-1.


Best regards
Piotr Galka
P.S.
Note out of EMC-PSTC subject but connected with standards...
Recently my heart has been hurting because while the whole world is 
trying to save energy, we have been forced to issue readers that have 40 
to 400 times more energy consumption for RS485 transmission than our 
previous ones. And to not be eliminated from market we seriously think 
about doing the same change in all our devices. Standards are not 
mandatory, but if they are issued than market forces to use them. When I 
imagine how many RS485 busses work all the time all over the world...




W dniu 2024-05-08 o 17:52, John Woodgate pisze:


To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It 
includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised 
that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same 
document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors 
of a device are internal circuits. But are you actually using USB or 
are you mentioning it as an example? For your access controller 
connected to a 12V supply that is permanently connected to mains, the 
isolated low-voltage circuits in the 12 V supply equipment are 
internal circuits and are not subject to transients. Anything 
connected to the 12 V DC supply is ES1.


On 2024-05-08 16:21, Piotr Galka wrote:

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that 
is external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 
62368-1 but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know 
what is equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, 
keyboard) can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to 
connect other equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered 
separately from mains connected to laptop is understood as being 
internal part of equipment? Laptop is probably manufactured by 
someone else than laser printer. They can't assume they manufacture 
single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi 
antenna located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection 
length). Having all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 
62368-1 USB is equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access 
control controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also 
one equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one 
building) making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access 
controller permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently 
connected to mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. 
Even 12V supply has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 
12V supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Piotr

If circuit does not go out of building it is not considered as circuit with 
transients. I think you should check other standard like IEC 62151 and IEC 
62102 which clasify external circuits.

>From my experiences, and I do have quite some, USB is not considered as 
>external circuit in the sense of clause, where requirements between external 
>circuit and PE are specified.

Did you also check 62368-2?

Best regards
Bostjan





Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: Piotr Galka 
Poslano: sreda, maj 8, 2024 5:21:33 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard)
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment?
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is
equipment internal circuit.

Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building)
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?
I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.

Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:
> Hi Piotr
>
> USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
> Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.
>
> Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
> (analogue network, ISDN,...).
>
> I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.
>
> Best regards,
> Boštjan
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Piotr Galka 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> Trying to understand 62368-1...
>
> I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded 
> from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
> For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
> 2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
> conductors').
> The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
> circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients 
> so I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
> USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
> earthed, I think.
> Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
> this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
> I don't believe there is such requirement.
>
> My real problem to understand is as follows:
> Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
> (several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
> others).
> I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
> it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
> equipment or not?
> To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply 
> from mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so access 
> controller is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 says about 
> needing tools to disconnect from mains (if 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[John Woodgate]

To fully understand IEC 62368-1, you also need to read IEC 62368-2. It 
includes a long explanatory text about 5.4.11. The committee realised 
that it was not practicable to put all the explanations into the same 
document as the requirements. The circuits feeding the USB connectors of 
a device are internal circuits. But are you actually using USB or are 
you mentioning it as an example? For your access controller connected to 
a 12V supply that is permanently connected to mains, the isolated 
low-voltage circuits in the 12 V supply equipment are internal circuits 
and are not subject to transients. Anything connected to the 12 V DC 
supply is ES1.


On 2024-05-08 16:21, Piotr Galka wrote:

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that 
is external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 
62368-1 but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know 
what is equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, 
keyboard) can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to 
connect other equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered 
separately from mains connected to laptop is understood as being 
internal part of equipment? Laptop is probably manufactured by someone 
else than laser printer. They can't assume they manufacture single 
equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi 
antenna located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection 
length). Having all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 
62368-1 USB is equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one 
building) making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access 
controller permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently 
connected to mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. 
Even 12V supply has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 
12V supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on 
USB. Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.


Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old 
times (analogue network, ISDN,...).


I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.



Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not 
excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.

For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 
'Any other conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for 
external circuits installed wholly within the same building is only 
about transients so I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated 
in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB 
can be earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB 
port in this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?

I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other 
inputs (several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper 
inputs and others).

I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently 
connected equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V 
supply from mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it 
so access controller is not electrically connected to mains and 
3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to disconnect from mains (if 
something is not connected than tools are 

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Hi Bostjan,

Thanks for your feedback, but...

I am slowly and carefully reading 62368-1 for the first time.
It defines 'external circuit' in 3.3.1.1 as "electrical circuit that is 
external to the equipment and is not mains".
I assumed one device = one equipment so I thought laptop is an 
equipment. After your post I checked how equipment is defined in 62368-1 
but in 3.3 there is no equipment definition so I don't know what is 
equipment.
May be USB device (pendrive) connected without cable to laptop can be 
assumed being its part, or even device powered by USB (mouse, keyboard) 
can be assumed being its part, but USB can be used to connect other 
equipment, I think. Do laser printer being powered separately from mains 
connected to laptop is understood as being internal part of equipment? 
Laptop is probably manufactured by someone else than laser printer. They 
can't assume they manufacture single equipment, I think.
In past I have read about USB being used to connect active wifi antenna 
located on the roof (with few hubs to extend connection length). Having 
all that in mind it is hard for me to accept that for 62368-1 USB is 
equipment internal circuit.


Now.
If we assume laptop with connected to it mouse, external keyboard and 
printer is one equipment then going to my field: do the access control 
controller with RFID readers connected to it by RS485 is also one 
equipment (all powered from one 12V supply, and located in one building) 
making RS485 connection being internal equipment circuit?

I don't think so.

And I repeat my main question regarding 5.4.11: Do the access controller 
permanently connected to 12V supply that is permanently connected to 
mains is permanently connected equipment? I think yes. Even 12V supply 
has isolation in it.
If I change understanding of equipment and assume that controller + 12V 
supply are one equipment than thinks get easier - such understood 
equipment is permanently connected. But is it one equipment if 
controller is manufactured by someone other then 12V supply.


Best regards
Piotr Galka

W dniu 2024-05-07 o 19:49, Boštjan Glavič pisze:

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
(analogue network, ISDN,...).

I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded from 
5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients so 
I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
(several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
others).
I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply from 
mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so access controller 
is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to 
disconnect from mains (if something is not connected than tools are not needed 
to make it being disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for controller to be 
excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the same 
situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common to everyone.

What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts collected by my 
mail program for few years.

-

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 

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Lauren Crane]

Thanks for sharing this, Charlie.

Best Regards,
-Lauren

From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) 
Regulations 2024



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the "Report Phishing" button on the top right of 
Outlook.


UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking 
past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) 
Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 
December deadline.

The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 
(legislation.gov.uk)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential 
information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) 
is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are 
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this 
message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in 
error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 
Thank you.


Confidential - Limited Access and Use

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Piotr

USB circuit is internal circuit. There are no transients expected on USB. 
Clause 5.4.11 is not applicable for power supply with USB output.

Paired conductor is a telecommunication network that we had in old times 
(analogue network, ISDN,...).

I hope this helps. If you need more info, you can contact me.

Best regards,
Boštjan



-Original Message-
From: Piotr Galka  
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 5:40 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not excluded from 
5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any other 
conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for external 
circuits installed wholly within the same building is only about transients so 
I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB can be 
earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB port in 
this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?
I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other inputs 
(several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper inputs and 
others).
I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently connected 
equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V supply from 
mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so access controller 
is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 says about needing tools to 
disconnect from mains (if something is not connected than tools are not needed 
to make it being disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for controller to be 
excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the same 
situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common to everyone.

What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts collected by my 
mail program for few years.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] IEC 62368-1: To understand chapter 5.4.11

[Piotr Galka]

Trying to understand 62368-1...

I have got laptop with type A power supply so it looks being not 
excluded from 5.4.11 by rules in 5.4.11.1.
For me USB are external circuits indicated in Table 14, ID numbers 1 and 
2 (I think USB is 'Paired conductor', but even not it certainly is 'Any 
other conductors').
The note in Table 14 about not taking into account transients for 
external circuits installed wholly within the same building is only 
about transients so I think it doesn't make USB being not indicated in 
table.
USB cable can be used to connect laptop to printer and in printer USB 
can be earthed, I think.
Dos this means that according to first sentence of 5.4.11.2 each USB 
port in this laptop should be separated from its other USB ports?

I don't believe there is such requirement.

My real problem to understand is as follows:
Typical access controller have several not separated from each other 
inputs (several RFID reader inputs, door state control input, tamper 
inputs and others).
I need to understand if the access controller powered from (external to 
it) 12V DC buffered (= having accu in it) supply is permanently 
connected equipment or not?
To disconnect it from 12V supply you need tools, to disconnect 12V 
supply from mains you need tools, but 12V supply has isolation in it so 
access controller is not electrically connected to mains and 3.3.3.4 
says about needing tools to disconnect from mains (if something is not 
connected than tools are not needed to make it being disconnected, I think).
Being permanently connected equipment is the easiest way for controller 
to be excluded from 5.4.11.
But if it is not permanently connected than its inputs are in the same 
situation as laptop USB ports I described first as more common to everyone.


What I miss or wrongly understand?

Regards
Piotr Galka

P.S.
Last month free time I spend browsing about 2800 EMC-PSTC posts 
collected by my mail program for few years.


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] New Machinery Regulation and "emergency rescue"

[Lauren Crane]

Hello Experts,

As you are probably aware, the Machinery Regulation has a new criterion related 
to emergency rescue...

EHSR 1.6.2, paragraph 2 - "In the case of machinery or related products into 
which persons shall enter for operation, adjustment, maintenance or cleaning, 
the machinery accesses shall be dimensioned and adapted for the use of rescue 
equipment in such a way that an emergency rescue of the persons is possible."

I am wondering how this will tend to be interpreted. Any input would be 
welcome. I expect the Commission will provide some guidance but am not sure of 
their intended publication schedule. Is there already a machinery standard 
published, or other fairly authoritative guidance, that would illuminate the 
details?

Is there a standard set of rescue equipment that should be anticipated - such 
as minimum space for a rescue stretcher?

Of course, this seems to be close in concept to US EPA confined space concerns, 
but I am not yet certain it should be understood with that level of detail.


Best Regards,
Lauren Crane
Product Safety/Environmental Regulatory Compliance Specialist



LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any 
documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, 
"E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on 
the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential 
information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) 
is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are 
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this 
message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in 
error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original 
transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 
Thank you.


Confidential - Limited Access and Use

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Plywood

[Douglas Powell]

All,

I've been reviewing the UL 9540A fire test method, and a plywood sensor
wall is recommended: "19.05-mm (3/4-in) plywood installed on wood studs and
painted flat black."  But no grade of plywood is mentioned. In the past,
I've seen references to Grades A and B, but I assume this is a way of
minimizing voids and knots, usually for some form of ruggedness testing.
Does anyone know if plywood grade is standard practice at any of the
accredited test labs for UL 9540?

thanks!

-Doug

Douglas E Powell
Colorado, USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Arc Flash consultant

[Gary Tornquist]

Hello Experts,

I have a client who is seeking a consultant to review some equipment for DC
arc flash hazards.  Any takers or references?

 

Cheers,
Gary Tornquist 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Scott Xe]

Dear Charlie,

Appreciate your updates!!  What is the distance to become an official
legislation?

Currently, can we use the EU CE compliance DoC texts in UKCA DoC and bear
the UKCA mark on the product without re-test according to Designed
Standards and Approval Body cert?

Thanks and regards,

Scott


On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 16:09, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE
> Marking past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc.
> (Amendment) Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
> The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31
> December deadline.
>
>
>
> The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024
> (legislation.gov.uk)
> 
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Mead House*
>
> *Longwater Road*
>
> *Eversley*
>
> *RG27 0NW*
>
> *UK*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Email: **char...@sulisconsultants.com *
>
> *Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/  *
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
> --
>
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[John Woodgate]

Thank you.

On 2024-04-28 06:27, Boštjan Glavič wrote:

Hi John

After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not 
apply. However resistor need to comply with special requirements of 
Annex G.


See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have 
to simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate 
requirements



Similar as limited current circuit in 60950-1.


I hope this helps.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ Ljubljana


Poslano iz Outlook za Android 


*Od:* John Woodgate 
*Poslano:* sobota, april 27, 2024 4:18:41 PM
*Za:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Zadeva:* [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

*CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do 
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender 
and know the content is safe.



It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 
(Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances 
and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at 
a point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in 
series. Please advise.



--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

 
	Virus-free.www.avg.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 EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi John

After resistor you might have ES1 circuit and safety distances do not apply. 
However resistor need to comply with special requirements of Annex G.

See table 4 for ES1 limit for DC current. I think it is 2mA. You have to 
simulate short accross resistor unles resistor comply with searate requirements


Similar as limited current circuit in 60950-1.


I hope this helps.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ Ljubljana


Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: John Woodgate 
Poslano: sobota, april 27, 2024 4:18:41 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: [PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 (Edition 4) 
apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances and creepages 
short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at a point fed by a 1 kV 
DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in series. Please advise.


--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
 
Virus-free.www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Brian, for a rigorous determination of creepage and of clearance you need to
also determine and assign:

 

1.  Over-voltage Category ( affects Clearance )
2.  Pollution Degree  ( micro-environment affecting Creepage )
3.  Basic (simple separation) or Reinforced (protective separation)
boundaries (if the end-product standard distinguishes)

 

If you can determine that slots are needed to increase a creepage path
because of physical constraints, then the minimum allowable width of that
slot needs to be determined.  

 

The application of std UL840 is permitted as an alternative for the
determination of spacings, with some strings attached to the end-product
standard ( e.g. UL1741 referencing UL840)

 

It’s a long and winding, foggy road to follow when determining minimum
spacings for an electronic assembly.  Isolation planning, assignment of
working voltages (RMS and peak) across isolation boundaries is usually a
good first step.  

 

Your MOSFET lead spacing doesn’t need to follow PCB rules, but the PCB does.
You may need to measure distance between PCB pads for the device and if then
decide if those pads might need slots between them.

 

Ralph

 

From: Brian Gregory  
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] IEC 62368-1: clearance and creepage

[John Woodgate]

It isn't clear to me whether the requirements of 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 
(Edition 4) apply if the product remains safe with relevant clearances 
and creepages short-circuited (one at a time). The specific case is at a 
point fed by a 1 kV DC source behind two 4.7 megohm resistors in series. 
Please advise.



--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi Brian:

 

This does not answer your questions, but MAY give you an analysis tool:

 

CLEARANCE is standards name for AIR INSULATION.

 

CREEPAGE DISTANCE is standards name for DISTANCE ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SOLID
INSULATION.

 

Hope to meet you at the Symposium!

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[John Allen]

Thank you, Rich!

Over 240 have already registered for ISPCE 2024!  This is the place to be for 
all Product Safety and Certifications knowledge transfer and networking - 
https://2024.psessymposium.org/.

Best Regards and Be Safe,

John

John Allen | President & CEO | Product Safety Consulting, Inc.
Your Outsourced Compliance Department®
630-238-0188, Cell: 630-330-3145
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA980D.AF7CCF00][social_facebook_box_blue for 
signature][social_twitter_box_blue
 for signature][social_linkedin_box_blue for 
signature] 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVSzENmSoWeNFSBQcOYN7-A
www.productsafetyinc.com

IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
President 2024-2025
Compliance 101 Technical Committee Chairman
IEEE Senior Member

[cid:image005.png@01DA980D.AF7CCF00]
Keeping our members informed and educated on Product Safety and Certifications

https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/index.html

Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and 
any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software.  It is the 
responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free.  PSC does not 
accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way 
from its use.  This message is confidential and intended only for the 
individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the 
intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for 
delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is 
strictly prohibited.  If you believe that you have been sent this message in 
error, please do not read it.  Please immediately reply to sender that you have 
received this message in error.  Then permanently delete all copies of the 
message.
Thank you

From: Richard Nute 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:54 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the 
sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Brian:

You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the 
answers to these questions from experts.  Lots of experts in clearance and 
creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers!

Best regards,
Rich


From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions


1.  Clearances for US Safety:

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance 
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one 
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live 
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?
1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not 
"uninsulated"?

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 
600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For other 
components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the 
requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if 
the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support page for 
dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent 
contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance.

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, 
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

Thoughts?

Colorado Brian



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To 

Re: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Brian:

 

You should attend the IEEE PSES Symposium in Chicago next week to get the
answers to these questions from experts.  Lots of experts in clearance and
creepage will be there and will be happy to provide you with answers!

 

Best regards,

Rich

 

 

From: Brian Gregory [mailto:brian_greg...@netzero.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

 

 

1.  Clearances for US Safety:  

 

I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are so alike (identical Clearance
tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  Here's the question:

 

When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live components"  does one
measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or only from the live
components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole cap?

1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not
"uninsulated"?

 

2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components

 

A FET that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules
for 600V, is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For
other components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips
the requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or
not if the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support
page for dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to
prevent contamination that may compromise the components isolation
performance.

 

My gut says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB,
but could be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers.

 

Thoughts? 

 

Colorado Brian 

 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Couple of loosely related safety questions

[Brian Gregory]

 1.  Clearances for US Safety:   I'd cite the relevant standards, but they are 
so alike (identical Clearance tables), and so alike to UL 508, I'll defer.  
Here's the question: When citing clearance spacing from "uninsulated live 
components"  does one measure from the edge of a PCB to the enclosure well, or 
only from the live components, like a pad, or the bottom pin of a thru-hole 
cap?1a.  what sort of passivation or RTV could make those live components not 
"uninsulated"? 2.  Slots to increase creepage for high-voltage components A FET 
that's rated for say 600V does not have to follow PCB-creepage rules for 600V, 
is clearly stated places like UL 1741, §26.1.1 exception #8.  For other 
components, like say 1000V caps in 0805 packages or FET driver chips the 
requirements aren't as clear.  Is a slot needed to maintain creepage or not if 
the component is properly rated?  It does appear from a TI support page for 
dual-bridge converters, that slots are recommended in order to prevent 
contamination that may compromise the components isolation performance. My gut 
says:  no, slots are not needed between component terminals on a PCB, but could 
be recommended for sensitive parts, like FET drivers. Thoughts?  Colorado Brian

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Matthew Wilson | GBE]

In our experience purchasers/compliance officers in large retail organisations 
expect to explicitly see the RoHS amendment listed in the DoC text as per Mike 
writes below, because this ticks their box that the product has addressed the 
additional four substances the amendment was concerned with.  They may also 
want it to say ‘RoHS 3’ in the DoC and supporting documentation (technical 
file) too.

Hence a triumph of commercial requirements/persons with clipboards(!) to use 
colloquial terms and extra words over the actual obligation.  I gave up arguing 
and just did what they wanted, path of least resistance and all that!

Have had some other run ins with some retailers on some other things too that 
weren’t relevant to the product in question, but they wanted it declared none 
the less.  I won that one though   A story for my book for whenever I get to 
retirement age (probably never because the UK will be broke by then but I 
digress!)

Matthew Wilson,
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd.


Matthew WilsonMIET
Technical Director
GB Electronics (UK) Ltd
matthew.wil...@gbelectronics.com
www.gbelectronics.com
+44 (0) 1903 244 500
Ascot House|Mulberry Close|Woods Way
Goring-by-Sea|West Sussex|BN12 4QY|UK
Certificate Number 10455
​ISO 9001, ISO 14001
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed.
​If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system, do 
not use or disclose the information in any way and notify the sender 
immediately.
​The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the 
views of the company, unless specifically stated.
​
​GB Electronics (UK) Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales under 
number 06210991.
​Registered office: Ascot House Mulberry Close, Woods Way, Goring By Sea, West 
Sussex, BN12 4QY.
From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add the amendment, though I don’t 
recommend adding it, but since the amendment applies whether you like it or 
not, you don’t need to declare that you have applied it as it’s inherent in a 
declaration to 2011/65/EU.

The same goes for any exemptions you may have applied, or indeed have 
previously applied but have now expired.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: MIKE SHERMAN mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"

The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should 
mention both it and the 2011 directive.

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin 
mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> wrote:


I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?

>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
>Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
listed in the DoC.

Comments?

BR 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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Charlie Blackham]

I wouldn’t say that it was “wrong” to add the amendment, though I don’t 
recommend adding it, but since the amendment applies whether you like it or 
not, you don’t need to declare that you have applied it as it’s inherent in a 
declaration to 2011/65/EU.

The same goes for any exemptions you may have applied, or indeed have 
previously applied but have now expired.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: MIKE SHERMAN 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 2:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"

The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should 
mention both it and the 2011 directive.

Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC
On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin 
mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>> wrote:


I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?

From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
listed in the DoC.

Comments?

BR 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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[MIKE SHERMAN]

What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"
 
The 2015 amendment adds four substances to the original six, so you should 
mention both it and the 2011 directive.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin  wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
> DoC.
> 
> Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?
> 
>  
> 
> From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
> Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
> 
> As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
> listed in the DoC.
> 
>  
> 
> Comments?
> 
>  
> 
> BR 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 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>  
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net mailto:msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org mailto:linf...@ieee.org
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> 
> -
> 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Charlie Blackham]

Agreed, if you look at 
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/rohs-directive_en 
you see there have been many Commission Delegated Directives of which 2015/863 
is just one.
And also, 
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/restriction-use-certain-hazardous-substances-rohs_en
 cites only 2011/65/EU as the Directive for RoHS


Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Tom Smith 
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the current 
version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification, so there is 
no need to separately reference the amending documents.
Regards
Tom Smith, P.Eng
Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.
Tel: +1 403-612-6664
Email: tsm...@tjstechnical.com
http://tjstechnical.com
Compliance News Updates: https://corp.social/@TJS_Technical

From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the 
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?

>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated 
>Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be 
listed in the DoC.

Comments?

BR 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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
Virus-free.www.avast.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail 

Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Tom Smith]

The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the
current version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification,
so there is no need to separately reference the amending documents.

Regards

Tom Smith, P.Eng 

Principal Engineer
TJS Technical Services Inc.

Tel: +1 403-612-6664 

Email:   tsm...@tjstechnical.com 
  http://tjstechnical.com 

Compliance News Updates:  
https://corp.social/@TJS_Technical

 

From: Amund Westin  
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

 

I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the
DoC. 

Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct? 

 

>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated
Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU

As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be
listed in the DoC.

 

Comments?

 

BR 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
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive

[Amund Westin]

I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the
DoC. 

Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct? 

 

>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated
Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU

As I understand, 2011/65/EU is still in charge, and is the directive to be
listed in the DoC.

 

Comments?

 

BR 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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] UK The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

[Charlie Blackham]

UK has published draft legislation to allow continued acceptance of CE Marking 
past the end of 2024 in the "The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) 
Regulations 2024" along with an explanatory memorandum.
The law is due to come into force on 1st October ahead of the current 31 
December deadline.

The Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024 
(legislation.gov.uk)

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] UK

[Charlie Blackham]

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Mead House
Longwater Road
Eversley
RG27 0NW
UK
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Email: char...@sulisconsultants.com
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

[Bill Morse]

There are also minor differences if the product is installed in a gas-insulated 
substation, air-insulated substation, or a power station within 61000-6-5.

There is a fair amount of EMC standards that might be applicable to a device 
within a substation depending on the location of installation and function. If 
the product has a protection function, then the 60255-1, 26 might be applicable 
while protection communications might need 61850-3.

Bill

From: Charlie Blackham 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

[Caution - External]
Amund

There are a number of differences including:

  *   Zoning of different areas which then require different levels of tests 
against 61000-4-4; 61000-4-16 and 61000-4-18
  *   61000-4-8 Mag Field is 100 A/m continuous and 1000 A/m for 1 s (but only 
for equipment containing magnetically sensitive components)


You can read more for a few Euro at https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-61000-6-5-2015 
[evs.ee]

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ 
[sulisconsultants.com]
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Amund Westin mailto:am...@westin-emission.no>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 5:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2


IEC EN 61000-6-2, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-2: Generic 
standards - Immunity for industrial environments

IEC EN 61000-6-5, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-5: Generic 
standards - Immunity for equipment used in power station and substation 
environment





I'm quite familiar with IEC EN 61000-6-2 but have never tested or looked into 
IEC EN 61000-6-5.

If anyone who have knowledge about both standards and could shorty tell the 
main differences between these two?





Best regards

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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
[mail-archive.com]

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
[ewh.ieee.org]
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) 
[ewh.ieee.org]
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 
[ewh.ieee.org]

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
[listserv.ieee.org]



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
[mail-archive.com]

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 

[PSES] Conducted emissions test bench

[Brian Gregory]

  We're going to DIY a portable table for CE.  We won't have a dedicated space 
for it, so the table and ground plane will need to me ... portable.1.  How big 
must the test table be for normal FCC class B (CISPR 16, I think) conducted 
emissions, from  0.15 - 30 MHz?Same question for the ground plane.  We might 
have to be creative as our lab is already very cramped. Thanks, Colorado Brian

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

[Charlie Blackham]

Ralph

If you want to search EUR-Lex for other publications against a Directive, or 
earlier HS listings then a search such as 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/search.html?lang=en=2014%2F53%2FEU=1504346404330=quick=EURLEX=DD=desc
 could work for you (just replace "2014/53/EU" with the required Directive

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 6:06 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Hi Ralph,

Is this what you are looking for?

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards_en

Greetings,
Bart

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>>
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

Can someone provide a link to this list.  I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu 
website without success.

Ralph



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

[bart . de . geeter]

Hi Ralph,

 

For EMC you can follow this link :
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/51314

For LVD:  https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/57244

 

(this links directly to the summary .pdf files)

 

Greetings,

Bart

 

From: rmm.priv...@gmail.com  
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:14
To: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Thank you, Bart.  I'll try that link for EMC and LVD harmonized standards
listing.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ralph

 

From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be 
mailto:bart.de.gee...@telenet.be> > 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:06 AM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com  ;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Hi Ralph,

 

Is this what you are looking for?

 

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/
harmonised-standards_en

 

Greetings,

Bart

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>
> 
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Can someone provide a link to this list.  I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu
website without success.  

 

Ralph

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Thank you, Bart.  I'll try that link for EMC and LVD harmonized standards
listing.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ralph

 

From: bart.de.gee...@telenet.be  
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:06 AM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Hi Ralph,

 

Is this what you are looking for?

 

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/
harmonised-standards_en

 

Greetings,

Bart

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid mailto:rmm.priv...@gmail.com>
> 
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Can someone provide a link to this list.  I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu
website without success.  

 

Ralph

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

[bart . de . geeter]

Hi Ralph,

 

Is this what you are looking for?

 

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/european-standards/
harmonised-standards_en

 

Greetings,

Bart

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid  
Sent: woensdag 17 april 2024 19:04
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

 

Can someone provide a link to this list.  I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu
website without success.  

 

Ralph

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] OJEC list of harmonised standards

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Can someone provide a link to this list.  I have searched eur-lex.europa.eu
website without success.  

 

Ralph

 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

[Charlie Blackham]

Amund

There are a number of differences including:

  *   Zoning of different areas which then require different levels of tests 
against 61000-4-4; 61000-4-16 and 61000-4-18
  *   61000-4-8 Mag Field is 100 A/m continuous and 1000 A/m for 1 s (but only 
for equipment containing magnetically sensitive components)


You can read more for a few Euro at https://www.evs.ee/en/evs-en-61000-6-5-2015

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 5:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2


IEC EN 61000-6-2, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-2: Generic 
standards - Immunity for industrial environments

IEC EN 61000-6-5, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-5: Generic 
standards - Immunity for equipment used in power station and substation 
environment





I'm quite familiar with IEC EN 61000-6-2 but have never tested or looked into 
IEC EN 61000-6-5.

If anyone who have knowledge about both standards and could shorty tell the 
main differences between these two?





Best regards

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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] IEC 61000-6-5 vs. IEC 61000-6-2

[Amund Westin]

IEC EN 61000-6-2, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-2: Generic
standards - Immunity for industrial environments

IEC EN 61000-6-5, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 6-5: Generic
standards - Immunity for equipment used in power station and substation
environment

 

 

I'm quite familiar with IEC EN 61000-6-2 but have never tested or looked
into IEC EN 61000-6-5. 

If anyone who have knowledge about both standards and could shorty tell the
main differences between these two?

 

 

Best regards

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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Bill Owsley]

 All the test labs I have used have a qualifier that the results are only for 
the specimen/s submitted.
As the manufacturer, I provide the rational to include in the test report for 
the configuration/s submitted.
For about 4 decades, a minimum and a maximum configs have sufficed.
ps.  If the marketing model number changes for various configs, that generally 
gets a some degree of testing with notes added to test report to explain the 
differences and commonalities, and the front page gets modified that the test 
report covers these additional models.

On Friday, April 12, 2024, 2:59:06 PM EDT, Lauren Crane 
<1afd08519f18-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 
I think one could postulate a worst case hardware/software combination, but it 
would have to be well defended in text along the lines of “no other 
configuration could be worst case because…” followed by a discussion of the 
physical aspects of the other configurations and what they imply, based on 
‘first principles’, regarding emissions and susceptibility. Even then, if there 
are many configurations (e.g., more than 5?), it would be wise to test a one or 
two for which your written hypothesis might be less certain.
 
  
 
The EMCD guidelines (19 Dec 2018) seem to me to be accepting of this idea…
 
  

   - “The EMC assessment needs to take into account all normal intended 
operating conditions of the apparatus. In cases where the apparatus can take 
different configurations, the electromagnetic compatibility assessment must 
confirm that the apparatus meets the essential requirements, “in all possible 
configurations identified by the manufacturer as representative of its intended 
use”[quoting Annex II.2]”.
   - “Where apparatus can take different configurations, the EMC assessment 
shall confirm that the apparatus meets the essential requirements in all of the 
configurations foreseeable by the manufacturer as representative of normal use 
in intended applications.The manufacturer is responsible for identifying the 
possible configurations and the choice of the worst case(s). The use of the 
worst case approach needs to be documented in the technical documentation”[35]. 
[35]=” Within the immunity and emission phenomena to be covered, different 
worst case selections may occur (because of non-related phenomena). This may 
increase the number of cases to be investigated “
 

 
Note particularly - the guide highlights the obligation of deciding worst case 
is placed on the manufacturer. If you provide them some guidance but remind 
them the decision of testing fewer or more of the configurations rests with 
them, they may have a softer attitude towards more testing.  
 
  
 
Best regards, 
 
-Lauren
 

Confidential – Limited Access and Use


From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
 
  
 
| 
 
  | 
External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachmentsunless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the “Report Phishing” button on the top right of 
Outlook.
  |


 
 
The usual response is that it depends...
 
More 'light' reading !  To start !
 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/32-KDB-996369-Modules-TCB_Oct_2023.pdf
 
  
 
  
 
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 5:22:12 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote: 
 
  
 
  
 
Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong 
disagreement with some statements here.
 
  
 
Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t 
test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any 
proficiency can make an educated decision as to what would be the worst case, 
further, if one can’t do that you shouldn’t probably be in EMC Engineering. Is 
the old saying from school days “ You should have an idea of the answer before 
doing the problem “ no longer stressed in school!
 
  
 
The back reference to Boeing is utter BS, sorry Gert, but as someone who 
contracts for Boeing I take a very strong exception to that ridiculous 
statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between a poor quality 
subcontractor and the EMC performance of an EUT. It may be true for airbus, but 
leave my Boeing alone please.
 
  
 
Back to the problem at hand, and serious answers only please.
 
  
 
At what point(s) does one draw the line eliminating the need for testing 
similar designs.
 
  
 
Thanks in advance,
 
  
 
Derek Walton.
 



 

On Apr 6, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Gert Gremmen F4LDP  wrote:
 
  
 

Dear All,

Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if 
you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case is a 
"miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Lauren Crane]

I think one could postulate a worst case hardware/software combination, but it 
would have to be well defended in text along the lines of “no other 
configuration could be worst case because…” followed by a discussion of the 
physical aspects of the other configurations and what they imply, based on 
‘first principles’, regarding emissions and susceptibility. Even then, if there 
are many configurations (e.g., more than 5?), it would be wise to test a one or 
two for which your written hypothesis might be less certain.

The EMCD guidelines (19 Dec 2018) seem to me to be accepting of this idea…


  *   “The EMC assessment needs to take into account all normal intended 
operating conditions of the apparatus. In cases where the apparatus can take 
different configurations, the electromagnetic compatibility assessment must 
confirm that the apparatus meets the essential requirements, “in all possible 
configurations identified by the manufacturer as representative of its intended 
use”[quoting Annex II.2]”.
  *   “Where apparatus can take different configurations, the EMC assessment 
shall confirm that the apparatus meets the essential requirements in all of the 
configurations foreseeable by the manufacturer as representative of normal use 
in intended applications. The manufacturer is responsible for identifying the 
possible configurations and the choice of the worst case(s). The use of the 
worst case approach needs to be documented in the technical documentation”[35]. 
[35]=” Within the immunity and emission phenomena to be covered, different 
worst case selections may occur (because of non-related phenomena). This may 
increase the number of cases to be investigated “
Note particularly - the guide highlights the obligation of deciding worst case 
is placed on the manufacturer. If you provide them some guidance but remind 
them the decision of testing fewer or more of the configurations rests with 
them, they may have a softer attitude towards more testing.

Best regards,
-Lauren


Confidential – Limited Access and Use
From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the “Report Phishing” button on the top right of 
Outlook.


The usual response is that it depends...
More 'light' reading !  To start !
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/32-KDB-996369-Modules-TCB_Oct_2023.pdf


On Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 5:22:12 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
 wrote:


Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong 
disagreement with some statements here.

Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t 
test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any 
proficiency can make an educated decision as to what would be the worst case, 
further, if one can’t do that you shouldn’t probably be in EMC Engineering. Is 
the old saying from school days “ You should have an idea of the answer before 
doing the problem “ no longer stressed in school!

The back reference to Boeing is utter BS, sorry Gert, but as someone who 
contracts for Boeing I take a very strong exception to that ridiculous 
statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between a poor quality 
subcontractor and the EMC performance of an EUT. It may be true for airbus, but 
leave my Boeing alone please.

Back to the problem at hand, and serious answers only please.

At what point(s) does one draw the line eliminating the need for testing 
similar designs.

Thanks in advance,

Derek Walton.


On Apr 6, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Gert Gremmen F4LDP 
mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl>> wrote:

Dear All,

Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if 
you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case is a 
"miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is informative but the 
radiated emission test contains already a pre-scan (peak) for the final 
QP-measurement.  We already require a EMC risk analysis which is a kind of 
pre-scan too. How many pre-pre-prescans will we need to be sure ?
"to repeat some (which?) test to make sure nothing was broken" it's another 
discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a door in flight. And that  is not a 
unregulated sector without thorough quality scans (understatement), and still 
it happens. Imagine the costs and effort for Boeing to rebuild their reputation 
? Didn't we all learned the exponential graph of EMC costs versus development 
time ?
If you need proof (for authorities, or for 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Bill Owsley]

 The usual response is that it depends...
More 'light' reading !  To start !
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/32-KDB-996369-Modules-TCB_Oct_2023.pdf

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 5:22:12 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong 
disagreement with some statements here.
Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t 
test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any 
proficiency can make an educated decision as to what would be the worst case, 
further, if one can’t do that you shouldn’t probably be in EMC Engineering. Is 
the old saying from school days “ You should have an idea of the answer before 
doing the problem “ no longer stressed in school!
The back reference to Boeing is utter BS, sorry Gert, but as someone who 
contracts for Boeing I take a very strong exception to that ridiculous 
statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between a poor quality 
subcontractor and the EMC performance of an EUT. It may be true for airbus, but 
leave my Boeing alone please.
Back to the problem at hand, and serious answers only please.
At what point(s) does one draw the line eliminating the need for testing 
similar designs.
Thanks in advance,
Derek Walton.


On Apr 6, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Gert Gremmen F4LDP  wrote:
 
 Dear All,
 
 Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if 
you choose to actually test, 
 all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case is a 
"miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
 is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is informative but 
the radiated emission test contains already a pre-scan (peak) for the final 
QP-measurement.  We already require a EMC risk analysis which is a kind of 
pre-scan too. How many pre-pre-prescans will we need to be sure ?
 "to repeat some (which?) test to make sure nothing was broken" it's 
another discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a door in flight. And that  is 
not a unregulated sector without thorough quality scans (understatement), and 
still it happens. Imagine the costs and effort for Boeing to rebuild their 
reputation ? Didn't we all learned the exponential graph of EMC costs versus 
development time ?
 If you need proof (for authorities, or for yourself), nothing can replace the 
actual test. 
 
 Gert Gremmen
 
 On 6-4-2024 0:47, Lfresearch wrote:
  
 Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
 
 
 -- 
Independent Expert on CE marking 
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org

 To 

[PSES] Fw: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brian Gregory]

  Just finished some testing at an accredited lab.  For an accredited report, 
they run QPs on all measurements whose peak are w/in 6 dB of the limit.  I 
don't know if that's their rule, or by the regulations.  FYI Colorado Brian
-- Forwarded Message --
From: Bill Owsley <00f5a03f18eb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 06:19:10 +


 It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by 
how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 
points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and graph 
shows that.
Now to get lab to show a continuous graph for radiated emissions might be a 
problem.
Easier to get a new lab !
Some cheap labs will fake a continuous plot by connecting the highest dots.  
Run from them !
Long details on the experience that I got.


 On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:33:01 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  Hello PSES brain 
trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Mark
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website:  
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
 Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
 List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
 Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
 Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Lfresearch]

Sorry for the late reply, but I did feel the need to express strong disagreement with some statements here.Lets take there first one: how will you know which is worst case if you don’t test. Seriously? I would answer this by saying that an EMC engineer with any proficiency can make an educated decision as to what would be the worst case, further, if one can’t do that you shouldn’t probably be in EMC Engineering. Is the old saying from school days “ You should have an idea of the answer before doing the problem “ no longer stressed in school!The back reference to Boeing is utter BS, sorry Gert, but as someone who contracts for Boeing I take a very strong exception to that ridiculous statement. There is absolutely NO correlation between a poor quality subcontractor and the EMC performance of an EUT. It may be true for airbus, but leave my Boeing alone please.Back to the problem at hand, and serious answers only please.At what point(s) does one draw the line eliminating the need for testing similar designs.Thanks in advance,Derek Walton.On Apr 6, 2024, at 7:55 AM, Gert Gremmen F4LDP  wrote:

  

  
  
Dear All,

Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be
conform, so if you choose to actually test, 
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse
case is a "miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is
informative but the radiated emission test contains already a
pre-scan (peak) for the final QP-measurement.  We already require a
EMC risk analysis which is a kind of pre-scan too. How many
pre-pre-prescans will we need to be sure ?
"to repeat some (which?) test to make sure nothing was
broken" it's another discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a
door in flight. And that  is not a unregulated sector without
thorough quality scans (understatement), and still it happens.
Imagine the costs and effort for Boeing to rebuild their reputation
? Didn't we all learned the exponential graph of EMC costs versus
development time ?
If you need proof (for authorities, or for yourself), nothing can
replace the actual test. 

Gert Gremmen

On 6-4-2024 0:47, Lfresearch wrote:


  Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



-- 
Independent Expert on CE marking 
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant
  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford  at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org


 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Gert Gremmen
N:Gremmen;Gert;;;
ADR:;;1261 Route de 

Re: [PSES] RFID testing per AIM 7351731

[doug emcesd.com]

Try NTS Fremont or Intertek.

Doug Smith
Sent from my iPhone
IPhone: 408-858-4528
Office: 702-570-6108
Email: d...@dsmith.org
Website: http://dsmith.org

From: AOL MAIL 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:57:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: [PSES] RFID testing per AIM 7351731

Hi folks,

May I get recommendations for EMC lab in Bay Area (or West Coast) which is 
certified for testing RFID per AIM 7351731?

Appreciate any advice.

Thank you,
Eugene Peyzner

Fresenius Medical care


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 

Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

[John Woodgate]

Clause F.1 of 62368-1 says:

/Unless symbols are used, safety related equipment marking, instructions 
and instructional

safeguards shall be in a language accepted in the respective countries./

No doubt Germany expects German.

On 2024-04-10 17:10, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Rick

I’m not expert on GS certification but Low Voltage Directive Article 6 
required safety instructions to be in a suitable language


7. Manufacturers shall ensure that the electrical equipment is 
accompanied by instructions and safety information in a language which 
can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users, as 
determined by the Member State concerned. Such instructions and safety 
information, as well as any labelling, shall be clear, understandable 
and intelligible.


There’s a similar requirement in RED article 10 and I’m not sure 
whether this document has been published for other Directives, but 
ADCO RED have published “National language requirements of the 
national implementation of the Radio Equipment Directive (RED 
2014/53/EU)” , https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46453


Best regards

Charlie**

**

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/ *

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*Rick Linford 
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:53 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and 
Nordic for (GS) ?


Dear EMC-PSTC Pros,

Specific to ITE IEC 62368-1 type standards and German GS 
certification. (many power supplies and ITE product carry GS mark)


Is German language required on products to match the text of other 
countries requirement to obtain German GS?


And (not or) add a statement that non-German text is not important to 
Germany?


China elevation and humidity waring is written into law and is very 
clear. Is there an equivalent German law and or specific German text?


仅适用于海拔2000米以下地区安全使用

仅适用于在非热带气候条件下安全使用

Nordic countries grounded plug warning, is specific to national 
differences in IEC 62368-1. I cannot find German equivalent in IEC 
62368-1:2014, is it there?


Apparaten skall anslutas till jordat uttag.

Apparatet må tilkoples jordet stikkontakt.

Laite on liitettävä suojamaadoituskoskettimilla varustettuun pistorasiaan.

Standard does state to provide safety information and instruction in 
language of use and there is German law it must be in German. This has 
been the case for decades.


A recent GS certification was held up until compliance with adding 
text.  They are marking other countries requirements de facto German 
GS requirement. Already aware German GS is not a legal requirement and 
there many GS issuers. I would have expected PSTC to be lit up 
already, if this was a requirement applied to every manufacturer of 
ITE and AV with GS. Starts now, I guess.


I am representing myself. I am not asking for any past, current or 
future employer.


Linford@IEEE



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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 





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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC 

Re: [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

[Charlie Blackham]

Rick

I’m not expert on GS certification but Low Voltage Directive Article 6 required 
safety instructions to be in a suitable language

7. Manufacturers shall ensure that the electrical equipment is accompanied by 
instructions and safety information in a language which can be easily 
understood by consumers and other end-users, as determined by the Member State 
concerned. Such instructions and safety information, as well as any labelling, 
shall be clear, understandable and intelligible.

There’s a similar requirement in RED article 10 and I’m not sure whether this 
document has been published for other Directives, but ADCO RED have published 
“National language requirements of the national implementation of the Radio 
Equipment Directive (RED 2014/53/EU)” , 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46453

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Rick Linford 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for 
(GS) ?

Dear EMC-PSTC Pros,

Specific to ITE IEC 62368-1 type standards and German GS certification. (many 
power supplies and ITE product carry GS mark)
Is German language required on products to match the text of other countries 
requirement to obtain German GS?
And (not or) add a statement that non-German text is not important to Germany?

China elevation and humidity waring is written into law and is very clear. Is 
there an equivalent German law and or specific German text?
仅适用于海拔2000米以下地区安全使用
仅适用于在非热带气候条件下安全使用

Nordic countries grounded plug warning, is specific to national differences in 
IEC 62368-1. I cannot find German equivalent in IEC 62368-1:2014, is it there?
Apparaten skall anslutas till jordat uttag.
Apparatet må tilkoples jordet stikkontakt.
Laite on liitettävä suojamaadoituskoskettimilla varustettuun pistorasiaan.

Standard does state to provide safety information and instruction in language 
of use and there is German law it must be in German. This has been the case for 
decades.

A recent GS certification was held up until compliance with adding text.  They 
are marking other countries requirements de facto German GS requirement. 
Already aware German GS is not a legal requirement and there many GS issuers. I 
would have expected PSTC to be lit up already, if this was a requirement 
applied to every manufacturer of ITE and AV with GS. Starts now, I guess.

I am representing myself. I am not asking for any past, current or future 
employer.
Linford@IEEE


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] RFID testing per AIM 7351731

[AOL MAIL]

Hi folks,
May I get recommendations for EMC lab in Bay Area (or West Coast) which is 
certified for testing RFID per AIM 7351731? 
Appreciate any advice.
Thank you,Eugene Peyzner
Fresenius Medical care

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] German Required on Product Label to Match China and Nordic for (GS) ?

[Rick Linford]

Dear EMC-PSTC Pros,



Specific to ITE IEC 62368-1 type standards and German GS certification.
(many power supplies and ITE product carry GS mark)

Is German language required on products to match the text of other
countries requirement to obtain German GS?

And (not or) add a statement that non-German text is not important to
Germany?



China elevation and humidity waring is written into law and is very clear.
Is there an equivalent German law and or specific German text?

仅适用于海拔2000米以下地区安全使用

仅适用于在非热带气候条件下安全使用



Nordic countries grounded plug warning, is specific to national differences
in IEC 62368-1. I cannot find German equivalent in IEC 62368-1:2014, is it
there?

Apparaten skall anslutas till jordat uttag.

Apparatet må tilkoples jordet stikkontakt.

Laite on liitettävä suojamaadoituskoskettimilla varustettuun pistorasiaan.



Standard does state to provide safety information and instruction in
language of use and there is German law it must be in German. This has been
the case for decades.



A recent GS certification was held up until compliance with adding text.
They are marking other countries requirements de facto German GS
requirement. Already aware German GS is not a legal requirement and there
many GS issuers. I would have expected PSTC to be lit up already, if this
was a requirement applied to every manufacturer of ITE and AV with GS.
Starts now, I guess.


I am representing myself. I am not asking for any past, current or future
employer.
Linford@IEEE

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[James Pawson (U3C)]

I once tried to do a “worst case” analysis and decided that worst would be 
testing the HDMI output on the product we had designed at the highest 
resolution = highest frequency = biggest problem. I ran all our pre-compliance 
work at this frequency and neglected to check any other resolutions.

 

When we came close to lab time, prompted by my then manager, I checked other 
lower frequency, lower risk (surely?) resolutions and found that the second 
highest frequency was exciting an unintentional resonance in the product and 
the emissions were 6dB higher (just over the limit).

 

However, in our experience of testing a lot of different products, 9 times out 
of 10 it is the more complex configuration that is more likely to have the 
problems, mostly because this has a bigger surface area for risk due to the 
variety of circuits.

 

I like that phrase that “EMC is all about what isn’t on the schematics” i.e. 
the unintended performance. You really don’t know until you test.

 

I would agree with the other voices on here to use pre-compliance testing to 
establish the actual worst case if in any doubt.

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk |  
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

Office hours:

Every morning my full attention is on consultancy, testing, and troubleshooting 
activities for our customers’ projects. I’m available/contactable between 1300h 
to 1730h Mon/Tue/Thurs/Fri.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk   or call 01274 
911747. Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

 

 

 

From: Gert Gremmen F4LDP  
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

 

Dear All,

Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, so if 
you choose to actually test, 
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case is a 
"miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is informative but the 
radiated emission test contains already a pre-scan (peak) for the final 
QP-measurement.  We already require a EMC risk analysis which is a kind of 
pre-scan too. How many pre-pre-prescans will we need to be sure ?
"to repeat some (which?) test to make sure nothing was broken" it's another 
discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a door in flight. And that  is not a 
unregulated sector without thorough quality scans (understatement), and still 
it happens. Imagine the costs and effort for Boeing to rebuild their reputation 
? Didn't we all learned the exponential graph of EMC costs versus development 
time ?
If you need proof (for authorities, or for yourself), nothing can replace the 
actual test. 

Gert Gremmen

On 6-4-2024 0:47, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,
 
I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…
 
So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.
 
So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?
 
Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?
 
Off list responses are welcome too.
 
Thanks,
 
Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
 
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org  
 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:    

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Bill Owsley]

 It reads like there are two limits, peak and QP.  Go over either one and by 
how many and by how much over, does not matter.  it is a fail and fix it.
Otherwise, the lab should be recording the 6 points of each P and QP for 12 
points, well,  let the slide if all points are below the QP limit and graph 
shows that.
Now to get lab to show a continuous graph for radiated emissions might be a 
problem.
Easier to get a new lab !
Some cheap labs will fake a continuous plot by connecting the highest dots.  
Run from them !
Long details on the experience that I got.



On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:33:01 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
  
Hello PSES brain trust,
 
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 
 
“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”
 
  
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
 
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
 
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Bill Owsley]

 generally, 2 limits, QP and P which is 20 db above QP.  Gotta meet both.  
Unless the P is so infrequent as to call it a Click.  Which I would not to want 
a challenge over.
On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 03:53:43 PM EDT, Stultz, Mark 
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 
Hi Larry,
 
  
 
I agree with you completely…I think the lab didn’t see that peak going over the 
limit line and therefore didn’t QP.  We only noticed now that they have sent 
the report several weeks later.  They’re arguing that there is no need to 
retest.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
  
 
  
 
From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
 
  
 
|  | 
You don't often get email fromla...@complianceworldwide.com.Learn why this is 
important
  |  |


  
 
 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.
 
  
 
Mark,
 
  
 
If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn’t you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.
 
  
 
I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn’t know by how much.
 
  
 
Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn’t support that? We’re old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).
 
  
 
Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
 
  
 
From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?
 
  
 
Hello PSES brain trust,
 
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked? 
 
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 
 
“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”
 
  
 
We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
 
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
 
Any thoughts are appreciated.
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
Mark
 
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 
toemc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 
 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
 
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
 
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
 
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 ps.  Old knowledge from old prior career experiences.
I use arc welding cables for connections, not 4 ga wire that takes a pipe 
bender to work into place.
Welding cables, are multi wire, and that means "multi" with a capital.
Very flexible and capable of very high amps.  It is for arc welding and 
flexible use !


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:10:22 PM EDT, Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is 
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral 
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.
In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test these, I use a 3 
phase LISN rather than 3 individual LISN’s. It’s crazy to split the power cord 
to reach the mains terminal on each LISN.
Take care listening to sales guys….
My 10 cents,
Derek.


On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.  Current rating is 
whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers offering models 
designed for up to 16 A.   --   Ken JavorPh: (256) 650-5261     Hello and Happy 
Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 
3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 
50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but 
I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian From: Brian 
Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?  This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGAll emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on 
the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/Website: 
https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.htmlFor help, send mail to 
the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: Linford@ieee.orgFor policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bacher@ieee.orgTo unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click 
the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at:  j.bac...@ieee.org

 To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
  

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Bill Owsley]

 Long ago, the company had the budget, so we bought single phase for each line.
Thinking that we did not want any cross talk interference, which we had already 
experienced in the real world.
Then we also had built the various configurations for supply power that we 
used.  
In essence measuring sources and load responses !

Sales people, good for prices only.  cannot even get dimensions right.


On Friday, April 5, 2024 at 09:43:31 PM EDT, T.Sato  
wrote:  
 
 On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT 
>needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only 
>slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone 
>remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 
>(one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
  

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Bill Owsley]

 we had a pre-compliance chamber, well correlated to compliance labs.
so our inside pre-compliance testing is easy.  a bit of capital to get there.
We make quick scan on about every variation to get idea of the worst.
Then the rest of our attention is on the version.
Our goal is not detectable, but running in the double KW range, we often find 
some higher freq emissions.
At least a 6 dB margin, preferably more, undetectable is goal.
Once Japan called us on a violation around 5.8 GHz.
They used peak hold over time.  We could not believe it, but yes peak hold 
overnight in a reverb chamber found the emissions. 
QP and average were near zero, except we knew what we were looking for.
Turns out the Japan authorities, or their contractors, did not know how to run 
the instruments nor what the standards required.  And so were a bit difficult 
to deal with.
After a few months of back and forth, a comment came back that after new 
testing, there is no concern.
Mexico was much easier !
Except that all their hires were fresh out of school, so it seemed.
A couple of months to coach them, and everything aligned !
ps. these are old stories, but get refreshed from the to time with new 
occurrences.


On Sunday, April 7, 2024 at 03:57:50 PM EDT, David Schaefer 
<12867effceb4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:  
 
 
For EMC if the concern is emissions it would be easy to do some quick scans – 
10 minutes on a peak run for each model would give you data to compare against 
each other to see how much the emissions profile changes due to the 
modifications. Immunity would take longer but the manufacturer should be able 
to do an engineering analysis and see what might make sense/
 
  
 
For radios it is significantly different. Certification of a product for FCC 
only applies to the product in the report and identical models as defined in 
2.908. Any modifications require evaluation. 
 
  
 
Thanks,
 
  
 
  
 
| 
| 
|  |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| David Schaefer |

 |

 |

 |

 |
| 
| Technical Manager |

 |
| 
| 
| Element Materials Technology |

 |

 |
| 
| 9349 W Broadway Ave |

 |
| 
| 
| Brooklyn Park |

 | 
| ,  |

 | 
| 
| MN |

 |

 | 
| 55445 |

 | 
| ,  |

 | 
| United States |

 |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| O +1 612 638 5136 |

 |

 | 
| ext. 10461 |

 |

 |
| 
| david.schae...@element.com |

 |
| 
| www.element.com |

 |

 |
| 
| 
| 
|  |

 | 
|  |

 | 
|  |

 |  |

 |

 |

 |

 |


From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please
 
  
 
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact the TOC if you are in any doubt about this 
email.
 
I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can 
produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.
 
On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
 

Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it 
would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst 
case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related 
issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory 
traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion would be to preform the 
simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous 
certification based on that knowledge.

Brent Dewitt 
Milford, MA 

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote: 


 

Hi folks, 

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too. 

Thanks, 

Derek Walton 
LFResearch/SSCLabs. 

- 
 
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 
toemc-p...@listserv.ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[David Schaefer]

For EMC if the concern is emissions it would be easy to do some quick scans – 
10 minutes on a peak run for each model would give you data to compare against 
each other to see how much the emissions profile changes due to the 
modifications. Immunity would take longer but the manufacturer should be able 
to do an engineering analysis and see what might make sense/

For radios it is significantly different. Certification of a product for FCC 
only applies to the product in the report and identical models as defined in 
2.908. Any modifications require evaluation.

Thanks,


[cid:image503832.jpg@B3A1BD25.EF509806]
David Schaefer
Technical Manager
Element Materials Technology
9349 W Broadway Ave
Brooklyn Park
,
MN
55445
,
United States
O +1 612 638 5136
ext. 10461
david.schae...@element.com
www.element.com
[cid:image331521.png@1036802E.8DDE4FC3]
[cid:image131821.png@E1E2F21A.B7D288C3]
[cid:image386740.png@C45961D1.A9A92D34]
[cid:image030442.jpg@E0856E40.335029BE]
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact the TOC if you are in any doubt about this 
email.

I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can 
produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.
On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it 
would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst 
case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related 
issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory 
traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion would be to preform the 
simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous 
certification based on that knowledge.

Brent Dewitt
Milford, MA

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Gert Gremmen F4LDP]

Dear All,

Within the framework of the EMCD, all configurations shall be conform, 
so if you choose to actually test,
all configurations shall be part of the test. The subject of worse case 
is a "miroir d'alouette"... how will you ever know which
is worst case without carrying out the test ? A pre-scan is informative 
but the radiated emission test contains already a pre-scan (peak) for 
the final QP-measurement.  We already require a EMC risk analysis which 
is a kind of pre-scan too. How many pre-pre-prescans will we need to be 
sure ?
"to repeat _some_ (which?) test to make sure nothing was broken" 
it's another discipline, but that is how Boeing lost a door in flight. 
And that  is not a unregulated sector without thorough quality scans 
(understatement), and still it happens. Imagine the costs and effort for 
Boeing to rebuild their reputation ? Didn't we all learned the 
exponential graph of EMC costs versus development time ?
If you need proof (for authorities, or for yourself), nothing can 
replace the actual test.


Gert Gremmen

On 6-4-2024 0:47, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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 
toemc-p...@listserv.ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html  (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules:https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at:msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at:linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following 
link:https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


--
Independent Expert on CE marking
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
BEGIN:VCARD
FN:Gert Gremmen
N:Gremmen;Gert;;;
ADR:;;1261 Route de Pirot;Chauffailles;;71170;France
EMAIL;PREF=1:g.grem...@cetest.nl
TEL;TYPE=cell:+33 7 84507010
NOTE:Independent Expert on CE marking 	\n	Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consu
 ltant @ European Commission for RED\, LVD	 and EMC\n	EMC Consultant\n	Elect
 rical Safety Consultant\n	
X-MOZILLA-HTML:TRUE
END:VCARD

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Boštjan Glavič]

Hi Derek

It is common practice within the labs to find worse case configuration and test 
it.

At least we are doing it in such a way.

You can find some guidlines how to form families on IECEE page, but I think 
your case is different.

The best way is to test one fully populated product.

Best regards
Bostjan Glavic
SIQ



Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: Lfresearch <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Poslano: sobota, april 6, 2024 12:47:49 AM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organisation. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content 
is safe.


Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Don Gies]

Propose a sampling of configurations to the powers that may be.

Don Gies
Field Service Engineer

GUTOR

M: +1 346 313 6216
E:  donald.g...@non.se.com

17 Capitol Reef Road
Howell, NJ 07731 USA

Sent by Android Phone


General


From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 3:59:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Subject: Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please


[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]





I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that you can 
produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.

On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While it 
would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is worst 
case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI related 
issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL clocks and memory 
traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion would be to preform the 
simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base the final, rigorous 
certification based on that knowledge.

Brent Dewitt
Milford, MA

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote:
Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
 
Virus-free.www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[John Woodgate]

I agree: pre-scan is the way to go. Document all of the steps so that 
you can produce your reasons for your decision if challenged.


On 2024-04-06 00:05, Brent DeWitt wrote:
Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". 
While it would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware 
populated is worst case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated 
stubs and other SI related issues.  In addition, with the world of 
firmware based PLL clocks and memory traffic, it is a tough thing to 
determine.  My opinion would be to preform the simplest pre-scan on 
each configuration and base the final, rigorous certification based on 
that knowledge.


Brent Dewitt
Milford, MA

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what 
needs testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. 
Otherwise it’s the fox urging the chicken coop…


So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several 
variants. All use the same board, but have different sections of 
circuits populated. This may require slightly different code to run 
on the same uP in each case.


So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that 
postulates a worse case hardware/software combination and test just 
one configuration? Or, do we have to do every combination?


Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to 
test and what can be claimed as similarity?


Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe)

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe)

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

--
Signature OOO - Own Opinions Only
Best wishes
John Woodgate, Rayleigh, Essex UK
Keep trying

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brent DeWitt]

It may be worth noting at any LISN using magnetic cores/elements in the 
50uH bit, must be calibrated at the maximum rated current to verify that 
saturation isn't a problem.


On 4/5/2024 9:56 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR, 
references the noise to "ground".  Any conductor not being measured 
should be terminated in 50 ohms.  Whatever network used needs to make 
that so.  Take your pick.


On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
   Brian Gregory  wrote:

  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 
120/240V EUT needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test 
bench.That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but 
very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase 
LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not 
so savvy on EMC test equipment.
I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) 
LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, 
although

I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe)

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe)

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brent DeWitt]

In my opinion, all of this is rather simple.  Any LISN, ANSI or CISPR, 
references the noise to "ground".  Any conductor not being measured 
should be terminated in 50 ohms.  Whatever network used needs to make 
that so.  Take your pick.


On 4/5/2024 9:43 PM, T.Sato wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
   Brian Gregory  wrote:


  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs 
two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly cheaper 
than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why I'd 
need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the neutral) 
but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[T.Sato]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 22:01:29 GMT,
  Brian Gregory  wrote:

>  Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT 
> needs two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only 
> slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone 
> remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 
> (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

I think you can use either single 3-phase (usually 4 conductors + PE) LISN
or two single-phase (2 conductors + PE) LISNs whichever you like, although
I would prefer to use a single 3-phase LISN.

BTW, there maybe confusion with the term "single-phase LISNs" here.
Is it LISNs commonly used for single-phase AC supply?
Or is it LISNs for an single power supplying conductor?

Regards,
Tom

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Lfresearch]

The way I understand this is that if we are in the USA, then our 240 volts is 
likely Bi-Phase, not like Europe which has the Line swinging about the neutral 
by 240 volts. In that case you can use a V LISN, or two single phase LISN’s.

In the USA with a Bi-Phase you need 3 LISN’s. When I test these, I use a 3 
phase LISN rather than 3 individual LISN’s. It’s crazy to split the power cord 
to reach the mains terminal on each LISN.

Take care listening to sales guys….

My 10 cents,

Derek.

> On Apr 5, 2024, at 7:24 PM, Ken Javor  wrote:
> 
> I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
> that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am 
> aware use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, 
> you just need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 
> 120 V and 240 simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.
>  
> Current rating is whatever you need. I believe there are several 
> manufacturers offering models designed for up to 16 A. 
>  
> -- 
>  
> Ken Javor
> Ph: (256) 650-5261
>  
>  
>  Hello and Happy Friday,
>  
> I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of 
> single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.
> That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky.
>  
> Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I 
> could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.
>  
> thanks, 
>  
> Colorado Brian 
> From: Brian Gregory  >
> Reply-To: Brian Gregory  >
> Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
> To: mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>>
> Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs 
> three-phase LISN?
>  
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net 
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG All emc-pstc 
> postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
> unsubscribe) 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net 
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Ken Javor]

I may be missing something here, but you would need a pair of LISNs for a box 
that runs off a single phase and neutral.  Most equipments of which I am aware 
use the same power connector pins whether 120 or 240 V. In that case, you just 
need one pair of LISNs. If for some reason your box runs off both 120 V and 240 
simultaneously, then you would need two pairs of LISNs.

 

Current rating is whatever you need. I believe there are several manufacturers 
offering models designed for up to 16 A. 

 

-- 

 

Ken Javor

Ph: (256) 650-5261

 

 

 Hello and Happy Friday,

 

I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs two pair of single-phase 
LISNs for our CE test bench.

That's only slightly cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky.

 

Can someone remind me why I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I 
could see 3 (one for the neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment.

 

thanks, 

 

Colorado Brian 

From: Brian Gregory 
Reply-To: Brian Gregory 
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 5:01 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase 
LISN?

 

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/ 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org 

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

This gets a bit more complicated for FCC regulations on emissions above 
1 GHz, where the prescribed detector is an average detector (at 1 MHz 
RBW) and the peak limit is defined as 20 dB above that.


On 4/5/2024 7:19 PM, Brent DeWitt wrote:
That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing based on the 
original topic.  You are certainly correct with respect to conducted 
emissions!


On 4/5/2024 7:14 PM, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote:


I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

*From:*Brent DeWitt 
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
*To:* rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector 
for radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB),
where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance
levels and the frequencies of at least the six highest
disturbances shall be recorded.”/

//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record
the six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt
the *average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP
limit *when using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in
the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)

Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>

*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies
should be quasi-peaked?

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit
level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the
frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be
recorded.”/

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements
above the limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six,
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1






This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list. To 

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

That is what I expected you meant, but a bit confusing based on the 
original topic.  You are certainly correct with respect to conducted 
emissions!


On 4/5/2024 7:14 PM, rmm.priv...@gmail.com wrote:


I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

*From:*Brent DeWitt 
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
*To:* rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for 
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB),
where L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance
levels and the frequencies of at least the six highest
disturbances shall be recorded.”/

//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record
the six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt
the *average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP
limit *when using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in
the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)

Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>

*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies
should be quasi-peaked?

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level
in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies
of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”/

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above
the limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six,
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/


Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including
how to unsubscribe) 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I was thinking conducted emissions in the context of average detectors.

 

From: Brent DeWitt  
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:48 PM
To: rmm.priv...@gmail.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for radiated 
emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?

On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:

I’m having trouble with “Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the 
limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of 
at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”

 

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six 
highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the average limit 
when using an average detector and the QP limit when using a QP detector? 
Perhaps that is made clear in the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or 
CISPR 11, etc)

 

Comments?

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Stultz, Mark   
<0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?  

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 

“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”

 

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Mark


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


  _  


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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 

 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Ralph McDiarmid]

That has been my experience with CB Scheme, E-mark, and product safety in the 
USA using an NRTL.  Namely, pick worst-case with justifications, talk with your 
certifier, and reach an understanding.  If they won't budge and insist on full 
testing of every variant, move to another certifier who is willing to listen to 
reason.

If the "code" is different and your firmware is a functional safety component, 
then you may not have much choice but to repeat at least some of the tests 
called out in the test plan to verify nothing was "broken" when tweaking the 
firmware to accommodate each hardware variant.

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: Lfresearch <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:47 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Brent DeWitt]

Tough one!  The problem lies in the determination of "worst case". While 
it would be easy to presume that having all of the hardware populated is 
worst case, it overlooks the effects of un-terminated stubs and other SI 
related issues.  In addition, with the world of firmware based PLL 
clocks and memory traffic, it is a tough thing to determine.  My opinion 
would be to preform the simplest pre-scan on each configuration and base 
the final, rigorous certification based on that knowledge.


Brent Dewitt
Milford, MA

On 4/5/2024 6:47 PM, Lfresearch wrote:

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Brent DeWitt]

Could you clarify when you would choose to use an average detector for 
radiated emissions between 30 and 1000 MHz?


On 4/5/2024 6:39 PM, Ralph McDiarmid wrote:


I’m having trouble with /“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where 
L is the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and 
the frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be 
recorded.”/


//

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the 
six highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the 
*average limit* when using an*average detector *and the*QP limit *when 
using a*QP detector*? Perhaps that is made clear in the 
product-specific standard (like EN55022 or CISPR 11, etc)


Comments?

//

/Ralph/

*From:*Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
*Sent:* Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies 
should be quasi-peaked?


CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:

/“Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at 
least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded.”/


We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the 
limit, even if that is more than six points.


I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, 
regardless of how many peak measurements are above the limit.


Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark



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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 



Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 





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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how 
to unsubscribe) 

List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1




-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] I would like to hear your thoughts please

[Lfresearch]

Hi folks,

I would like to advise a client at where to draw the line on what needs 
testing. I would like to solicit opinions besides my own. Otherwise it’s the 
fox urging the chicken coop…

So a manufacturer that makes a product of which there will be several variants. 
All use the same board, but have different sections of circuits populated. This 
may require slightly different code to run on the same uP in each case.

So.. The burning question is can we perform and analysis that postulates a 
worse case hardware/software combination and test just one configuration? Or, 
do we have to do every combination?

Or, are there some guidelines about where we draw the line of what to test and 
what can be claimed as similarity?

Off list responses are welcome too.

Thanks,

Derek Walton
LFResearch/SSCLabs.

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Ralph McDiarmid]

I'm having trouble with "Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is
the limit level in logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the
frequencies of at least the six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

 

Does this CISPR measurement methods standard expect you to record the six
highest signals which are less than or equal to -20dB wrt the average limit
when using an average detector and the QP limit when using a QP detector?
Perhaps that is made clear in the product-specific standard (like EN55022 or
CISPR 11, etc)

 

Comments?

 

 

Ralph

 

 

From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

 

Hello PSES brain trust,

When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be
quasi-peaked?  

CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states: 

"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least
the six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

 

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the
limit, even if that is more than six points.

I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless
of how many peak measurements are above the limit.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Mark

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Conducted emissions for Split-phase 120/240V needs three-phase LISN?

[Brian Gregory]

 Hello and Happy Friday, I've got a sales guy telling me our 120/240V EUT needs 
two pair of single-phase LISNs for our CE test bench.That's only slightly 
cheaper than a 3-phase unit at > 50A, but very bulky. Can someone remind me why 
I'd need 4, 50A single-phase LISNs for our unit?  I could see 3 (one for the 
neutral) but I'm not so savvy on EMC test equipment. thanks,  Colorado Brian

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Stultz, Mark]

Hi Larry,

I agree with you completely...I think the lab didn't see that peak going over 
the limit line and therefore didn't QP.  We only noticed now that they have 
sent the report several weeks later.  They're arguing that there is no need to 
retest.

Thanks,
Mark


From: Larry K. Stillings 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Stultz, Mark ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

You don't often get email from 
la...@complianceworldwide.com. Learn why 
this is important

 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Mark,

If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn't you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.

I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn't know by how much.

Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn't support that? We're old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the 

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Larry K. Stillings]

Mark,

If the peak is above the limit (which most standards allow up to 20 dB), then 
wouldn't you also need to know the quasi-peak of all the signals above the 
limit so you could compare them to the limit? The limit is in QP not peak.

I guess failing is failing, but you really wouldn't know by how much.

Is it really that much more work to take a QP, or maybe the automation software 
doesn't support that? We're old school and still take the data manually and I 
have the guys always take both (peak and quasi-peak).

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Stultz, Mark
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Jim Bacher]

Mark, for the most part I always had 6 of the highest measured in each 
polarization, for a total of 12.  Depending on what we saw, we may have 
measured more for curiosity's sake.

Jim Bacher, WB8VSU

From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] Radiated Emissions - How many points to QP?

[Stultz, Mark]

Hello PSES brain trust,
When doing radiated emissions measurements, how many frequencies should be 
quasi-peaked?
CISPR 16-2-3 clause 6.4.9 states:
"Of those disturbances above (L-20dB), where L is the limit level in 
logarithmic units, the disturbance levels and the frequencies of at least the 
six highest disturbances shall be recorded."

We have always done QP measurements on all peak measurements above the limit, 
even if that is more than six points.
I have a lab arguing that they only need to measure the top six, regardless of 
how many peak measurements are above the limit.
Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Mark

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles

[Ralph McDiarmid]

NFPA can be viewed free online, however, CSA C22.1, C22.3, and C22.3 appear
to be by purchase only.

 

 

Ralph

 

From: Don Gies <2f2a08db2fba-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 11:20 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles

 

Hi Steve, 

 

Hope all is well with you.  

 

See the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Article 210.8 for the list of
locations that require GFCI in the US.

 

In Canada, see Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, CSA C22.1, Rule 26-704 and
26-710, as well as other locations for GFCI requirements.

 

Best regards,

 

DON GIES

Field Service Engineer

 



 

p   +1 346 313 6216

e   donald.g...@non.se.com  

w  gutor.com

 

17 Capitol Reef Road

Howell, NJ 07731

United States

 



 

 

 

 

General

From: sgbrody mailto:sgbr...@comcast.net> > 
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 21:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles

 

[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]

  _  

 

Esteemed experts:

 

It has always been what I thought was the requirement for GFCI receptacles
was only when the product or system was intended for a wet or damp location.

 

A system a client is having an NRTL fo a Field Evaluation on had receptacles
and they are being told they need to be GFCI.

 

NFPA-79 15.1.1 requires this only for receptacles to be used for, e.g.,
handheld power tools, test equipment, and other accessories.

 

The questions are:

- What is the definition of accessories as used in NFPA-79,

 - And is it written in any other standard where and when GFCI outlets are
required?

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries

[Ralph McDiarmid]

And, NFPA provides free, online, read-only access to all their standards.
So does UL.

 

Ralph

 

From: Don Gies <2f2a08db2fba-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries

 

Hi Gary,

 

NFPA 1, Section 52 is very comprehensive. 

 

Also, see IEEE Std 1679.1, " IEEE Guide for the Characterization and
Evaluation of Lithium-Based Batteries in Stationary Applications."

 

Best regards,

 

DON GIES

Field Service Engineer

 



 

p   +1 346 313 6216

e   donald.g...@non.se.com  

w  gutor.com

 

17 Capitol Reef Road

Howell, NJ 07731

United States

 



 

 

 

 

General

From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com  > 
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries

 

[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]

  _  

 

Hello Experts,

My client is using large capacity lithium-ion battery backup units in his
facility

 

The BBU's themselves are safety approved and also have UL9540A testing done
at the rack level. 

 

We are looking for code consultation (NFPA and ICC/IFC) to gather
requirements around the following: 

 

1.  Storage of batteries before installation in the facility. 
2.  Ventilation and fire suppression requirements 
3.  Spacing requirements 
4.  Any other code requirements that apply at the facility for use of
these BBU's. 

 

If you are able to assist with the request and have a code expert that can
provide the consultation, please let me know. 

 

Cheers,
Gary Tornquist

 

 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 


-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles

[Don Gies]

Hi Steve,

Hope all is well with you.

See the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Article 210.8 for the list of 
locations that require GFCI in the US.

In Canada, see Canadian Electrical Code, Part I, CSA C22.1, Rule 26-704 and 
26-710, as well as other locations for GFCI requirements.

Best regards,

DON GIES
Field Service Engineer

[cid:image001.png@01DA8763.4E110020]

p   +1 346 313 6216
e   donald.g...@non.se.com
w  gutor.com

17 Capitol Reef Road
Howell, NJ 07731
United States

[cid:image002.png@01DA8763.4E110020]





General
From: sgbrody 
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 21:18
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] GFCI Receptacles


[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]




Esteemed experts:

It has always been what I thought was the requirement for GFCI receptacles was 
only when the product or system was intended for a wet or damp location.

A system a client is having an NRTL fo a Field Evaluation on had receptacles 
and they are being told they need to be GFCI.

NFPA-79 15.1.1 requires this only for receptacles to be used for, e.g., 
handheld power tools, test equipment, and other accessories.

The questions are:
- What is the definition of accessories as used in NFPA-79,
 - And is it written in any other standard where and when GFCI outlets are 
required?

Thank you.




Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries

[Don Gies]

Hi Gary,

NFPA 1, Section 52 is very comprehensive.

Also, see IEEE Std 1679.1, " IEEE Guide for the Characterization and Evaluation 
of Lithium-Based Batteries in Stationary Applications."

Best regards,

DON GIES
Field Service Engineer

[cid:image001.png@01DA875E.3DAC0450]

p   +1 346 313 6216
e   donald.g...@non.se.com
w  gutor.com

17 Capitol Reef Road
Howell, NJ 07731
United States

[cid:image002.png@01DA875E.3DAC0450]





General
From: Gary Tornquist <05big...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Fire codes related to batteries


[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]




Hello Experts,
My client is using large capacity lithium-ion battery backup units in his 
facility

The BBU's themselves are safety approved and also have UL9540A testing done at 
the rack level.

We are looking for code consultation (NFPA and ICC/IFC) to gather requirements 
around the following:


  1.  Storage of batteries before installation in the facility.
  2.  Ventilation and fire suppression requirements
  3.  Spacing requirements
  4.  Any other code requirements that apply at the facility for use of these 
BBU's.

If you are able to assist with the request and have a code expert that can 
provide the consultation, please let me know.

Cheers,
Gary Tornquist




This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] SV: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

[Amund Westin]

Thanks Larry ! Great!

 

But can we operate at the band edge 863.00MHz, so the spectrum will occupy
862.9 - 863.1MHz ? Is it allowed spread the spectrum into two frequency
bands? 

 

BR

Amund

 

 

Fra: Larry K. Stillings 
Sendt: 2. april 2024 19:24
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

 

Amund,

 

I hit send too soon. Looks like ERC 70-03 dated March 8, 2024 does now
include 862 - 863 MHz band for Occupied Bandwidths of less than 350 kHz, so
technically you could operate down to 862.11 MHz. Or basically the same
information you found in ETSI EN 300 220-2.

 

Here is the link to the ERC 70-03 which I always go back to since that is
the document that demonstrates what frequency ranges have been adopted. See
Annex I, page 8.

 

https://docdb.cept.org/download/4435

 

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World! 
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product
Safety 
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
  complianceworldwide.com
 


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery
of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do
not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.

 

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2024 1:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

 

Case:

Running an IoT device with center frequency 863.00MHz and with occupied
bandwidth 200kHz.

 

Such setup would mean that half the spectrum would fall into the 862MHz
band. My first thoughts would be, that it is outside the Band K (863-865)
and not allowed.

I would have to at least step it up to 863.25MHz, to have some margin
between the lower part of the signal spectrum and the lower edge of the
frequency band. 

 



 

 

 

The I came over the new draft issue of EN 300 220-2:

 

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300200_300299/30022002/03.02.02_20/en_3
0022002v030202ev.pdf

 

>From table 2, page 20:



 

Here we have a new band K0,  862-863MHz. So, it's a kind of extension of the
863-865MHz band.

 

Question 1: Would it be allowed to transmit in the 863MHz band, but still
have some part of the spectrum coming into the 862-863MHz band?

Question 2: Transmit in the edge between to bands (862-863MHz and
863-865MHz), which means center frequency 863.00MHz, is anyway, not allowed?

 

 

 

Best regards

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
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG   

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC
 =1 

  _  

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: 

Re: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

[Larry K. Stillings]

Amund,

I hit send too soon. Looks like ERC 70-03 dated March 8, 2024 does now include 
862 - 863 MHz band for Occupied Bandwidths of less than 350 kHz, so technically 
you could operate down to 862.11 MHz. Or basically the same information you 
found in ETSI EN 300 220-2.

Here is the link to the ERC 70-03 which I always go back to since that is the 
document that demonstrates what frequency ranges have been adopted. See Annex 
I, page 8.

https://docdb.cept.org/download/4435

Larry K. Stillings
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World!
FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety
357 Main Street
Sandown, NH 03873
(603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445
complianceworldwide.com


Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you 
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of 
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to 
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the 
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not 
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and 
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business 
of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Amund Westin
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2024 1:04 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

Case:
Running an IoT device with center frequency 863.00MHz and with occupied 
bandwidth 200kHz.

Such setup would mean that half the spectrum would fall into the 862MHz band. 
My first thoughts would be, that it is outside the Band K (863-865) and not 
allowed.
I would have to at least step it up to 863.25MHz, to have some margin between 
the lower part of the signal spectrum and the lower edge of the frequency band.

[cid:image001.png@01DA8500.FD5F8200]



The I came over the new draft issue of EN 300 220-2:
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/300200_300299/30022002/03.02.02_20/en_30022002v030202ev.pdf

>From table 2, page 20:
[cid:image002.png@01DA8500.FD5F8200]

Here we have a new band K0,  862-863MHz. So, it's a kind of extension of the 
863-865MHz band.

Question 1: Would it be allowed to transmit in the 863MHz band, but still have 
some part of the spectrum coming into the 862-863MHz band?
Question 2: Transmit in the edge between to bands (862-863MHz and 863-865MHz), 
which means center frequency 863.00MHz, is anyway, not allowed?



Best regards
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 
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

-

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

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1