[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

Re: [PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

[Larry K. Stillings]

Amund,

I agree the 99% Occupied Bandwidth would need to reside within the band of 
operation. You'd have to follow the procedure in ETSI EN 300 220-1 V3.1.1 
Clause 5.6 to determine what the center frequency needs to be depending on your 
modulation type.

If you're saying you already know the 99% OBW is 200 kHz, then I would believe 
you'd need a center frequency of ~863.11 MHz, because it would be half of the 
OBW, or the edge of the signal would be at 863.01 MHz with a 863.11 MHz center 
frequency.

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@01DA8500.239D5A60]



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@01DA8500.239D5A60]

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

[PSES] 863MHz - Short Range Devices

[Amund Westin]

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

[PSES] Fire codes related to batteries

[Gary Tornquist]

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

[PSES] Manuals and information

[sgbrody]

A client designs systems to a specific customer's requirements, and these are 
one off systems.  They contain 3rd party devices in the system.The systems are 
installed and serviced by my client. The installation team also provides 
operating and safety information to the user at install and there is a 24/7 
contact number provided.Although they are unique systems, they are basically 
the same in overall form and function.Customer's may be in any country, but 
predominantly US and EU.Given the above, is a manual required for each system, 
or can we create a generic manual that would cover all aspects and options, 
such as the manual that comes with a new car that says if equipped with, or 
words words to that effect?You can respond publicly here or privately to 
stev...@productehsconsulting.com 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:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

[PSES] GFCI Receptacles

[sgbrody]

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

Re: [PSES] PSU cert issue

[Jim Bacher, WB8VSU]

Jeff, all of the power supply modules I have dealt with had EMC Reports. 
Those modules went inside products. So I would have required the PSU to 
have a vendors EMC report before accepting its use in one of our products.


The suppliers I dealt with used 3 different resistive loads, during their 
testing. One minimal load, one mid load and one max load. The resistors 
where typically bolted to an aluminum sheet for heat dissipation.


One of the reasons you want them to test is for line conducted levels. 
Those levels are usually impacted by load. There is likely nothing you can 
do in your product, to correct the power supplies if they failed line 
conducted.


Turkey was always difficult for me. I had to on numerous occasions explain 
how to interpret the European requirements.  I would provide a copy of your 
products EMC report, highlighting the power supply was part of the test, 
and therefore a valid EMC report for the power supply.



Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org
JBRC Consulting LLC
Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
https:\\trc.guru
IEEE Life Senior Member

On March 21, 2024 11:18:14 PM Jeffrey Gilbert  wrote:
Having a problem sending replacement 1U PSUs into Turkey. Apparently they 
(customs) are requiring full EMC certification, which no PSU manufacturer 
does. They do LVD, RoHS, but not EMC. These are useless outside of a system 
they are intended to be installed into and certified in. PSU manufacturer 
DoC explains this. We certify in a full system.


I am under the impression that Turkey is supposed to be following EU CE 
rules. We do not have this issue in any other country on the planet. Has 
anyone else run into this problem?


Jeff

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] EXTERNAL: [PSES] PSU cert issue

[Patel, Uresh [US-US]]

Jeff,

I am having same issue with Turkey for even spare parts they need detail 
information including EMC and UL reports. I having this issue for last 5 years









From: Jeffrey Gilbert 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: EXTERNAL: [PSES] PSU cert issue


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Leidos. Be cautious when 
clicking or opening content.
Having a problem sending replacement 1U PSUs into Turkey. Apparently they 
(customs) are requiring full EMC certification, which no PSU manufacturer does. 
They do LVD, RoHS, but not EMC. These are useless outside of a system they are 
intended to be installed into and certified in. PSU manufacturer DoC explains 
this. We certify in a full system.

I am under the impression that Turkey is supposed to be following EU CE rules. 
We do not have this issue in any other country on the planet. Has anyone else 
run into this problem?

Jeff


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] PSU cert issue

[Gert Gremmen F4LDP]

Formally they (customs) are right.
PSU's are equipment in their own right just as PC plug-in cards and need 
EMC (CE) marking.
Testing in a full system does not guarantee that the result is the same 
as in another system, especially not in PC world where parts change 
quicker than transport time.


I do not understand why LVD and ROHS would be taken care of and not EMC.
Wasn't the electrical safety tested as part of a full system  ? 
Not the first time that customs in a associated country (for CE) are 
more severe as the EU itself. I've seen before.
It's all part of the making sure they are fit for an EU membership (even 
if local politics dare/won't not say the "join" word yet)



Gert Gremmen

On 22-3-2024 7:53, Kurt Beneder wrote:

Dear Gilbert,

One Soulution could be:
You have to include the whole list of all separate orderable spare 
part modules to your CE Declaration.

Of course the PSU is EMC LVD etc. tested in the overall system.
Also be aware that Turkey checks the Date of Issue of your CE 
Declaration against the Date of arrival of your goods in Turkey and 
therefore whether or not you had a valid CE Declaration at the time of 
importing your spare part.


Best regards Kurt

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:10 AM Jeffrey Gilbert 
 wrote:


Having a problem sending replacement 1U PSUs into Turkey.
Apparently they (customs) are requiring full EMC certification,
which no PSU manufacturer does. They do LVD, RoHS, but not EMC.
These are useless outside of a system they are intended to be
installed into and certified in. PSU manufacturer DoC explains
this. We certify in a full system.

I am under the impression that Turkey is supposed to be following
EU CE rules. We do not have this issue in any other country on the
planet. Has anyone else run into this problem?

Jeff


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




--
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 

Re: [PSES] PSU cert issue

[Kurt Beneder]

Dear Gilbert,

One Soulution could be:
You have to include the whole list of all separate orderable spare part
modules to your CE Declaration.
Of course the PSU is EMC LVD etc. tested in the overall system.
Also be aware that Turkey checks the Date of Issue of your CE Declaration
against the Date of arrival of your goods in Turkey and
therefore whether or not you had a valid CE Declaration at the time of
importing your spare part.

Best regards Kurt

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:10 AM Jeffrey Gilbert 
wrote:

> Having a problem sending replacement 1U PSUs into Turkey. Apparently they
> (customs) are requiring full EMC certification, which no PSU manufacturer
> does. They do LVD, RoHS, but not EMC. These are useless outside of a system
> they are intended to be installed into and certified in. PSU manufacturer
> DoC explains this. We certify in a full system.
>
> I am under the impression that Turkey is supposed to be following EU CE
> rules. We do not have this issue in any other country on the planet. Has
> anyone else run into this problem?
>
> Jeff
> --
>
> 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] PSU cert issue

[Jeffrey Gilbert]

Having a problem sending replacement 1U PSUs into Turkey. Apparently they
(customs) are requiring full EMC certification, which no PSU manufacturer
does. They do LVD, RoHS, but not EMC. These are useless outside of a system
they are intended to be installed into and certified in. PSU manufacturer
DoC explains this. We certify in a full system.

I am under the impression that Turkey is supposed to be following EU CE
rules. We do not have this issue in any other country on the planet. Has
anyone else run into this problem?

Jeff

-

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] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

[Jim Bacher, WB8VSU]

Since the late 1980s I always recommend V-0 (or better) for battery packs. 
What I found out years ago was V-0 was lower cost than V-1, (from the 
vendors we were using at that time).


I remember having a battery pack vendor call me in a panic over the V-1 
being added to the requirements. I pointed out we were already using V-0 
and meet the new requirements. That didn't help his other customers, but I 
didn't have a crisis. That was 25+ years ago.


Anyway I still recommend using  V-0 instead of V-1 for battery packs.


Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org
JBRC Consulting LLC
Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
https:\\trc.guru
IEEE Life Senior Member
On March 21, 2024 4:48:16 PM "emcl...@gmail.com"  wrote:

Hello All,

This is the first time that I've had a large NRTL safety engineer inform me 
that the UL 62133-2 battery pack standard requires that the end-product 
application enclosure plastic must be rated V-1 or better.  I don't have 
that standard.  Can anybody here shed some light on this issue?


Thanks much,

Carl

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] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

[emcl...@gmail.com]

This NRTL engineer is stating that the UL Recognized battery pack must 
be installed within a V-1 enclosure.  He's telling me that UL 62133-2 is 
driving that requirement, not the end-product safety standard (in this 
case that's UL 61010-1).


Carl


-- Original Message --

From "Ralph McDiarmid" 

To EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Date 3/21/2024 4:56:56 PM
Subject Re: [PSES] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

Many product safety standards require vertical flame rating for 
polymeric material forming part or all of the enclosure.  I’m surprized 
it doesn’t require V-0 or 5VA.  It’s seems to be about containing a 
fire inside the enclosure.




Ralph



From:emcl...@gmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 1:32 PM
To:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure



Hello All,



This is the first time that I've had a large NRTL safety engineer 
inform me that the UL 62133-2 battery pack standard requires that the 
end-product application enclosure plastic must be rated V-1 or better.  
I don't have that standard.  Can anybody here shed some light on this 
issue?




Thanks much,



Carl


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] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Many product safety standards require vertical flame rating for polymeric 
material forming part or all of the enclosure.  I’m surprized it doesn’t 
require V-0 or 5VA.  It’s seems to be about containing a fire inside the 
enclosure.

 

Ralph

 

From: emcl...@gmail.com  
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 1:32 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

 

Hello All,

 

This is the first time that I've had a large NRTL safety engineer inform me 
that the UL 62133-2 battery pack standard requires that the end-product 
application enclosure plastic must be rated V-1 or better.  I don't have that 
standard.  Can anybody here shed some light on this issue?

 

Thanks much, 

 

Carl

  _  

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] UL 62133-2 Battery Standard + V-1 plastic enclosure

[emcl...@gmail.com]

Hello All,

This is the first time that I've had a large NRTL safety engineer inform 
me that the UL 62133-2 battery pack standard requires that the 
end-product application enclosure plastic must be rated V-1 or better.  
I don't have that standard.  Can anybody here shed some light on this 
issue?


Thanks much,

Carl

-

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] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Amund,

This might help

https://www.unit3compliance.co.uk/what-is-a-dc-power-port-emc-explained/

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.




-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin  
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 9:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

I have been told that surge test must be conducted to a DC-port.
Is that correct if the DC-port is supplied with 12VDC from a
standby-batteri, which is installed close by the product and with maximum 1
meter cable?

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

-

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] EN 61000-6-2 Surge

[Amund Westin]

I have been told that surge test must be conducted to a DC-port.
Is that correct if the DC-port is supplied with 12VDC from a 
standby-batteri, which is installed close by the product and with 
maximum 1 meter cable?


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

Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

[Boštjan Glavič]

There is a CTL decision DSH 738 about insulation of body of Y capacitor. If you 
are talking about round coated blue Y caps, for Y1 type coated enclosure can be 
considered as reinforced insulation except in an area near leg outlet. CTL 
considered that coating near leg can break during placement on PCB.

However TC40 says this is wrong and they promissed back in 2018 some new 
guidance. I am still missing that one.

I cannot open your drawing. Could you resend?

Best regards
Bostjan




Poslano iz Outlook za Android


Od: Joe Randolph 
Poslano: ponedeljek, marec 11, 2024 7:15:45 PM
Za: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
Zadeva: Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

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.

I seem to recall that there are some specifications for the insulating coating 
in the IEC 60384-14 standard for Y1 caps, but I have not worked with that 
standard for a while.

I agree with John Woodgate that a quick fix might be to place a piece of 
insulating tape on the surface of the board in the area under the cap.  I have 
seen Kapton tape used quite often to convert a clearance problem into “distance 
through solid insulation.”

Another quick fix that I have seen (possibly for the same reason) is to slide a 
piece of heat-shrink tubing over the cap and then apply heat to shrink the 
tubing.  The shrinkage of the tubing at the top and bottom of the rounded cap 
does a nice job of retaining the tubing on the cap.

So, if there is a production schedule to be met, some form of added insulation 
can probably solve the immediate problem.

In the long run, it may be possible to change the board layout so that there 
are no surface traces under the cap.  Note that the construction requirements 
for implementing basic or reinforced insulation within a circuit board provide 
several easy-to-meet options.  This is because the circuit board can be treated 
as “solid insulation”.

Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 1:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?


I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the insulation 
quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the insulation does break 
down; the result might be 'safe' but destructive.  At that point, high-voltage 
spikes on the AC input have to be taken into account. It looks as though 
changing the PCB would be a simpler solution than trying to prove that it's 
already OK or than adding a piece of insulating material and checking that it 
is still there.
On 2024-03-11 17:13, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:
Hello Group,

We are assessing a system that uses class Y1 capacitors for EMC filtering. 
Because of space constraints, they are laid down horizontally on the PCB.

This is causing a problem (at least in my mind) where the capacitor body is now 
resting on top of the AC input trace. The side of the capacitor connected to PE 
is the side closest to the AC mains input trace.

[?jpg 
icon]y-cap-body-insulation-question.jpg

One of those pieces of received wisdom that has been passed down to me is that 
“the body of components is not considered to be insulating” for the purposes of 
assessing creepage and clearance.

Common sense says “danger danger Will Robinson” and to change the PCB and/or to 
add some insulating material, but some technical back up would be welcome.

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.






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 

Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

[Joe Randolph]

I seem to recall that there are some specifications for the insulating coating 
in the IEC 60384-14 standard for Y1 caps, but I have not worked with that 
standard for a while.

 

I agree with John Woodgate that a quick fix might be to place a piece of 
insulating tape on the surface of the board in the area under the cap.  I have 
seen Kapton tape used quite often to convert a clearance problem into “distance 
through solid insulation.”

 

Another quick fix that I have seen (possibly for the same reason) is to slide a 
piece of heat-shrink tubing over the cap and then apply heat to shrink the 
tubing.  The shrinkage of the tubing at the top and bottom of the rounded cap 
does a nice job of retaining the tubing on the cap.

 

So, if there is a production schedule to be met, some form of added insulation 
can probably solve the immediate problem.

 

In the long run, it may be possible to change the board layout so that there 
are no surface traces under the cap.  Note that the construction requirements 
for implementing basic or reinforced insulation within a circuit board provide 
several easy-to-meet options.  This is because the circuit board can be treated 
as “solid insulation”.

 

Joe Randolph

Telecom Design Consultant

Randolph Telecom, Inc.

781-721-2848 (USA)

  j...@randolph-telecom.com

  http://www.randolph-telecom.com

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@woodjohn.uk] 
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 1:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

 

I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the insulation 
quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the insulation does break 
down; the result might be 'safe' but destructive.  At that point, high-voltage 
spikes on the AC input have to be taken into account. It looks as though 
changing the PCB would be a simpler solution than trying to prove that it's 
already OK or than adding a piece of insulating material and checking that it 
is still there.

On 2024-03-11 17:13, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:

Hello Group,

 

We are assessing a system that uses class Y1 capacitors for EMC filtering. 
Because of space constraints, they are laid down horizontally on the PCB.

 

This is causing a problem (at least in my mind) where the capacitor body is now 
resting on top of the AC input trace. The side of the capacitor connected to PE 
is the side closest to the AC mains input trace.

 

 

 y-cap-body-insulation-question.jpg

 

One of those pieces of received wisdom that has been passed down to me is that 
“the body of components is not considered to be insulating” for the purposes of 
assessing creepage and clearance. 

 

Common sense says “danger danger Will Robinson” and to change the PCB and/or to 
add some insulating material, but some technical back up would be welcome.

 

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.

 

 

 

 


  _  


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] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

[John Woodgate]

I think you have to ask the manufacturer of the capacitors about the 
insulation quality of the coating, and also test what happens if the 
insulation does break down; the result might be 'safe' but destructive.  
At that point, high-voltage spikes on the AC input have to be taken into 
account. It looks as though changing the PCB would be a simpler solution 
than trying to prove that it's already OK or than adding a piece of 
insulating material and checking that it is still there.


On 2024-03-11 17:13, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello Group,

We are assessing a system that uses class Y1 capacitors for EMC 
filtering. Because of space constraints, they are laid down 
horizontally on the PCB.


This is causing a problem (at least in my mind) where the capacitor 
body is now resting on top of the AC input trace. The side of the 
capacitor connected to PE is the side closest to the AC mains input trace.


​jpg icon y-cap-body-insulation-question.jpg 



One of those pieces of received wisdom that has been passed down to me 
is that “the body of components is not considered to be insulating” 
for the purposes of assessing creepage and clearance.


Common sense says “danger danger Will Robinson” and to change the PCB 
and/or to add some insulating material, but some technical back up 
would be welcome.


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./




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

[PSES] Y-capacitor body material - considered to be insulating?

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello Group,

 

We are assessing a system that uses class Y1 capacitors for EMC filtering.
Because of space constraints, they are laid down horizontally on the PCB.

 

This is causing a problem (at least in my mind) where the capacitor body is
now resting on top of the AC input trace. The side of the capacitor
connected to PE is the side closest to the AC mains input trace.

 

 

y-cap-body-insulation-question.jpg

 

One of those pieces of received wisdom that has been passed down to me is
that "the body of components is not considered to be insulating" for the
purposes of assessing creepage and clearance. 

 

Common sense says "danger danger Will Robinson" and to change the PCB and/or
to add some insulating material, but some technical back up would be
welcome.

 

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.

 

 

 

 


-

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] Red and Green lights on machinery

[Douglas Nix]

In addition to Mike Sherman’s comments, the selected colours are long 
deprecated. Red and Green have not been supported in the standards for over 
twenty years for these purposes.

The designers need to read NFPA 79 or IEC 60204-1 or EN 60204-1, focusing on 
the tables that define suitable colours for actuators and pilot lights.

Doug Nix
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
d...@mac.com
+1 (519) 729-5704



> On Mar 6, 2024, at 11:10, Brian Kunde  wrote:
> 
> 
> Greetings to all.
> 
> We are working on a motor driven machine that would be used in a commercial, 
> industrial, and light industrial environment.
> 
> The machine has a Green button to Start, and a Red button to Stop.  These 
> buttons are illuminated.  Other than the e-stop, these are the only operator 
> controls on the product.  
> 
> When the machine is stopped, the Green button is lit. When you press the 
> green button, the motor starts, but then the green light in the button goes 
> out and the red light in the Stop button lights up (not flashing).Is this 
> OK?
> 
> The design team for this project thought it would help the Operator find the 
> buttons easier this way.
> 
> I must also state that this machine is not designed to follow the 
> construction rules for Control Panels. We call it a highbred design.  It will 
> be serviced and maintained by the manufacturer. 
> 
> My only question is regarding the illuminated lights but feel free to comment 
> on any other aspect of this email.
> 
> Regards,
> 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

Re: [PSES] Red and Green lights on machinery

[MIKE SHERMAN]

In my opinion, this arrangement may likely confuse the user.
 
Reason: lights are typically used as status indicators---green for on, and red 
for stopped. This reverses that logic and might well confuse the user.
 
See NFPA 79 or EN IEC 60204-1 for typical color codes for machinery.
 
In my recollection, lights that are prompts for users are coded blue, that 
adding yet another color would likely complicate your design at little benefit.
 
Mike Sherman
Sherman PSC LLC

> On 03/06/2024 10:10 AM CST Brian Kunde  wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Greetings to all.
>  
> We are working on a motor driven machine that would be used in a commercial, 
> industrial, and light industrial environment.
>  
> The machine has a Green button to Start, and a Red button to Stop.  These 
> buttons are illuminated.  Other than the e-stop, these are the only operator 
> controls on the product.  
>  
> When the machine is stopped, the Green button is lit. When you press the 
> green button, the motor starts, but then the green light in the button goes 
> out and the red light in the Stop button lights up (not flashing).Is this 
> OK?
>  
> The design team for this project thought it would help the Operator find the 
> buttons easier this way.
>  
> I must also state that this machine is not designed to follow the 
> construction rules for Control Panels. We call it a highbred design.  It will 
> be serviced and maintained by the manufacturer. 
>  
> My only question is regarding the illuminated lights but feel free to comment 
> on any other aspect of this email.
>  
> Regards,
> 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/ 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

[PSES] Red and Green lights on machinery

[Brian Kunde]

Greetings to all.

We are working on a motor driven machine that would be used in a
commercial, industrial, and light industrial environment.

The machine has a Green button to Start, and a Red button to Stop.  These
buttons are illuminated.  Other than the e-stop, these are the only
operator controls on the product.

When the machine is stopped, the Green button is lit. When you press the
green button, the motor starts, but then the green light in the button goes
out and the red light in the Stop button lights up (not flashing).Is
this OK?

The design team for this project thought it would help the Operator find
the buttons easier this way.

I must also state that this machine is not designed to follow the
construction rules for Control Panels. We call it a highbred design.  It
will be serviced and maintained by the manufacturer.

My only question is regarding the illuminated lights but feel free to
comment on any other aspect of this email.

Regards,
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] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports

[Jim Bacher, WB8VSU]

John, a question. What's the date on your test reports / files?

I don't remember the details any more, but I hit something similar many 
years ago. So I paid to have the files refreshed to solve the issue. It was 
a minimal cost.


Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org

Jim Bacher, WB8VSU
ja.bac...@outlook.com or j.bac...@ieee.org
JBRC Consulting LLC
Product EMC & Regulatory Consultant
https:\\trc.guru
IEEE Life Senior Member
On March 5, 2024 1:52:21 PM John Riutta  wrote:

Hello all,

I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small 
rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the 
following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform:


CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20;
IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017;
UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020.

The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the 
testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how 
often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be 
valid.



I seek the collected wisdom of the group please.

Best regards,
John


John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSIProduct Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriutta@celestron.comI323.446.1076

CELESTRON, LLC.I2835 Columbia Street
I Torrance, CA 90503




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] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports

[John Riutta]

Hello John.

Amazon’s authority in rejecting the document was Amazon’s own rules; however 
their representatives (three so far) could not point to any published rule in 
their compliance portal that identified a duration of validity. Effectively, it 
was past date because they said so.

It’s terribly frustrating.

John


John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076
CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

[Logo  Description automatically generated]  [Icon  
Description automatically generated] 

   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
confidence] 

   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 

   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 

   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 


From: John Woodgate 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:19 AM
To: John Riutta ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports


How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates associated 
with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did Amazon cite an 
authority for their rejection?
On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote:
Hello all,

I’m having a bit of bother with 
Amazon.com
 at the moment. For a small rechargeable battery-containing product they are 
requiring one of the following in order for them to sell the product on their 
Canadian platform:


  1.  CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20;
  2.  IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017;
  3.  UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020.

The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the 
testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often 
testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid.

I seek the collected wisdom of the group please.

Best regards,
John


John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076
CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

[Logo  Description automatically generated]  [Icon  
Description automatically generated] 

   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
confidence] 

   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 

Re: [PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports

[John Woodgate]

How 'long past'? Do any of these standards, or the test certificates 
associated with them, specify a validity period or an expiry date? Did 
Amazon cite an authority for their rejection?


On 2024-03-05 18:51, John Riutta wrote:


Hello all,

I’m having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small 
rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the 
following in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian 
platform:


  * CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20;
  * IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017;
  * UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020.

The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past 
the testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as 
to how often testing under any of these standards must be repeated in 
order to be valid.


I seek the collected wisdom of the group please.

Best regards,

John

John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLSI Product Development and Product 
Compliance Manager I jriu...@celestron.com 
 I 323.446.1076


CELESTRON, LLC.I 2835 Columbia Street ITorrance, CA 90503

Logo Description automatically generated 
Icon Description automatically generated 
A 
close-up of a fire Description automatically generated with low 
confidence 
A 
picture containing text, clipart Description automatically generated 
Icon 
Description automatically generated 
Icon 
Description automatically generated 





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

[PSES] Validity Period of Battery Safety Test Reports

[John Riutta]

Hello all,

I'm having a bit of bother with Amazon.com at the moment. For a small 
rechargeable battery-containing product they are requiring one of the following 
in order for them to sell the product on their Canadian platform:


  *   CAN/CSA C22.2 No. 62133-2:20;
  *   IEC 62133:2012 or IEC 62133-2:2017;
  *   UL 62133:2017 or UL 62133-2:2020.

The challenge is that they rejected the one I sent as being long past the 
testing date. However I have not been able to find any citation as to how often 
testing under any of these standards must be repeated in order to be valid.

I seek the collected wisdom of the group please.

Best regards,
John


John E. Riutta, MA, MBA, FLS I Product Development and Product Compliance 
Manager I jriu...@celestron.com I 323.446.1076
CELESTRON, LLC. I 2835 Columbia Street I Torrance, CA 90503

[Logo  Description automatically generated]  [Icon  
Description automatically generated] 

   [A close-up of a fire  Description automatically generated with low 
confidence] 

   [A picture containing text, clipart  Description automatically generated] 

   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 

   [Icon  Description automatically generated] 



-

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