UPDATE ON CISPR STANDARDS - In Compliance Magazine · PDF file16 22. 30 38. THE VALUE of . ......

UPDATE ON

CISPR STANDARDS

US vs RecentCanadian Rules for ULTRA-WIDEBAND RADIO OPERATIONS

CERTIFICATION: A Panacea for a Paranoid Society?

A DASH OF MAXWELL’S A Maxwell’s Equations Primer - Part 1

THE VALUEof Certification

The Lost Technology(almost) ofTHE EDISON CELL

PREMIERE ISSUE

What’s New Above 9 kHz

Premiere Issue IN Compliance 3

MagazineLorie Nichols

Publisher & [email protected]

Sharon SmithDirector of Sales

[email protected]

Erin C. FeeneyDirector of Media Services

[email protected]

IN Compliance MagazineISSN 1948-8254 (print)

ISSN 1948-8262 (online)

is published by

Same Page Publishing LLCP.O. Box 235

Hopedale, MA 01747fax: (508) 488-6114

IN Compliance Magazine subscriptions within North America are $24.95 per year (12 issues). Subscriptions

outside North America are $124.95 per year (12 issues). The Digital Edition is free.

Please contact our circulation department at [email protected]

For information about advertising with IN Compliance, please call 978-760-0093 or

e-mail [email protected].

Copyright 2009 IN Compliance Magazine, all rights reserved.Contents may not be reproduced in any form without the prior consent of the publisher.

While every attempt is made to provide accurate information, neither the publisher nor the authors accept any liability for errors or omissions.

US vs Recent Canadian Rules for ULTRA-WIDEBAND RADIO OPERATIONS

CERTIFICATION: A Panacea for a Paranoid Society?

A DASH OF MAXWELL’S A Maxwell’s Equations Primer Part 1

WHAT’S INSIDE

UPDATE ON CISPR STANDARDS What’s New Above 9 kHz

WHAT IT TAKES: Considering Refurbishing an Anechoic Chamber? Guidelines for a Successful Upgrade

SPECIAL REPORT: Site Attenuation Prediction for Refurbishing an Older EMC Chamber

69

16

22

30

38

THE VALUE of Certification

The Lost Technology (almost) of THE EDISON CELL

THE iNARTE INFORMER

48

56

62

INdustry NEWS64

4 IN Compliance Premiere Issue www.incompliancemag.com

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

When a Door Closes, A Window Opens….Welcome to the first issue of IN Compliance Magazine! Yes, it is true that just four short months ago we were saying goodbye to you not really knowing where the road would take us. Well, as the saying goes, when a door closes, a window opens. With what felt like a tragic loss when Conformity closed its doors in March, surprisingly came a fertile opportunity to sow the seeds of a life dream.

Many of our readers have recently traveled the road of job separation and the profound effects this journey can have on one’s life. We encourage you to shift your view to a new vantage point because maybe you’ve just been given the opportunity of a lifetime to make your dreams come true. Growing up in rural Vermont, I recall seeing farmers burn the grass in their fields. I asked my mother, a farmer’s daughter, why they did this and she told me that by burning off the old growth they would make room for a new, fertile field. Do you have some significant goals that you would like to achieve? Maybe a dream that you’ve been carrying for a long while, but never really had the time to pursue?

In 2006, at the IEEE EMC Symposium in Portland, Oregon, Sharon Smith and I sat across the table from one another at McCormick & Schmick’s, where we looked at each other and

simultaneously spoke the words, “Why can’t we do this… for ourselves?”

It is with this inspiration that we bring you the Premiere Issue of our dream, IN Compliance Magazine. In this issue, we cover topics that move us straight ahead into the future in the never ending march toward creating a safer world in

Martin Wiles’ “Update on CISPR Standards.” We provide an overview of the differences between US and Canadian rules for Ultra-Wideband

Radio Operations, by Roland Gubisch. And we cover the benefits of becoming a certified engineer in the ESD Association’s “The Value of Certification.” We spice things up a bit with ponderings from Mike Violette, as he wades through the development of standards and certification in today’s society. We reconnect with some old friends with the reappearance of “A Dash of Maxwell’s,” an educational series on Maxwell’s Equations and the iNARTE Informer finds a home once again within the pages of our Premiere Issue. And to top it off, we rekindle the magic and fun of being an engineer in the article “The Lost Technology (almost) of the Edison Cell,” written by magician and inventor, Walt Noon.

As we move into 2010, IN Compliance begins coming to you every month, providing you with interesting, innovative and informative articles, news and columns to keep you on your game and hopefully give you an opportunity to laugh a little along the way. Sharon Smith, Erin Feeney and I are so happy to be continuing this journey with you!

Sincerely,

Lorie Nichols

CISPR Standards:

By Martin Wiles

Update on

What’s New Above 9 kHz


The global recession has not prevented EMC standardization work from

marching relentlessly forward.

Update on


The global recession has not prevented EMC standardization work from marching relentlessly

forward. Work within CISPR is no exception and this year delegates and experts will meet in Lyon, France in September under the auspices of the current chairman Don Heirman (US) and secretary Steve Colclough (UK). For those of you new to EMC, CISPR is an international special committee on radio interference within the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). As defined on the IEC website for CISPR, CISPR’s principal task is at the higher end of the frequency range, from 9 kHz upwards, preparing standards that offer protection of radio reception

from interference sources such as electrical appliances of all types, the electricity supply system, industrial, scientific and electromedical RF, broadcasting receivers (sound and TV) and, increasingly, IT equipment (ITE). Following is a brief overview of the scope of CISPR’s current activities in 2009, close to 75 years after its founding in 1935.

BASIC STANDARDS CISPR Sub-committee (SC) A provides basic standards to CISPR product committees as well as other IEC technical committees for use in determining conformity to limits. Activity specifically involves radio-interference measurements and statistical methods.

CISPR SCA Active Projects - Measuring Apparatus

CISPR 16-1-1 has been rewritten concerning the use of spectrum analyzers without pre-selection for compliance measurements.

A new CISPR 16-1-6 project on antenna calibration was started in the past year and will update the current CISPR 16-1-5, add time domain techniques, and will apply additionally to frequencies above 1 GHz.

CISPR 16-1-4 and 16-1-5 will be amended for the introduction of the Reference Site Method which offers an improvement on the method of validation of reference test sites through the use of the AAPR Antenna Pair Reference. This AAPR includes the antenna factors as well as the coupling of each antenna to the ground plane and the coupling between the antennas. In addition, the radiation patterns of the antennas are included as compared to the NSA method where the radiation patterns are approximated Hertzian dipoles. Round-robin tests have already provided valuable input and a much improved second draft is circulating.

Although already included for frequencies below 1 GHz, the evaluation of the set up table on the impact of the EUT emissions can now be measured and included in the uncertainty budget also now above 1 GHz in CISPR 16-1-4 Ed 3.0. Such tables have historically been made of wood but the above 1 GHz test will require the use of different lower reflection dielectric materials. Experience is still limited but the market is already starting to see the emergence of specialised tables to suit this requirement. The second edition of CISPR 17 on “Measurement of EMC Characteristics of RF Filters” is at second stage Committee Draft (CD).

FEATURE Update on CISPR Standards

Example of a fully absorber-lined room (FAR) as described in draft standard IEC 61000-4-22, which may eventually exist in parallel to CISPR 16-1-4 and IEC 61000-4-3. The new draft standard offers an independent and more efficient method of validating a FAR and EUT

set up for both radiated immunity and emissions EMC testing.

continued on page 12

Phot

o us

ed w

ith

perm

issi

on o

f ETS

-Lin

dgre

n


WHAT IT TAKES

Are you considering refurbishing a Semi Anechoic Chamber (SAC)? If so, this short sidebar article should help you. In 2007, IBM refurbished an 18 year old

SAC. The overhaul was a challenging project as it had to convert the facility designed for an abandoned mission to a far more complex one testing Enterprise Servers (very large main frame computer systems). The Normalized Site Attenuation (NSA) volume doubled. The electrical power increased from 36 KW to 400 KW. The turntable diameter expanded to 6.0 meters while its weight capacity went from 3,000 pounds to 25,000 pounds. Finally, HVAC capacity tripled.

For IBM, this project was a significant capital investment. The chamber, at some 80’ long x 45’ wide x 29’ high, still performed well; however, the absorber did not fare so well over time. In addition, considerable advances in absorber performance since the chamber was installed 18 years ago made refurbishment a practical consideration. Investing in new absorber and refurbishing our existing chamber made sense in our case. Given the multi-million dollar amount of this refurbishment, however, we had to be thorough in our process to select the optimal contractor. Hopefully, you can benefit from our experience!

Building a new SAC or refurbishing an old one is a detailed technical construction project. First and foremost, it is very

important to understand what the refurbished chamber will be used for. The project manager must understand what is going in it and how it will be used. You need to understand basic physical characteristics such as the EUT’s dimensions, weight, electrical requirements and HVAC. You should also forecast future requirements as it is very expensive to upgrade later. At this point, you have to decide if the existing SAC can be upgraded for the new mission. There is no hard and fast answer here; you have to use your technical knowledge, experience and judgment if it can be upgraded. Among other factors, Normalized Site Attenuation (NSA) volume and structural integrity are major considerations.

If your engineering judgment is “yes,” then it is time to call in potential contractors. Have your test requirements firm and crisp. Dig out the original blueprints; these are most helpful for the bidders. Better yet, have copies available.

After all the contractors reviewed the existing SAC, IBM had extensive discussions with them over an extended period since this was a technically challenging project that pushed the limits of the current facility. We wanted to insure that the contractors understood what IBM wanted and, in fact, could do the transformation. IBM had two major concerns: EUT volume and turntable structural integrity. The diameter of the turntable would increase to 6.0 meters and come close to the potential edge of anechoic material. In addition,

Considering Refurbishing an Anechoic Chamber? Guidelines for a Successful Upgrade

Eric Schumann, Advisory Engineer, IBM


WHAT IT TAKES

the floor to ceiling height would decrease by 12 inches. The larger turntable and smaller height affects Normalized Site Attenuation. The other major concern was the new turntable’s larger diameter and increased weight capacity.

In addition, we had extensive discussions on how Enterprise Servers would be tested with their numerous signal and power cables. Also, some products are cooled with chilled water; we had to contend with fairly inflexible hoses. These detailed discussions ensured the EMC Lab personnel could test with ease.

As you are having these discussions, it is important to understand that each contractor has proprietary techniques, information and insight. We went to extensive lengths to ensure there was no “cross contamination” between the bidders. Each one had unique insights about the project, but we did not share such information with others.

Once these discussions are finished and you are confident that all potential contractors understand what is required, you can develop a uniform bid document. Such a bid document will contain both a written description and drawings. Remember, the bid becomes a legal contract upon acceptance so make sure all details are included and accurate.

The following discussion is pertinent to both new construction and refurbishment. However, these items were of particular interest to the refurbishment project.

NSA performance is most critical. If the refurbished chamber does not pass the Normalized Site Attenuation requirement, it can not be legally used for product certification work. It is that important. In IBM’s case, the new test volume was so large that it came close to the anechoic foam tips. IBM’s Distinguished Engineer, Dr. Bruce Archambeault, modeled the SAC¹. Most buyers cannot do this. Because of the considerable investment in the new absorber, Dr. Archambeault modeled the predicted performance of the new absorber and required that all bidders provide modeled data with documentation of actual measurements to verify the accuracy of the modeling. If you do not have someone on staff that is skilled in modeling, you should ask your bidders for a comparison report showing the predicted

AND measured results of the proposed absorber. Also, it is important that the bidders know what antennas and instrumentation you use. In the contract, you should specify an NSA margin and decide how the final performance test should be conducted.

Important to refurbishments is a shielding effectiveness test (SE) with 100 dB being standard performance. It is

important to patch up leaks. Chances are that the facility has many “untreated” penetrations. In IBM’s case, we saw light through one! Usually the SE test is performed just before the anechoic material is applied. There will be some areas where you will not achieve the 100 dB performance level. You need to understand when penetrations for electrical, light, HVAC and signals are

performed. A second SE test may be necessary.

Be sure to understand the fire protection service your insurance carrier requires and incorporate this in the bid package. There is a good chance that the requirements are more stringent then what was originally required. Understand that fire heads impact NSA performance.

It is a good idea to be mindful of the local construction codes and the building inspectors who enforce them. If you are not, these folks can stop you cold!

I could go on but space limitations force me to stop. The most important advice that I can offer is that a chamber overhaul is a detailed technical construction project. You need to stay on top of budgets, schedules, the contract, the prime bid winner and all their subcontractors - not to mention your own company’s requirements. You have to play well with others. There is no magic bullet; just plain hard work to ensure success. But if you do, you will have a successful project. The original chamber lasted 18 years; we hope the refurbished one lasts as long.

For further information, please contact the author at [email protected] or at phone: 919-543-5397.

¹ Dr. Archambeault’s modeling report showing predicted versus actual measured performance of the new

absorber material installed in IBM’s chamber can be read starting on page 16 of this issue.

“It is a good idea to be mindful of the local construction codes and the building inspectors who enforce them. If you are not, these folks can stop you cold!”


CISPR SCA Active Projects - Test Methods

y CISPR 16-2-1 Conducted disturbance measurements concerning effect of cable bundling

y CISPR 16-2-3 Addition of measurand for radiated emissions less than 1 GHz

y CISPR 16-2-3 Addition of receiving antenna height scan above 1 GHz

y CISPR 16-2-3 Application of Common Mode Absorbing Device (CMAD).

CISPR SCA Active Projects - Uncertainty

y CISPR 16-4-1 Treatment of uncertainties in compliance criteria

y CISPR 16-4-2 Amendment on measurement instrumentation uncertainty

PRODUCT STANDARDS CISPR SC B Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) Standards

y CISPR 11 – The future Ed 5.0 is currently under revision with key issues related to harmonizing methods with CISPR 16

CISPR SC D Vehicle, Boats and Internal Combustion Engines Standards

y CISPR 12 (off board receiver emissions) and CISPR 25 (on-board receiver emissions) – Maintenance continues

CISPR SC F Household Appliances, Electric Tools and Similar Apparatus Standards

y CISPR 14 Consumer (Immunity and Emission ) – No major work underway; currently active

y CISPR 15 Lighting – SC F is working with SC A on use of Coupling-Decoupling Networks (CDN)

CISPR SC I Information Technology, Multimedia, and Receiver Products

y CISPR 13 Broadcast receivers and associated equipment recently published; Ed 6.0 included emission limits to 6 GHz

y CISPR 22 ITE recently published Ed 6.0; included emission limit changes to 6 GHz

y CISPR 32 Multimedia is currently one of the major activities within CISPR. A first draft of this standard received over 1000 comments; a second draft is now circulating taking into account those comments as appropriate. Of interest is the continued debate on a general level concerning referee or alternative methods

which were originally highlighted by the first draft inclusion of chamber, TEM cell and mode stirred methods all in the normative section. The latter two have now been placed into an informative annex as the IEC-CISPR national committees have positioned itself with referee methods at this time stating that: “If more than one adequate test method exists for a characteristic, only one shall in principle be the subject of a document. If, for any reason, more than one test method is to be standardized, either the referee (often called “reference”) method shall be identified in the document or the intended (equal) validity shall be stated.”


“CISPR’s principal task is at the higher end of the frequency range, from 9 kHz upwards, preparing standards that offer protection of radio reception from interference sources such as electrical appliances of all types, the electricity supply system, industrial, scientific and electromedical RF, broadcasting receivers (sound and TV) and, increasingly, IT equipment (ITE).”(as defined on the IEC website for CISPR)

continued from page 8


y Requirements and Measurement Methods for Power Line Telecommunications (PLT) Equipment –The issue is to allow the same level of radio protection while placing IT signals on the mains cord that are at the higher levels allowed for mains in the frequency range 150 kHz to 30 MHz. Presently the rationale for this work is being prepared. One approach is to have notches in the PLT spectrum where at those critical frequencies; there is significant reduction in the applied signal. Such notches are suggested for the amateur radio band as an example.

CISPR JTF Work

CISPR has setup a number of internal Joint Task Forces (JTFs) or cross sub-committee groups to facilitate an improved application of test methods (using the output of SC A) and better use of the interference model (provided by SC H).

yy A/D Development of a chamber validation method for CISPR 25. This will be separated in two parts: (1) below 30 MHz and (2) 30-1000 MHz

yy A/D Inclusion of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) based instrumentation in CISPR 16 to use new time domain based technology

yy A/F CDN measurement - the task is to transfer the methods for measuring conducted emissions from luminaries from CISPR 15 into CISPR 16

yy A/IyyCommon measurement methods so that the SC I standards using SC A basic measurement techniques simply reference them in the product standard; also to suggest that techniques used in SC I and not in CISPR 16 be added to CISPR 16 so that they can be removed from SC I publications and simply refer to the CISPR 16 documents

yy A/H Limits, especially those for new measurement techniques for use by the product committees

IEC SC 77B / CISPR JTF Work

IEC/CISPR has also set up a number of joint task forces with IEC SC 77B, which is under the Technical Committee (TC) 77 umbrella. The main task of TC 77 and its three sub-committees (including SC 77B) is to prepare basic and generic EMC publications specifying electromagnetic environments, emissions, immunity, test procedures, measurement techniques, etc. SC 77B specifically handles high-frequency continuous and transient phenomena, including electrostatic discharges, for example. It has the responsibility for the publication of the following:

y IEC 61000-4-20: The TEM Cell JTF has completed its first maintenance cycle and been revised to include field probe

calibration, provision for large EUTs and harmonized test setups for immunity and emission. Currently FDIS.

y IEC 61000-4-21 Ed 1.0: The Reverberation Chambers JTF has also completed its first maintenance cycle and is revising to include amongst others: field probe calibration, immunity and emission methods, and measurement uncertainty. Currently at the Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) stage.

y IEC 61000-4-22: Fully Absorber-lined Rooms (FARs). After some delay, the second CD of this draft standard has been sent for Committee Draft for Vote (CDV). The methods described in this document offer an independent and more efficient method of validating a FAR and EUT set up for both radiated immunity and emissions which could exist in parallel to CISPR 16-1-4 and IEC 61000-4-3. It has therefore met with some opposition and the result of the vote is eagerly anticipated within IEC/CISPR. On a related topic, we are seeing more chamber users considering retrofits of existing chambers to replace outdated RF absorber with the newer material available. On many of these 15+ year chambers, the shielded enclosure still performs well; however, the absorber may not have fared so well over the years and performance has

Update on CISPR Standards FEATURE


been compromised. An article on one user’s experience with a major absorber retrofit appears on page 9.

Whilst some of the Sub-committees have been able to reduce their workload in recent times (in particular SC A) there has been an increase in the scope of the Joint Task Force activities which virtually all include SC A. This is considered a good method to further involve the basic measurement experts with those in product committees that use their outputs. This is born from CISPR’s desire to constantly improve and update all standards whilst

harmonizing and optimizing the work involved.

FOR MORE INFORMATION Please consult the IEC website www.iec.ch or contact your national committee. For more detailed information on the background of CISPR and its current activities, visit www.emcs.org/acstrial/newsletters/winter09/ActivitiesofCISPR.html. This article by Werner Schaefer ([email protected]) was published in the Winter 2009, Issue 220 of the IEEE EMC Society Newsletter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe author wishes to acknowledge and thank Don Heirman, Chairman of CISPR, for his invaluable review of and contributions to this article. Mr. Heirman can be contacted at [email protected]. Martin Wiles is a Senior RF Engineer with ETS-Lindgren, in Stevenage, England. He is a UK delegate for CISPR A and the IEC-CISPR Joint Task Force on Fully Anechoic Rooms. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].


A semi-anechoic 10 meter chamber for automotive EMC compliance testing in accordance with CISPR 12, which describes the radio disturbance characteristics – limits and methods of measurement – for vehicles, boats and internal combustion engine driven devices. Many CISPR 12 chambers may

also be used for testing in accordance with other automotive standards, such as SAE J551 and ISO 11451-2, as well as CISPR 25.

Phot

o us

ed w

ith

perm

issi

on o

f ETS

-Lin

dgre

n


The IBM RTP/065 EMC Chamber required a refurbishment in order to accommodate larger computer systems. One of the planned enhancements was to replace the existing carbon-loaded foam RF absorbers with a combination of ferrite tile and RF absorber. This report analyzes the site attenuation characteristics of the proposed chamber with supplier provided RF absorber loss data.

Information directly from vendor proposals showed simulations had indicated that the site attenuation values were right on the +/- 4 dB limit required by the EMC regulatory bodies. This work was intended to increase/decrease confidence in the likelihood that the new chamber would meet the necessary site attenuation limits. Due to business concerns, senior IBM management decided that there was no room for error and that the

newly refurbished chamber must be operational on schedule.

While proposals and data from more than one supplier were included in the original analysis, only the chosen supplier1 results will be included here (since they ultimately won the contract with IBM).

SIMULATION TECHNIQUEThe basic simulation technique used for this analysis is ray-tracing. It is assumed that the first reflection is the major reflection and there is one reflection from each wall. The amplitude and phase of the path includes the free-space loss/phase as well as the loss/phase from the absorber material. Supplier provided absorber information is used in all cases (with reflection being dependant

on approach angle and frequency). Free-space loss is based on 1/r distance.

SITE ATTENUATION SIMULATIONThe requirements for site attenuation include the following:

1. All combinations of direct ray and reflected rays must have a maximum of no more than +/- 4 dB from theoretical (direct with one reflection from the metal floor) as the receive antenna is scanned in height from 1 meter to 4 meters above the metal floor.

2. The source antenna must be placed in five different locations on the turntable (center, along turntable edge nearest to receive antenna, along turntable edge furthest from

Site Attenuation Prediction for Refurbishing an Older EMC Chamber

Bruce Archambeault, Sam Connor, Eric SchumannIBM

1 The chosen supplier was ETS-Lindgren in Cedar Park, Texas. For additional information, please contact the supplier or the author at [email protected].

SPECIAL REPORT


receive antenna, and at remaining 90 degree offsets along turntable edge. The source antenna heights will be one meter and two meters for horizontal polarization and one meter and 1.5 meters for vertical polarization. The receive antenna must be maintained at 10 meter distance from the source antenna.

SITE CONFIGURATIONFigure 1 shows the general site configuration for the enclosure. The non-rectangular shape potentially changes the site attenuation prediction from the suppliers, since their tools only operate with rectangular enclosures. The basic internal dimensions of the metal walls are 44 feet wide by 80 feet

long. Also shown is the turntable size change from the previous 4.5 meter to 6 meter diameter. The ceiling height is 25 feet from the metal floor.

Figure 2 shows the chamber configuration with the larger turntable moved towards the left end by one foot (as proposed by the chosen supplier).

Figure 2 Chamber Configuration with Larger Turntable Moved from Previous Location by One Foot

Figure 1 Chamber Configuration with Larger Turntable Centered at Previous Location

SPECIAL REPORT


SPECIAL REPORT

Figure 3 Site Attenuation Antenna Locations for Centered Receive Antenna

Figure 4 Site Attenuation Antenna Locations for Offset Receive Antenna

Figure 5 Reflection Loss for One Meter Cones (TE)

Figure 6 Reflection Loss for One Meter Cones (TM)

Figure 7 Reflection Loss for 1.5 Meter Cones (TE)

Figure 8 Reflection Loss for 1.5 Meter Cones (TM)


SPECIAL REPORT

Figure 9 Predicted Site Attenuation Deviation for Offset Receive Antenna

Horizontal Polarization and One Meter High Source Antenna


Horizontal Polarization and Two Meter High Source Antenna


Vertical Polarization and One Meter High Source Antenna


Vertical Polarization and 1.5 Meter High Source Antenna

Figure 13 Predicted Site Attenuation Deviation for Centered Receive Antenna

Horizontal Polarization and One Meter High Source Antenna


Horizontal Polarization and Two Meter High Source Antenna


ANTENNA LOCATIONS FOR SITE ATTENUATION Figure 3 shows the chamber configuration with the five transmit antenna locations shown on the turntable for the case where the receive antenna is located along the center line of the chamber. The proposals from the suppliers only allowed for the center line position of the receive antenna. However, IBM typically uses the receive antennas offset, so there can be two antennas being used simultaneously (for 30-200 MHz and for 200-1000 MHz). This desired configuration for antenna placement is shown in Figure 4.

SITE ATTENUATION PREDICTION WITH THE CHOSEN SUPPLIER’S PROPOSALThe proposal from the chosen supplier included ferrite tiles and cone absorber material. The three walls behind the receive antennas had 1 meter thick cones, and all other walls and the ceiling had 1.5 meter thick cones.

The refection loss from the supplier is shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the one meter cones and Figures 7 and 8 for the 1.5 meter cones.

The site attenuation requirement is to have the actual received signal be within +/- 4 dB of the theoretical value from a direct ray and one reflection from a perfect ‘ground’ plane. Figures 9 through 16 show the predicted site attenuation using the absorber reflection data from the chosen supplier, and assuming one reflection from each of the eight walls. Both centered and offset receive antenna positions are included. All cases meet the +/- 4 dB requirement with a comfortable margin.

CONCLUSIONAll the simulation results showed a reasonable margin for the predicted site attenuation from both supplier proposals. While the supplier proposals were at the limit of +/- 4dB, it is believed that they were being overly conservative and adding extra margin in their predictions (since their simulation tools could not directly handle the non-rectangular shape of the room and the non center line placement of the receive antennas).

These predictions were based on the supplier provided data for their absorber materials. Both suppliers that bid the IBM project had experienced and well known engineers responsible for their data, and confidence was high that the data from both companies was accurate.

The final conclusion from this analysis was that there was a comfortable margin with the data from either supplier. The final decision on supplier selection was not dependant on the technical performance.

Once the project was completed, the actual testing showed the site attenuation test results met the required +/- 4 dB requirement with a comfortable margin.

Dr. Archambeault’s modeling report showing predicted versus actual measured performance of the new absorber material installed in IBM’s chamber can be seen online at www.incompliancemag.com/absorber_data.

SPECIAL REPORT


Vertical Polarization and One Meter High Source Antenna


Vertical Polarization and 1.5 Meter High Source Antenna


US vsRecentCanadian

by Roland Gubisch

With the publication of Industry Canada RSS-220 in March of this year, manufacturers are now able to certify and market their UWB (Ultra-Wideband)

equipment in Canada. Following the publication of FCC (Federal Communications Commission) UWB rules in Part 15 Subpart F by 7 years, the new RSS-220 rules largely follow FCC equipment categories and limits. However, the Industry Canada limits are more stringent in part than the FCC’s for hand held and indoor communication devices. Test methods and equipment labeling also differ somewhat between the FCC and IC rules.

Rules for

Ultra-WidebandRadio Operation


BACKGROUND Ultra-wideband technology offers the promise of high bandwidth communications over short distances, using simple nanosecond pulse techniques. First developed for military applications, UWB is finding a variety of applications such as wireless personal area networks (WPANs), vehicular radar and ground penetrating radar (GPR). It offers system simplicity, relative immunity from interference and secure communications.

In operation, UWB spreads its low-power emissions over a very large frequency bandwidth, often greater than 500 MHz. This presents a threat of harmful interference to existing radio users. As an unlicensed service, any number of UWB transmitters could be concentrated in a small area, causing elevation of the local radio noise floor and potentially hindering operation of sensitive receivers.

UWB IN THE UNITED STATESMindful of both the potential benefits and drawbacks of UWB, the FCC in 2000 and 2001 sought public comment on allowing UWB operation under Part 15 (unlicensed) rules. It also sought comments on NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) studies on the potential interference to government systems from UWB operation. Hundreds of comments were received from radio equipment manufacturers, satellite service providers, the US Departments of Defense, Navy and Transportation, NAV Canada, local law enforcement and public safety agencies and radio amateurs, among others.

The result of these considerations was the adoption in February 2002 of Part 15 Subpart F rules for Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems, FCC 02-48. The emission limits are lower than existing Part 15 general limits in 15.209 in most cases, and take into account the directionality of such uses

as GPR and wall-penetrating radars to reduce the threat of interference to nearby receivers. The 2002 UWB rules have been modified several times since their publication, to account for specific technical issues such as gated transmissions.

To date, the FCC has issued about 180 Grants of Authorization for UWB devices of all types. Authority to issue UWB Grants has not yet been given to TCBs (Telecommunication Certification Bodies), accredited, independent certification bodies. The FCC will likely release the UWB certification authority to TCBs, as with other new technologies, once sufficient experience has been gathered and necessary test procedures have been defined.

UWB IN CANADAIn February 2005 Industry Canada published a “Consultation Paper on the Introduction of Wireless Systems Using Ultra-wideband Technology” (SMSE-002-05). The paper provides a concise statement of the potential benefits and problems associated with UWB devices. It surveys other UWB rules and drafts at the time of publication, including CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations), ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute), FCC, and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). It contains simulations of the aggregate interference from multiple UWB devices, and observes from the simulations that the cumulative interference effect rises slowly after a sufficient number of UWB emitters (approximately 20 in the charts) are represented. The consultation paper also invited public comment on a number of specific procedural and technical questions.

On May 28, 2009 the radio equipment certification standard RSS-220 “Devices Using Ultra-Wideband (UWB)

Figure 1: Typical UWB pulse and resulting emission profile

FEATURE US vs Recent Canadian Rules for Ultra-Wideband Radio Operat ion


Technology” came into force. Prior to that date no UWB device could be certified for operation in Canada. Now, UWB equipment for use in Canada can be certified by the Canadian Certification and Engineering Bureau, and by the numerous accredited, independent Canadian Certification Bodies (CBs).

COMPARING FCC AND INDUSTRY CANADA UWB RULES

Structure

Here we compare the structures of the two sets of rules, noting differences in definitions, limits and test procedures. As many of the emission limits are identical, we will note only where differences exist.

Table 1 indicates the correlation between the two sets of rules.

Some of the key non-technical differences are:

y FCC Subpart F groups all definitions into section 15.503. RSS-220 distributes the definitions among the relevant subclasses, plus general definitions in the Annex.

y RSS-210 contains special requirements for test reports; FCC Subpart F does not.

y FCC Subpart F prohibits UWB use in toys and onboard aircraft; RSS-220 does not.

y Some labeling requirements differ; these are discussed below.

y The FCC UWB measurement procedures are found in Annex F of

FCC 02-28. RSS-220 contains its own measurement procedures.

y FCC Subpart F imposed coordination requirements on UWB imaging device users. RSS-220 contains no coordination requirements.

Both documents define the key UWB parameters identically: y UWB bandwidth (> 500 MHz)

y Fractional bandwidth (> 0.2)

y fM (Frequency of maximum UWB transmission)

y fH (Highest frequency at which the power spectral density of the UWB transmission is –10 dB relative to fM

y fL (Lowest frequency at which the power spectral density of the UWB transmission is –10 dB relative to fM


Subject FCC Part 15 section Industry Canada RSS-220 section

Scope 15.501 1

Definitions 15.503 2, 4, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, Annex

Certification required 15.201 3

Cross-references 15.505 3.1, RSS-Gen

Test reports -3.2, note UWB subclass and any data

port

Transmitter with external frequency selection controls

- 3.3

Marketing of UWB equipment 15.507 -

Ground-penetrating and wall imaging systems

15.509 6.2, term “in-wall” used

Through-wall imaging systems 15.510 6.3

Surveillance systems 15.511 6.4

Medical imaging systems 15.513 6.5

Vehicular radar systems 15.515 4

Indoor UWB systems 15.517 5.2

Hand held UWB systems 15.519 5.3

General requirements15.521; also, operation of toys and

onboard aircraft prohibited.Annex

Measurement procedures 15.523 (FCC 02-48 Annex F) Annex

Coordination requirements 15.525 (Imaging devices only) -

Label or User Manual text 15.510(e), 15.511(f), 15.517(f) 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5

Table 1: Correlation between FCC and Industry Canada UWB rules


The –10 dBm bandwidth for UWB is used because the spectral power density is already so low that the more commonly used –20 dB points could be impossible to measure.

Limit Differences

Most of the limit values specified in RSS-220 are identical to those in FCC Subpart F. The general limits of 15.209 (identical to RSS-220 clause 3.4) apply below 960 MHz. In the GPS protection band 1164-1610 MHz, both compliance standards specify a > 1 kHz resolution bandwidth; the limits in this band are identical between standards (but differ among UWB device types) and can be as low as –85.3 dBm EIRP.

However, there are two cases where RSS-220 limits are more stringent than FCC Part 15 Subpart F, and the frequency breakpoints differ from Subpart F.

1. Indoor UWB systems, FCC 15.517, RSS-220 clause 5.2.

The RSS-220 emission limit is more severe than the FCC Subpart F limit over the range 1.61 – 4.75 GHz (Table 2). The largest difference is 28.7 dB. The lower limit represents a measurement challenge, as the FCC Part 15 general limit (15.209) is the equivalent of –41.3 dBm EIRP in one MHz above 960 MHz.

2. Hand held UWB systems, FCC 15.519, RSS-220 clause 5.3.

Once again the RSS-220 emission limit is more severe than the FCC Subpart F limit over the range 1.61 – 4.75 GHz (Table 3). The largest difference is 28.7 dB, as with Table 2. The FCC Part 15 general limit (15.209) is the equivalent of –41.3 dBm EIRP in one MHz above 960 MHz.

The Canadian limits for these two UWB types differ from FCC UWB limits in order to protect Canadian radio services such as WiMAX (2300 MHz, 3500 MHz) and Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) communications in the C-band (3700-4200 MHz), which are different from US allocations.

Measurement Procedures

Industry Canada RSS-220 contains its own UWB measurement procedures in its Annex. By contrast, FCC Part 15 Subpart F addresses its measurement procedures by reference in clause 15.523. The procedures are found in FCC 02-48 Annex F, and agree with the procedures in RSS-220 on these major points:

y Measurements at and below 960 MHz are made with a CISPR quasi-peak detector

y Measurements above 960 MHz are made with an RMS detector having 1 MHz resolution bandwidth and < 1 ms averaging time.

y Peak EIRP measurements for comparison with the 0 dBm limit are made with any resolution bandwidth (RBW) from 1 MHz to 50 MHz, and scaled to a 50 MHz bandwidth using the formula 20 log10(RBW/50).

y Peak EIRP limit can be converted to field strength using the formula E(dBmV/m) = P(dBm EIRP) + 95.2.

US vs Recent Canadian Rules for Ultra-Wideband Radio Operat ion FEATURE

Frequency FCC 15.517(c) EIRP in 1 MHz IC RSS-220 clause 5.2.1(d) EIRP in 1 MHz

960-1610 MHz -75.3 dBm -75.3 dBm

1.61-1.99 GHz -53.3 dBm -70 dBm

1.99-3.1 GHz -51.3 dBm -70 dBm

3.1-4.75 GHz -41.3 dBm -70 dBm

4.75-10.6 GHz -41.3 dBm -41.3 dBm

Above 10.6 GHz -51.3 dBm -51.3 dBm

Table 2: Indoor UWB System Limit Comparison

Frequency FCC 15.519(c) EIRP in 1 MHz IC RSS-220 clause 5.3.1(d) EIRP in 1 MHz

960-1610 MHz -75.3 dBm -75.3 dBm

1.61-1.99 GHz -63.3 dBm -70 dBm

1.99-3.1 GHz -61.3 dBm -70 dBm

3.1-4.75 GHz -41.3 dBm -70 dBm

4.75-10.6 GHz -41.3 dBm -41.3 dBm

Above 10.6 GHz -61.3 dBm -61.3 dBm

Table 3: Hand-held (outdoor) UWB System Limit Comparison


y Emissions from digital circuitry not directly associated with operation of the UWB transmitter are subject to the respective limits for digital devices.

RSS-220 measurement procedures anticipate the desirability of making low-level UWB measurements in anechoic or semi-anechoic chambers. Several provisions for this, that are not found in FCC procedures, are:

y Below 960 MHz, assess the ground screen reflection contribution, if any, and correct the radiated emission measurements accordingly.

y Above 960 MHz in a semi-anechoic chamber, place RF absorbers between the EUT and the measurement antenna to remove the influence of the ground screen.

y For Ground Penetrating Radars, place the EUT over at least 50 cm of sand (same as FCC), or use a combination of ferrite tiles and dielectric cones placed directly below the EUT. If use of the bed of sand precludes a ground screen, the data must be adjusted to account for the absence of the ground screen.


Device type FCC Subpart F text RSS-220 text

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and In-wall Imaging

Systems

-

6.2 GPR User Manual This Ground Penetrating Radar Device shall be operated only when in contact with or within 1 m of the ground. This Ground Penetrating Radar Device shall be operated only by law enforcement agencies, scientific research institutes, commercial mining companies, construction companies, and emergency rescue or firefighting organizations. 6.2 In-wall Imaging Systems User Manual This In-wall Radar Imaging Device shall be operated where the device is directed at the wall and in contact with or within 20 cm of the wall surface. This In-wall Radar Imaging Device shall be operated only by law enforcement agencies, scientific research institutes, commercial mining companies, constructyion companies, and emergency rescue or firefighting organizations.

Through-wall imaging systems

15.510(e) Label Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, emergency rescue and firefighter personnel. Operation by any other party is a violation of 47 U.S.C 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties.

6.3 User Manual This Through-wall Radar Imaging Device shall be operated only by law enforcement agencies or emergency rescue or firefighter organizations that are under a local, provincial or federal authority. The equipment is to be operated only in providing services and for necessary training operations.

Radar surveillance systems

15.511(f) Label Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, fire and rescue officials, public utilities and industrial entities. Operation by any other party is a violation of 47 U.S.C 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties.

6.4 User Manual his Radar Surveillance Device shall be operated only by military, law enforcement, emergency rescue or firefighting organizations that are under a local, provincial or federal authority. The equipment is to be operated only in providing services and for necessary training operations.

Indoor UWB Systems

15.517(f) Label or User Manual This equipment may only be operated indoors. Operation outdoors is in violation of 47 U.S.C 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties.

-

Medical Imaging Systems

-6.5 User Manual This Medical Radar Imaging Device shall be operated only in hospitals and health-care facilities, and only at the direction or under the supervision of a health-care practitioner.

Table 4: Label and user manual text requirements for UWB devices


FCC measurement procedures are more specific than RSS-220 in specifying a 4.7 dB correction factor for the absence of a ground screen, and in calling for a ½” thick gypsum or drywall to be used for testing through-wall imaging systems. Labeling and User Manual Text Differences

For the manufacturer seeking to market the same UWB devices in both the USA and Canada, technical differences between the UWB standards in these two countries represent the first challenge. Not to be overlooked, however, are any differences in requirements in device labeling and user manual instructions. Fortunately, there are no conflicting requirements between RSS-220 and FCC Part 15 Subpart F in this area. Use restrictions in the FCC UWB rules that are required to be placed on the device label, are reflected in RSS-220 requirements for similar text in the user manual. In both cases the manufacturer must add the label and user manual text specified elsewhere in the Part 15 or RSS-Gen rules. Table 4 summarizes label and user manual requirements.

CONCLUSIONThe Canadian equipment certification standard RSS-220 for UWB devices is very similar to the FCC technical requirements of UWB devices under 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart F. In many cases limits and methods are identical. However, there are significant differences between these rules for indoor and hand held UWB systems. Manufacturers seeking to market their UWB equipment in Canada, or in both countries, need to be aware of these differences, and of details in the standards that are beyond the scope of this overview.

Roland Gubisch, EMC Sr. Consultant to Intertek, Boxborough, MA. Formerly, the Chief Engineer, EMC and Telecom for Intertek Testing Services North America. Intertek’s Commercial & Electrical division of Intertek, provides testing and certification, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing, product safety and performance testing. Visit www.intertek-etlsemko.com for further information.

Roland’s industry activities have included the IEEE P1775 Working Group for Power Line Communications EMC standards, membership in the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments (ACTA), and TIA liaison groups with the FCC for wireless communications. He holds domestic and international patents in the fields of optical and chemical instrumentation, and network test apparatus. He is also a TCB and Industry Canada CB reviewer, a member of the IEEE, and IEEE Communications and EMC Societies.

US vs Recent Canadian Rules for Ultra-Wideband Radio Operat ion FEATURE


A Panacea for a Paranoid Society?by Mike Violette

Certification

There is currently a lot of momentum in the Certification

world, across many different sectors

and product types and, deriving from Newton’s second

law, momentum is

directly proportional to the force applied to a body. Forces act from various directions: the public, industry, regulatory authorities and the testing industry.


The “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” was launched in 1909 by Good Housekeeping Magazine.

The publication, a first in consumer protection (in the early Spring of social advocacy) guaranteed satisfactory use of products that bore their Seal. The guarantee states that “if any product that bears our Seal or is advertised in this issue (with certain exceptions) proves to be defective within two years from the date it was first sold to a consumer by an authorized retailer, we, Good Housekeeping, will replace the product or refund the purchase price.”

“Certified” goods—kind of. If your GHS (Good Housekeeping Seal) umbrella inverts on a windy day and was proven to be defective, you’ll get a refund. Vacuum cleaner doesn’t suck anymore? Write the magazine, fill out a form, explain the problem, have them do their due diligence and you’ll be whole in no time.

A hundred years on one looks back to the last ’09. Kids weren’t concerned—or didn’t know—that celiac’s disease made you steer clear of wheat gluten. I would submit that growing up in rural Maine, having anything on the plate was cause for celebration (and you knew where your potatoes came from). Now, food choices have widened broader than a politician’s smile and “food scares” make the news and the rounds of the virtual water cooler of online news, blogs and social networking sites. Still, one hundred years after Upton Sinclair penned The Jungle, we continue to have serious concerns about food safety. Until we give up eating, I submit that these worries will continue.

What is the response to panic over products? Whenever there is some kind of crisis, the first response is to push for “Certification” of some form, whether it be government or industry-mandated. If the government gets

involved, the real pushing and shoving begins. And at the end of the day, what sort of comfort level does this bring the consumer? When all is calm or in less-celebrated situations, is the public all that interested? Only when something goes wrong…that’s when the e. coli hits the fan.

The question is where is the balance between adequate protection and smothering regulations? When one interest group pushes for reform, another decries the added cost (calculated in various ways) to the product or process. Another issue is raised when the term “Certification” is inappropriately applied. I can certify that every fact in this missive is true, but on whose authority? Mine? When is self-certification sufficient? Only

if someone with a self(ish) interest is paying attention, most likely your competitor (alternatively, take the Wikipedia model of group peer-review).

There is currently a lot of momentum in the Certification world, across many different sectors and product types and, deriving from Newton’s second law, momentum is directly proportional to the force applied to a body. Forces act from various directions: the public, industry, regulatory authorities and the testing industry.

With the ultimate goal to protect the public, an open system of Certification, which involves multiple stakeholders and a process of oversight and exchange, is the most effective sort.

Maine early 20 C.; you knew where your potatoes came from

FEATURE Cert i f icat ion: A Panacea for a Paranoid Society?


The challenge is to build something that is strong but flexible, much like a building built in an earthquake zone, allowing a little wiggle without falling to pieces.

This article discusses some of the trends and forces acting on the Certification process. In our corner of the sandbox—electronics—the growth of Certifications has leapt right along with the growth of standards and technologies. Just flip over your laptop and look at all the cartoons on the label, nearly every one of the logos depicting some type of Certification. We’ll take a stab at discussing the structure of Certification and some of its forms that assure that products stay in compliance.

AN OVERVIEW OF CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS According to the United Nations Environment Programme, “Certification systems seek to ensure that products meet a set of agreed-upon standards.” Note that the verb in that sentence is “seek”. There is no real guarantee that the standards are being met; we live in an imperfect world after all. The critical element is that there is ultimately traceability (and culpability) in the system, even if a product is less than stellar.

Types of Certification in the Electronics Industry

There are two general categories of Certifications that are used in the electronics industry. These can be broadly broken into Regulatory Certification and Industry Certification.

In the regulatory (i.e., governed) world, Certification is usually reserved for devices that have a high degree of potential risk, should the device fault, fail or be incorrectly produced. Product safety is a commonly-known certification regimen. The other common type of certification is

relegated to radio transmitters under the FCC Rules and Regulations.

There are several other types of product approval schemes, some involve simple registration, wherein the evaluation of the product is not lodged, only the potentially culpable party is listed with the regulatory authority. The other regimens are more strict, such as for medical devices, which require a full or detailed submission and authorization prior to marketing. The most stringent type of approval, arguably the most expensive and complex is for pharmaceuticals.

Other types of government device certifications include programs that deal with compromising emanations under the National Security Agency’s TEMPEST program. This type of certification pushes the authority to the testing agency, which is accredited to produce reports that demonstrate that the proper RED/BLACK isolation is maintained.

On the industrial side, a further division might be made between “private label” programs and “industry” programs. Private label programs (like the Good Housekeeping Seal) are usually mandated to either provide a marketing advantage or to screen certain producers of products that are designed to operate on specific platforms or operating systems.

Such examples are the Good Housekeeping Seal and certain types of Logo programs that certify that bits of software code are compliant with test cases (and won’t crash your smartphone).

The second type of industrial program includes industry consortium or programs that are built around consensus standards. These programs usually consist of a group of companies that operate in the same technology space and share a common resource for

certifying products. An example of this is the WiFi Alliance, wherein a group of industry leaders in the wireless space developed test protocols and a program to certify devices to be in compliance with the common wireless networking that the industry adopted.

STRUCTURE OF CERTIFICATION PROCESSESIf Conformity Assessment is the trunk of the product assuredness tree, Certification is a specialized branch on that tree. The roots of the tree grow in the soil of the nourished by certain demand-drivers, these being regulations or product acceptance requirements. Continuing the tree analogy (perhaps to absurdity), products form like fruit in various outlying branches and Adam and Eve pluck juicy products…well this is where the analogy breaks down because we all know what happened to A&E, snake or no.

Under a conformity assessment process, one introduces the concept of the third party. Third party evaluation is performed by an organization or entity that has no interest (theoretically) in the outcome of the evaluation. The other two parties are the manufacturer or seller (first party) and the consumer or buyer (second party). The Third party simply issues an evaluation against the common criteria that were agreed to (or specified) by the “demand drivers”. Supposedly, the third party is completely agnostic as to the outcome of the evaluation and is really only interested if process has been served and criteria applied correctly. Of course, this doesn’t happen in the real world as there are human interests at play, including greed, mischief (often a cousin of greed), ennui, laziness (and even sometimes fervor!). A whole slew of other factors are at-work, such as market access, technical barriers to trade and the effect on sales and marketing on the process. While intriguing, we are really not concerned



with those (tangible and real issues) here, but are primarily interested in surveying some of the Certification programs that occupy parts of our visible spectrum.

Accreditation and Oversight

Accreditors are really the fourth party in the process. They are outside the transaction and the evaluation of the product and are quite removed from the consumer or user. In fact, the general public is usually unaware of the accreditation process until something goes awry and the finger-pointing starts.

Accreditation may be thick or thin, depending on the program and the oversight may have links up the chain to the ultimate authority—someone in the government. That means that, in a robust certification system, there are multiple links in the process that are in place to assure that the process is fair, evenly-administered, impartial and, above-all, serves the interest of the public.

A SURVEY OF CERTIFICATIONS

Regulatory Certification Processes

The Federal Communications Commission mandates that intentional radiators (transmitters) are certified. The process is designed around the central mandate of the FCC, that is, to protect the users of the radio frequency spectrum. Manufacturers of devices that send signals into the aether must demonstrate that the signals stay in the right part of the spectrum and that they do not send too much energy at their assigned space. The rules limit frequency use and transmitted power. A device is tested, a report is prepared and the application submitted to the FCC or, in ~90% of the cases, a Telecommunications Certification Body. The application is reviewed for adherence to the Rules and, if found in compliance, a Grant

is issued. This Grant states the Rule Part(s), the frequency or frequency range(s), the output power and any special conditions that may restrict its use. The results of the Certification are then published to the FCC web site, where much of the test data and application (less some confidential information) are available for viewing. This process is quite open and has, in the opinion of the author, been a significant contributor to the advancing of the state-of-the art of radio transmitter design and development. This Certification process does not address whether the device does what it is supposed to do. Rather, it is simply a process that seeks to minimize interference with other users of the spectrum (particularly those holding licenses to transmit—broadcasters, land mobile and cellular networks). A critical part of this Certification process is post-market surveillance or auditing, which is performed on a sample of the devices certified.

The Food and Drug Administration regulates, among other things, Medical Devices. From bandages to in vitro diagnostic devices, the mandate of the FDA is to protect the public from harmful products and, for medical devices and pharmaceuticals, that the products are efficacious, that is, they do what they are supposed to do. The process consists of assembling a document package that describes the device, its use and function and is known as premarket notification (not strictly “Certification”). For electronic devices, the device must conform to a set of emissions and immunity requirements based on IEC 60601-1, which sets a minimum standard for electromagnetic compatibility. The package is submitted (known as a 510(k) submission) for certain types of devices deemed critical by the FDA. Devices are classified according to the risk factors associated with the use into Class I, II or III. Class I devices

are nearly all exempt from this process and certain Class II (special control) devices as well. Class III devices are high-risk devices (pacemakers, for example) that are all subject to the pre-market notification process. The complete package is reviewed by the FDA or an approved reviewer and if the submission passes the FDA’s litmus test, a letter is sent to the applicant that is the approval to market the device.

INDUSTRY CERTIFICATION PROCESSES

Product Safety Certification

While threads of government regulation reach into the Product Safety Certification process, in the United States the requirements for the safety of electrical devices is primarily driven by risk mitigation—that is—driven by the fear of guys in dark suits. Not Tony Soprano types, but the ones whose heels click down polished halls on K Street and other corridors of litigation. Major retailers usually require that electrical products sold through the distribution be certified or “listed” by a safety agency. In addition, the Occupational Health and Safety Agency has requirements for workplace safety that can be met by listing a device. The process involves submission of a product to a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory for test and evaluation against a harmonized safety standard. Many of these are based on IEC standards and are incorporated under Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards. Depending on the type of standard, the UL standard may also be approved by ANSI, making it a national standard. The products, once determined to be in compliance, is labeled and shipped.

It is noteworthy that Europe has an overarching requirement that states that devices be safe, but the process is through a self-declaration or Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (DOC).



Recent request by EU organizations are aimed at allowing the incorporation of sDOC into OSHA rules. The battle is on between the US-based product certifiers and the (maybe) more liberally-oriented sons and daughters of the namesake of the Jupiter’s sixth moon.

As with radio certification, a critical part of this Certification process is post-market surveillance; however, this is accomplished by factory visits to the manufacturers.

Industry Certifications

Private Label Certifications are usually reserved by large manufacturers to assure that suppliers and vendors meet certain requirements for use on their platforms or systems. For example, Microsoft has a so-called Windows® logo program that is used to evaluate third-party applications against the operation of the Windows® OS. The process involves a test and submission via an approved vendor. If the code passes the test case, then the device is eligible for the logo. This process is designed to make sure that code is compatible with the central OS and peripheral communications structures.

Interoperability Certifications

The other class of device certification is usually standards-based programs that are technology-specific, as opposed to the regulatory and consumer-protection based systems. These certifications, sometimes referred to as qualifications, have been developed over time by industry consortia who have a vested interest in the proliferation of the technology. The programs usually follow the same general model with a governing body that oversees approved testing laboratories. IEEE standards are a common basis for the requirements and many of the organizations that developed the standards form the core group of program supports. As these Certification involve interoperability across platforms, “plug-fests” (or, in the case of wireless devices “un-plug fests”)

are often arranged that group developers together to test en mass many products together.

The following is a summary list of some of the more well-known groups that have developed product certification or qualification programs. (It is noted that there are numerous other types of organizations that have developed and field acceptance programs. The interesting aspect is the proliferation of and specialization of these groups as technology advances.)

y Bluetooth Special Interest Group

y Universal Serial Bus Implementers Forum, Inc.

y Zigbee Alliance

y WiFi Alliance

y WiMax Forum

y OmniAir Consortium

y Green Electronics Council (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT))

y Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

y Ethernet Alliance

(Several of these groups held forth at a recent conference at IEEE Headquarters in bucolic Piscataway New Jersey, hosted by the IEEE Standards and Technology Organization and organized by the IEEE Conformity Assessment Program.)

SUMMARYThe growth in the electronics sector over the last 30 years has been paralleled by the growth of Certification programs developed to verify conformance with requirements. These programs are either based on consumer protection or on furthering the development of a particular technology. From the perspective of the general public, the comfort offered by having a certified device ultimately lies in the veracity and, in many cases, enforcement of the certification requirements, from product approval throughout the service life of the device. Enforcement, I daresay, is a tar baby that we’ll leave on the side of the road for the time being.

For the conformity assessment service market, the expansion of this industry has led to the development of diversified services to serve this expanding market (and opportunities to participate). The goal of the Certification programs, ultimately, is to assure that products are developed, and stay, in compliance.

Mike Violette is President of Washington Laboratories and Director of AmericanTCB. He has been mucking around in the compliance industry for the better part of three decades and writes and comments on technology, culture, travel and other amusements. He can be reached at [email protected].

Cert i f icat ion: A Panacea for a Paranoid Society? FEATURE


by Glen DashA Dash of Maxwell’s

A Maxwell’sEquations Primer

Part 1An Introduction

And God said,Let there be light:and there was light.

--Genesis 1:3

And God said, Let:

and there was light. --Anonymous

∙ D = ρ

∙ B = 0

× H = J +

× E = −

∆

∆

∆ ∂D∂t

∆ ∂B∂t


So let’s get started. I will start by defining the terms charge, force, field, voltage, capacitance, inductance, and flux. That may sound like a bore, but the fact is that most of us take these terms for granted and sometimes use them improperly.

I’ll start with charge. Each electron is assigned one negative elemental charge, each proton one elemental positive charge. We denote a single charge as q, and, by definition, call 6.24 x 1018 such charges a Coulomb (Q).

Take two positively charged objects, say metal spheres, and place them in proximity. There will be a repulsive force between them. We measure force in Newtons and in free space (a vacuum) it is equal to:

Where, in MKS units:

Q1 = Charge on sphere 1 in Coulombs

Q2 = Charge on sphere 2 in Coulombs

F = Force in Newtons

R = Distance between the spheres in meters

ε0 = Free space permittivity = 8.85 x 10-12

An enigmatic force seems to radiate or flow outward from each charged sphere. In order to provide for a uniform measure of the magnitude of this force, we can design a probe as shown in Figure 2. It consists of a small metal sphere onto which we place one Coulomb of positive charge.

The amount of the force on our Test Probe will be:

Figure 1: Two charged spheres are mounted on the ends of insulating rods loaded with springs. When forced together, a repulsive force pushes the charged spheres apart, compressing the springs.

FEATURE A Dash of Maxwel l ’s

Maxwell’s Equations are eloquently simple yet excruciatingly complex. Their first statement by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864 heralded the beginning of the age of radio and, one could argue, the age of modern electronics as well. Maxwell pulled back the curtain on one of the fundamental secrets of the universe. These equations just don’t give the scientist or engineer insight, they are literally the answer to everything RF.

The problem is that the equations can be baffling to work with. Solving Maxwell’s Equations for even simple structures like dipole antennas is not a trivial task. In fact, it will take us several chapters to get there. Solving Maxwell’s Equations for real life situations, like predicting the RF emissions from a cell tower, requires more mathematical horsepower than any individual mind can muster. For problems like that we turn to computers for solutions. Computational solutions to Maxwell’s Equations is a field that offers great promise. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean great answers. Computational solutions to Maxwell’s Equations need to be subjected to a reality check. That, in turn, usually requires a real live scientist or engineer who understands Maxwell’s Equations.


Where:

Q1 = The charge on the large sphere of Figure 2 in Coulombs

Q2 = The charge on our Test Probe in Coulombs, Q2 = 1

The force on our one Coulomb Test Probe is equal to the electric field (E).

Since a repulsive force exists between like charges, bringing such charges together requires work (Force times Distance = Work). Figure 3 shows a large metallic sphere charged with one Coulomb and a much smaller charged sphere some distance away. As an experiment, we’ll try transferring the charge on the small sphere to the large one by moving the smaller sphere from infinity into contact with the larger sphere. The closer the two are, the greater the repulsive force, and the greater the work required to move an additional, incremental amount. The calculation of the total work required to move the additional charge from infinity onto the surface of the large sphere requires integration. We’ll be integrating the repulsive force over distance.

Where:

W = Work in Newton-meters

∆V = Change in Voltage

∆Q= Charge on the small sphere, ∆Q << 1 Coulomb

Q1 = Charge on the larger sphere, Q1 = 1 Coulomb

The work done becomes potential energy just as if we had compressed a spring. This can be referred to simply as a change in potential and is equal to the ∆V.

We can rearrange this equation like this:

Where:

∆C = “Capacitance” of the sphere in Farads

This equation states that the amount of work required to put an additional increment of charge on the sphere is a function of its size. The bigger the sphere, the easier it is to put on that extra increment of charge. The sphere’s capacitance is equal to 4πε0R .

Figure 2: By mounting a small metal sphere on top of an insulated, spring loaded rod and charging the sphere

with one Coulomb of charge, we can create a Test Probe which gives us a uniform way to measure the electric field. The electric field seems to “flow”

outward from any charged object.

Figure 3: In this experiment, we take additional charge and move it from infinity onto the surface of a charged metallic sphere. Because the additional charge and the sphere have like signs, there’s a repulsive force between them. There-fore, moving the charge onto the sphere requires work.

A Dash of Maxwel l ’s FEATURE


Capacitance is usually thought of in terms of opposing metal plates, but as our experiment shows that’s not the only way to make a capacitor. Any conductive object will have an inherent capacitance. It’s other “plate” is at infinity. Put two such objects in close proximity and the capacitance between them will be much greater than the capacitance between either of them and infinity, so the additional capacitance due to the “plate” at infinity is usually ignored.

Figure 4 suggests another experiment. We’ll take our Test Probe with its one Coulomb of charge and move it, first forward, then back, and then in a circle. As we move it forward (toward the large sphere) work is required. Since they are of like charge, the Test Probe acts as if there’s an invisible spring between it and the large charged sphere. The work we do in moving the Probe forward becomes additional stored potential energy of the system, raising the Voltage between the Probe and the sphere. As we move it back to our original position, the potential energy of the system drops, just as if we had let a compressed spring relax. The Voltage between the Test Probe and the sphere returns to the its initial value. That’s true no matter what circuit we take to get back to our starting point, as shown.

The fact that no change in potential energy results in returning to the starting point is the basis for one of Maxwell’s Equations. Mathematically, the effect can be stated as follows:

This states that the total change in potential energy which results from the movement of a charge in a closed circuit is zero. We could also state this in terms of the Voltage:

This is a statement of Kirchhoff’s Voltage law. Electrical engineers use Kirchhoff’s Voltage law every day, but, as we will see, the validity of the law depends on certain assumptions, namely that the magnetic field through the closed circuit is unchanging. But that’s a subject we’ll return to in future chapters. For now we can accept the equations above to be true.

The term εE arises so often that it has its own abbreviation, D=εE. D is known as the electric flux density.

Figure 4: Moving our Test Probe towards the large sphere requires work. This work raises the potential energy of the system. The Probe feels a force pushing it away as if it was being pushed by an invisible spring between the Test Probe

and the sphere. The net change in the system’s potential energy required to get back to the starting point is zero

whether we move forward and back or in a circle.

Figure 5: The concept of flux is illustrated. Flux is equal to the total field density (equal to the number of field lines per unit measure) passing through an object

of interest, in this case, a thin non conductive plate (shown edge on). As the plate is tilted, fewer field lines

pass through it until, at the bottom of the figure, the flux through the plate is near zero.


In order to proceed further, we’ll need to introduce the concept of flux. The concept is illustrated in Figure 5. As we noted, two charged objects seem to have some invisible force between them. It’s convenient to think of this force as flowing between the charged objects, and it’s usually drawn that way. The electric field is drawn like water flowing from a sprinkler head.

Figure 5 shows a thin planar object placed within the field. The object, a plate, is shown edge on. Let’s assume that the surface of the plate (the part we cannot see since it’s “into” the page) has an area A, the plate is non-conductive and it has a dielectric constant of ε0. Referring to the upper right hand portion of Figure 5, we calculate the total electric flux through the plate to be equal to the electric flux density, D, times the area. The electric flux density, by convention, is indicated by the density of the field lines. The closer the field lines are, the denser (stronger) the electric field is.

As the plate is tilted, fewer field lines pass through it until, finally at the bottom of Figure 5, virtually no field lines pass through the plate at all and the flux is near zero. Mathematically, the flux through the plate in Figure 5 can be stated as:

Where:

ψE = Total electric flux through the plate

D = Electric flux density

A = Area of the plate

θ = Angle shown in Figure 5

We run into this form of equation so often that a special nomenclature been developed to express it, called the “dot product.”

Having described the concept of flux, we’ll now return to our large, free floating charged sphere. We’ll wrap an invisible, three dimensional envelope around the sphere as shown in cross section in Figure 6(a). The envelope is centered on the sphere. We can calculate the flux through this envelope simply by multiplying the field, which is uniform at a given distance from the sphere, by the area of the envelope. (I’ll skip the mathematics and just give you the result.) The total flux through the envelope is equal to the charge



on the sphere, Q. Though proving it requires a neat bit of mathematics, take it from me that the answer would be the same whether the envelope around the sphere is as shown in Figure 6(a), or irregularly shaped as in Figure 6(b). Further, the answer would still be the same if we were dealing with one charged object or many (Figure 6(c)). Expressed mathematically, we have Maxwell’s first equation (also known as Gauss’ first law):

This equation states that total electric flux through an envelope equals the total charge contained within it. It’s a remarkably simple result.

Many of the same experiments that we’ve done for electric fields we can now do for magnetic fields. We’ll need some kind of test probe like we’ve used for measuring electric fields. To measure magnetic fields, we’ll choose a small, one turn loop of wire carrying a static (dc) current of one Amp. Such a loop creates a magnetic field. See Figure 7.

Figure 8 shows what happens when we place our Test Loop in a uniform magnetic field. The loop feels a twisting influence known as a torque. Left to its own devices, the Test Loop will orient itself so that the plane of the loop is perpendicular to the magnetic field lines. The total torque is equal to the force on the loop in times its length.

We can use the maximum torque detected (which occurs when the plane of the Test Loop is aligned with the field) to measure the magnetic field H. It is:

Where:

H = Magnetic field in Amps/meter

T = Torque in Newton-meters

I = Current in the Test Loop in Amps

A = Area of the loop in m2

µ0 = Free space permeability = 4 π x 10-7

By convention, we usually move the constant µ0 to the other side of the equation, expressing the result in terms of B=µ0H. B is known as the magnetic flux density and is measured in Teslas.1

Having defined the “magnetic field” and the “magnetic flux density,” and having devised a way to measure the field, we now can perform the same experiments for magnetic fields

Figure 6: The total electric flux through an invisible envelope surrounding a charged object is equal to the charge contained. It does not matter if the envelope around the charged object is

irregular, as in (b), or if the charges are separated, as in (c).

Figure 7: The nature of magnetic fields has been observed for centuries. Magnetic fields around a current carrying wire form circles. Loops of wire create magnetic fields which in turn themselves form closed loops. The direction of the magnetic field

can be determined using the right hand rule.


1 Alternatively, the magnetic flux density can be expressed in CGS units as Gauss. There are 10,000 Gauss to one Tesla.


that we previously performed for electric fields. In Figure 9 (page 46), we wrap an invisible envelope around a source of a magnetic field, in this case a loop of wire carrying a direct current. Note that all of the magnetic field line flowing outward from the loop end up returning to it. Magnetic fields always form closed circuits. Because of that, the total magnetic flux through our envelope is zero. Expressed mathematically, we have Maxwell’s (and Gauss’) second equation:

Figure 10 (page 47) illustrates another experiment. We can measure the magnetic field around a straight wire carrying direct current using our Test Loop. What we will find is that the magnetic field falls off linearly with the distance from the wire according to the formula:

Since 2πR is the circumference of a circle around the wire, we can restate this equation as follows:

This states is that the total magnetic field integrated around a closed loop is equal to the current passing through, and normal to, that loop.

We now have all that we need to state Maxwell’s Equations for the case of direct currents and static fields. Here they are:

Perhaps it’s more intuitive to state these in terms of words rather than in terms of mathematics:

1. The electric flux through any envelope is equal to the charge contained.

2. The magnetic flux through any envelope is zero.

3. In a static field, the total change in a system’s potential energy resulting from the movement of a charge in a closed loop is zero. (Or more simply, in a static field, the Voltage around a closed loop is zero.)

4. In a static field, the magnetic field integrated around a closed loop (the “line integral”) is equal to the current flowing through, and normal to, the loop.

Before closing this chapter, let’s do two final experiments. The first involves a typical parallel plate capacitor as shown in Figure 11 (page 47). It has a positive charge on the top plate and a negative charge on the lower plate. We can use the first of Maxwell’s Equations to compute the field between the plates. To do this, we have to define an envelope around one of the plates. The envelope can be any shape we want, and so we choose a box around the upper plate as shown in Figure 11(a). We know from experience that the electric field

Figure 8: In order to measure magnetic fields, we can use a small loop of wire carrying direct current as a test probe. When immersed in a magnetic field, the loop will feel a torque which will tend to force it into an alignment

perpendicular to the field lines shown. The torque is equal to the force times the length of the loop.



largely consists of parallel field lines between the two plates. All these field lines pass through the bottom of the box shaped envelope and are, for the most part, perpendicular to its surface. That will make it easy to work with the equations. Note that the flux through the bottom of the box is equal to the electric field density times the area of the bottom of the box, which in turn is equal to the area of the top plate. So:

Where:

Q = The charge on the upper plate in Coulombs

E = Electric field between the plates in Volts/meter

A = Area of the upper plate in meters2

To find the capacitance, we first charge the plates with one Coulomb of charge.

Then we calculate the work required to move a small amount of additional positive charge from the lower plate to the upper one:

Our second experiment involves inductance. We’ll start with its definition and then calculate the inductance of a loop of wire. Inductance is defined as the total magnetic flux through a loop divided by the current that gives rise to that flux:

Where:

ψM = Magnetic flux through the loop due to I

L = Inductance in Henries

I = Current in Amps

For our experiment, we’ll use a single turn loop of wire carrying a direct current. We’ll use our Test Loop to measure the magnetic field within the loop. We’ll find that it’s nearly uniform and equal to:

Where:

H = Magnetic field within the loop

I = Current in the loop in Amps

d = Diameter of the loop in meters


Figure 9: Magnetic fields formed by a loop of current are themselves closed loops. The net magnetic flux through an

envelope surrounding such a loop is zero.


We then can derive its inductance as:

The similarity of this equation to the one describing the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor is no accident, as we’ll see.

REFERENCES 1. J.D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, 4th

Edition, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1991.

2. R. Olenick, T. Apostol, and D. Goodstein, Beyond the Mechanical Universe: From Electricity to Modern Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1986.

3. Hawkins, Electrical Guide No. 1, Theodore Audel & Co., New York, 1914.

Glen Dash is the author of numerous papers on electromagnetics. He was educated at MIT and was the founder of several companies dedicated to helping companies achieve regulatory compliance. Currently he operates the Glen Dash Foundation which uses ground penetrating radar to map archaeological sites, principally in Egypt.

CopyrightyAmpyxyLLC

Figure 10: Our “Test Loop” can be used to measure the magnetic field produced by a wire carrying direct current. The field drops off linearly

with the distance from the wire.

Figure 11: The capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor can be derived directly from Maxwell’s Equations. In (a), the flux through the bottom

of an imaginary box shaped envelope placed around the upper plate is calculated. This is used to derive the magnitude of the

field. In (b) additional positive charge is moved from the lower plate to the upper plate. The calculation of the work needed to do that

allows us to calculate the capacitance.



THE VALUE OF

“BY TAKING THE TIME TO LEARN THE MATERIAL,

AND RETAINING THAT KNOWLEDGE

TO PASS THE CERTIFICATION

EXAM, INDIVIDUALS WILL SHOW A

DEDICATION TO THE INDUSTRY, OBTAIN

SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS THROUGH

NETWORKING, AND SHOW

A TECHNICAL PROWESS WHICH

WILL INCREASE THEIR JOB

PERFORMANCE.”

CERTIFICATION

BY THE ESD ASSOCIATION


The answer to this question has to include an answer to another question, “what is being certified?” In the electrostatic control arena, the world’s Premiere organization for education and standards development is the ESD Association. The ESD Association has established several types of certification. ESDA offers facility certification programs to ANSI/ESD S20.20 through the various certification bodies that are also performing audits and certification reviews to ISO 9001. They also offer personal certification programs, namely the Program Manager and Device Design Certifications. These three prestigious titles carry a wealth of meaning behind them in terms of knowledge, competence, and problem-solving ability. In addition to the certifications offered by the ESD Association, ESDA is also affiliated with The International Association for Radio, Telecommunications and Electromagnetics (iNARTE), which offers certification for ESD Engineers and Technicians. The ESD Association, through this affiliation with iNARTE, provides a large amount of the training for person’s seeking iNARTE certification.

What is the benefit of being certified as either an ESD Program Manager, iNARTE ESD Engineer/Technician, or a Device Design professional? Certification gives a strong confirmation that a person meets certain criteria of knowledge and problem-solving ability. Certification can be beneficial on multiple levels.

For the certifying organization, it provides standard practices that create discipline within the industry,

it provides awareness and advances in technology, and it can provide increased cooperation between organizations

For the employer, it can result in increased safety, reduced loss of product, and increased customer and employee confidence which produces dedication and improved teamwork.

For the certified professional, it provides credibility in the industry; it demonstrates knowledge, experience and competency. It typically creates increased opportunities for career advancement and increased earnings. It is clearly one form of professional development, and can improve job performance through the increased confidence that comes with “knowing what you know.”

Becoming certified often requires extensive training and testing. This could mean, as in the case of facility certification, the facility follows processes that meet the requirements of industry standards. Companies who become certified are looking to insure a higher quality of product and reduce product loss. There is also a matter of safety, so, for employees this can mean significant improvements in job performance. Not only does certification have relevance to the individual company but also to its vendors and suppliers. Recently the Independent Distributors of Electronics Association (IDEA) has required that members be certified to ANSI/ESD S20.20 by an ESDA recognized certification body.

In the case of individuals, certification verifies a level of technical skill

that will differentiate them from those not certified. By taking the time to learn the material, and retaining that knowledge to pass the certification exam, individuals will show a dedication to the industry, obtain significant contacts through networking, and show a technical prowess which will increase their job performance. Many companies view certification as a requirement when hiring. With the competitive nature of companies looking to hire, it is almost certain that being certified will give onean advantage overthe competition vying for limited jobs in the industry. As one recent Certified Program Manager stated, “The ESDA training seemed the fastest way to bring me up to speed... Going through all of the tutorials and taking the exam allowed me to meet a network of sources that I have been able to discuss ESD related issues with and resolve problems.”

When comparing certification programs there can be significant differences, and on an individual basis, one may provide a better fit to your job and/or interests. Brian Lawrence of iNARTE made the following comparison of the ESD Associations professional certification programs and iNARTE Certification. “From my perspective the major differences between the certification offered by our two organizations are that the ESD Association certificates are focused on the two career path skill sets required for Program Management and Device Design. The iNARTE certification covers these same skill sets but less intently...” Professional Certification is appropriate for engineers and technicians whose training and experience have primarily focused

FEATURE The Value of Cert i f icat ion

What does “certification” mean to you? What is the value of becoming “certified?”


on problems, engineering design and corrective measures associated with minimizing or eliminating electrostatic discharge. The ESD Association has a renewed agreement with iNARTE to assist with their certification programs. ESD Association tutorials are the main training materials for the ESD Technician and ESD Engineer certifications offered by iNARTE.

As semiconductor technology progresses to smaller features, the susceptibility to ESD increases. Improved protection design requires engineers with up-to-date knowledge to maintain production yields at the highest levels. The principle goal behind the ESD Association’s Professional Certification is to ensure the understanding of the standard practices and problem solving techniques used to create ESD controls in the workplace. Current industry knowledge of ESD Controls is not adequate. Process capabilities of ESD controls are often misunderstood. Device design and factory personnel must prepare to handle the increased ESD sensitivity levels. Having a more comprehensive understanding of ESD control techniques will be required in the factory. Possessing the knowledge to make all of the required measurements is an essential skill for maintaining an Electrostatic Protected Area. These factors all lead to certification programs.

ESDA PROGRAM MANAGER CERTIFICATIONThe ESDA Program Manager Certification was developed for individuals that are involved in designing, implementing, managing and auditing ESD control programs in their facility. The program was designed to meet the requirements of the ANSI/ESD S20.20 standard. The certification for Program Manager is a ten course program that covers a variety of topics as shown in Figure 1.

y ESD Basics for the Program Manager describes how static electricity is created, explains the various ways that ESD sensitive devices can be damaged and provides general information on how to protect ESD sensitive devices during handling and product assembly.

y How-To’s of In plant ESD Auditing and Evaluation Measurements reviews the evaluation and audit measurement procedures required for a S20.20 compliant ESD program.

y Ionization Issues and Answers for the Program Manager describes the uses of air ionization in handling static charges on insulators or isolated conductors in a manufacturing process. It also addresses the major types of ionization systems, their use and the test methods used to verify ionization effectiveness.

y Packaging Principles for the Program Manager an overview of the basics of ESD protective packaging used for shipping and storage of ESD susceptible items. It addresses the test methods used

to evaluate potential packaging materials, packaging design considerations and the role of packaging in an overall ESD control program.

y ESD Standards Overview for the Program Manager is designed to provide an overview of how ESD standards are developed by the ESD Association to meet the needs of the electronics industry. This overview tutorial provides a general review of all the ESD Association documents and should be particularly helpful to program manager candidates just prior to taking the comprehensive exam.

y Device Technology and Failure Analysis Overview is designed to give a broad overview of ESD device technology, the ways circuit designers protect against ESD, and the failure analysis techniques that are likely to be encountered in reports about ESD failures. The topics covered include the three most common ESD models, characteristics of ideal ESD protection, typical ESD protection schemes, key characteristics of ESD protection, failure analysis flow, and failure analysis tools and their uses.

y Electrostatic Calculations for the Program Manager focuses on the basic calculations and techniques that would be of use to the ESD engineer and Program Manager. Topics covered include Gauss’ Law, capacitance, charge sharing, RC decay, and device failure thresholds.

y Cleanroom Considerations for the Program Manager addresses how the needs for ESD control and process cleanliness can work together. Cleanrooms and clean environments are required for the manufacture of many products that have exacting contamination control requirements to achieve


“Education of employees

involved in the ESD

control program is vitally

important to success.

Becoming certified is a

badge of excellence to be

displayed for all to see.

Start your certification

today!”


defined yield and reliability targets. Clean manufacturing environments are required for the production of items such as semiconductors, hard-disk drives, flat panel displays, and materials for the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the products that require clean processes are susceptible to ESD.

y System Level ESD/EMI: Testing to IEC and Other Standards is intended to help those tasked with testing products to IEC and other system level ESD standards. The student comes out of this class understanding how complex systems are tested for ESD and EMI susceptibility, and some of the common methods used to counter-act system upset and damage due to those mechanisms.

y ESD Program Development & Assessment (ANSI/ESD S20.20 Seminar) deals with how to develop an ESD control program. The topics covered are training, audit requirements, grounding related to the facility as well as personnel, protected area requirements and packaging, provides information on how to assess an ESD control program based on ANSI/ESD S20.20.

ESDA DEVICE DESIGN CERTIFICATIONThe ESDA Device Design Certification is a twelve-course program that provides the attendee with the information required to successfully participate in any ESD device protection design program. Topics are shown if Figure 2.

y ESD On-Chip Protection in Advanced Technologies addresses important issues in the design of IC protection circuits built with advanced deep sub-micron CMOS technologies. Includes fundamental aspects of ESD protection design such as basic NMOS and SCR concepts, as well as advanced protection concepts.

y System Level ESD/EMI: Testing to IEC and Other Standards. This is the same class that is in the Program Manager Curriculum - it is the only overlapping class.

y On-Chip ESD Protection in RF Technologies. “RF ESD design discipline” is discussed, along with ESD protection in RF CMOS, RF LDMOS, BiCMOS Silicon Germanium, Gallium Arsenide technology and RF silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology. The tutorial focuses on RF ESD testing, device physics, design layout, circuits and design systems. It provides information on RF ESD testing methodologies, RF degradation effects, and failure mechanisms for devices, circuits and systems.

y SPICE-Based ESD Protection Design Utilizing Diodes and Active MOSFET Rail Clamp Circuits. There has been a gradual revolution in the world of ESD design for advanced technology CMOS ICs. On-chip ESD networks built with non-snapback ESD devices and circuits, including simple forward biased diodes and active MOSFET rail clamp circuits have increasingly replaced once- prevalent networks built with

snapback ESD devices, including avalanche-triggered lateral bipolar transistors and SCRs.

y EOS/ESD Failure Models and Mechanisms. Failure criteria and failure models associated with semiconductor breakdown, dielectric breakdown, and metal failure will be discussed, associated with the semiconductor industry and nanostructures.

y Circuit Modeling and Simulation for On-Chip Protection addresses modeling and simulation of protection circuit elements and networks under ESD conditions, high current characteristics and transient responses of devices typically used in ESD protection circuits.

y Latch-up continues to be of interest today in advanced CMOS, mixed signal (MS) CMOS, RF CMOS, BiCMOS, and BiCMOS silicon germanium. Topics include device-level latch-up physics, latch-up metrics and design criteria, latch-up test structures, test methods, latch-up measurement techniques, device-level CAD simulation, and new latch-up issues.

y Troubleshooting On-Chip ESD Failures covers diagnosing and fixing on-chip ESD product qualification failures.

y Transmission Line Pulse Measurements: Parametric Analyzer for ESD On-Chip Protection explores the parameters to be measured with a TLP system and discusses the importance of the parameters in the design of on-chip ESD protection circuits.

y CDM Design and Characterization teaches the basic concepts and ideas required to design-in for Charge Device Model ESD tests.

The Value of Cert i f icat ion FEATURE

“The level of confidence obtained with a full understanding of the course materials will prove invaluable to you, your employer and your colleagues with measurable improvements that will be evident in your ESD control processes or designs.”


y Impact of CMOS Technology Scaling on ESD High Current Phenomena explores the impact of silicon technology scaling on ESD device behavior and on subsequent ESD protection design. Technology trends for sub-100nm nodes and their implications for the ESD design window will be covered.

y Device Testing--IC Component Level: HBM, CDM, MM, and TLP addresses the basics of HBM, CDM, MM, and TLP ESD stress testing of the ESD protection structures of ICs.

IN CONCLUSIONBecoming certified is not a task to be taken lightly. Taking the time to learn all of the material and putting the knowledge into practice is equally important (and of course necessary) to passing the exam. The exams for ESDA certification are extensive and formulated to test not only knowledge of the material but general understanding of the principles involved in maintaining ESD control. The level of confidence obtained with a full understanding of the course materials will prove invaluable to you, your employer and your colleagues with measurable improvements that will be evident in your ESD control

processes or designs. Component sensitivity to ESD will continue to increase dramatically over the next few years for all electronic parts. Device design and in-plant processes must improve to avoid costly losses. Education of employees involved in the ESD control program is vitally important to success. Becoming certified is a badge of excellence to be displayed for all to see. Start your certification today!

WRITTEN FOR THE ESD ASSOCIATION BY CARL NEWBERGCarl Newberg is the President of MicroStat Laboratories/River’s Edge


Figure 1: Program Manager ten course certification program


Technical Service. He has a B.S degree in Metallurgical Engineering, a M.S. Degree in Materials Science, and a professional engineer’s license (Met. Eng.). He is also a NARTE Certified ESD Engineer, and is one of the first to test and receive certification from the ESDA as a Certified ESD Program Manager. He has held positions as the ESD Program Manager for Western Digital Corporation, and has been actively involved in the corporate ESD program at Seagate Technology and IBM Corporation. He has been a member of the ESD Association since 1995. He has been a Board member since January, 2005, and is an active member of the Standards and the Technical and Administration (TAS)

Committee, participating in working groups on ionization, packaging, clean rooms, garments and gloves, and on the Technical and Administration committee. Carl was the Technical Program Committee Chairman for the 2004 EOS/ESD Symposium, Vice Chairman for the 2005 Symposium, and General Chairman for the 2006 Symposium.

ABOUT THE ESD ASSOCIATIONFounded in 1982, the ESD Association is a not for profit, professional organization dedicated to furthering the technology and understanding of electrostatic discharge. The Association sponsors educational programs,

develops ESD standards, holds an annual technical symposium, and fosters the exchange of technical information among its members and others. Additional information may be obtained by contacting the ESD Association, 7900 Turin Rd., Bldg. 3, Rome, NY 13440-2069 USA. Phone: 315-339-6937 Fax: 315-339-6793 Email: [email protected] Website: www.esda.org.

The Value of Cert i f icat ion FEATURE

Figure 2: Device Design twelve course certification program


The Lost (almost) Technology of the by Walt Noon

Edison Cell

“Edison advertised that the cell had a life

of at least 4 years, but the materials have proved to be so stable (due to

the low solubility of the reactants in the

electrolyte) that some are still producing their full capacity

today after more than 50 years of use!”


With the wild fluctuations in fuel prices over the last few years, world concern over global warming,

and simply the idea of creating new and more sustainable technologies, immense interest and progress has developed recently in the world of battery development.

In fact, it seems that every day we hear of a new breakthrough, and another step closer to that long sought elusive goal of a truly workable battery storage system!

Perhaps one day soon we’ll have a battery that displays no “memory” effect, one that can be completely discharged or overcharged without harm, and require no complex computerized management system. This battery could even prove so durable it will be immune to damage from vibration and not break down chemically over time. In operation such a battery might even routinely outlast the very vehicle or machine it was designed to operate in!

Last, we could complete our wish list by adding in the impossible: low materials toxicity, simple construction. and of course, good energy density.

Does such a battery sound like too much to hope for?

Thomas Edison didn’t think so, when in 1899, working with a design Pioneered by Waldemar Jungner he patented a battery with all these characteristics.

It was Edison’s hope that electric vehicles, which currently had the lead in popularity, would easily trump internal combustion or steam to be the vehicle of choice of his time, and ours.

The Edison cell had a greater energy density than popular lead acid, and recharged in half the time. It was not harmed by fully discharging (even if dead shorted) and overcharging occasionally was actually good for the cell; and recommended as a monthly exercise in the battery’s manual!

Edison advertised that the cell had a life of at least 4 years, but the materials have proved to be so stable (due to the low solubility of the reactants in the electrolyte) that some are still producing their full capacity today after more than 50 years of use!

The problems with the Edison cell were few, and included poor performance at low temperatures, a high self discharge rate when unused (20% to 40% per month), and a slower than normal charge and discharge rate (65%).

Yet, the practical nature of these cells was undeniable, and perhaps remains so today.

Like many overlooked gems throughout the history of engineering, perhaps these “diamonds in the rough” deserve a second look, and some thoughts as to how our present technology could be improved by examining the principles of their operation.

Many times historically these cells have been referred to as “the battery that worked too well.” Though they were popular and profitable in niche markets for Edison, it has been said that a business model could never be created for the general public by producing a product that does not require replacement!

However, in our new age where “going green” is more than a quaint idea, but looks every day more like a necessity, perhaps Edison’s idea has finally truly found its time?

PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTIONIn many ways, the remarkable “Edison cell” is the opposite of the batteries we use today functionally.

Edison used simple Iron (anode) and Nickel (cathode) screens for the electrodes submerged in a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. Next, he bucked the popular methodology and rather than a strong acid, the Edison cell used an alkaline electrolyte (potassium hydroxide) for his cell.

The basic chemical reaction can be written as shown in Equation 1.

An alkaline electrolyte proved to be not only effective, but unlike acid, the solutions was protective of the metal electrodes in the battery giving them their phenomenal lifespan.

The alkaline solution was also safer than acid, being about the same toxicity as ordinary bleach. (The raw chemical potassium hydroxide is not so benign and must be handled carefully as we’ll see later in an experimental cell.)

Edison claimed that he would not begin actual manufacturing of the cells unless he achieved 5 times the capacity of the competing (lead acid) cell.

FEATURE The Lost (a lmost) Technology of the Edison Cel l


At one point, he claimed to have reached 15 times the energy density of lead acid in a series of remarkable experiments.

Edison had found the cell’s capacity increased directly with the surface area of the plates. Because the electrolyte is protective of the plates, Edison learned that he could create exceedingly thin plates of nickel and achieve exceptionably high storage capacities.

At one point, he electroplated alternating coverings of nickel and copper on to a cylindrical form, then dissolved the copper leaving atomically thin layers of nickel for a spectacular surface area/energy density.

Though the process was claimed to be successful, the manufacturing of such forms proved too expensive to be commercially successful in Edison’s day.

Edison did however, move ahead with cells he claimed to be several times the capacity of lead acid cells. Some of which are still in service today.

It’s hard not to wonder with today’s astounding capabilities in miniaturization, and nano machines a what might be possible for plate creation with such robust cells.

AN EXPERIMENTAL CELL

An experimental cell can be easily constructed on a workbench, and many of the cell’s characteristics can be seen and measured first hand.

I want to say up front that the cell I’m about to describe is in no way efficient or optimal in construction. It should be considered at best a simple test device for datalogging the charge and discharge reaction described, and for perhaps experimenting with alternate configurations you might have in mind!

I do have to admit, the idea struck me in creating this little cell that a novel project for IN Compliance might be to convert one of the solar garden lights in the yard to a “50 year garden light” using an experimental cell. However, with the small active surface area of the plates in the described cell, my garden light only lights for 12 minutes

per evening so far… So that project will remain “in the works” while I contemplate greater surface areas.

I also want to briefly say that you must evaluate your own skills in handling chemicals and electricity if you decide to attempt construction of an experimental cell. I do not claim to be

The Lost (a lmost) Technology of the Edison Cel l FEATURE


an expert in battery construction, nor to know or present all the potential dangers that could be involved in constructing a cell.

Construction is straight forward.

Begin by mixing a 20% solution of potassium hydroxide and distilled water in a pyrex beaker.

Keep in mind while doing so that potassium hydroxide should be added slowly to the water, and never the other way around.

Potassium hydroxide will react exothermically and some heat will be generated.

Gloves and goggles should be used always, and the raw potassium should be handled carefully.

The experimental cell uses a simple nickel and iron plate each approximately 2” X 4” as shown in Figure 1.

The plates are connected by wires to a pair of binding posts (such as Radio Shack 274-662), which are mounted in the lid of a one pint Mason jar as shown in Figure 2.

The perfboard serves as an insulator between the plates, and epoxy covers the point where the wire is connected to the plate as seen.

Fill the mason jar with the potassium hydroxide solution, keeping the level well below the point at which the wire connects to the plate, and screw the lid on the jar.

Your cell is ready for charging!

Edison recommends charging your cells with a voltage 1.85 times the number of cells you are charging in series.

Your cell will improve each time you charge/discharge it.

Your cells take on a charge very slowly, especially at first. Limiting current to 50 milliamps or less is recommended, though Edison says larger currents are fine as long as the electrolyte does not “froth” or exceed 115 degrees.

Some gassing at the terminals is normal, and harmless. If liquid levels begin to get low in the cell, add distilled water only.

Remember that increasing the electrode’s surface area will greatly improve your cell. For this reason, nickel and iron screen would be much preferable to plates if you can find them.

Figure 2: The plates are connected by wires to a pair of binding posts which are mounted in the lid of a one pint Mason jar

FEATURE The Lost (a lmost) Technology of the Edison Cel l

Figure 1: The experimental cell uses a simple nickel and iron plate each approximately 2” X 4”


Figure 3 shows an LED powered from experimental cells through a 500 ohm resistor. These cells have only had a couple chargings, but powered the led for about 12 minutes.

FINAL THOUGHTSSurprisingly, my first introduction to Edison cells was at a local energy fair almost 15 years ago. A professor from a junior college exhibited a Volkswagon converted to run on a large set of antique Edison cells. The cells in his car, many more than 50 years old, had been operating his Volkswagon with off shelf motor and other components throughout the school year. He claimed a range of nearly 100 miles, and a top speed of 60 MPH.

I hope you find old technology and what might be technical “diamonds in the rough” as intriguing as I do.

New batteries may well soon eclipse what has been done in the past, but sometimes older technology can surprise you!

For additional information, (including a video showing the construction of the cell), visit www.noonco.com/edison.

For more information about Walt Noon, please visit www.noonco.com.

The Lost (a lmost) Technology of the Edison Cel l FEATURE

Figure 3: An LED powered from experimental cells through a 500 ohm resistor


HEADQUARTERS NEWSOn behalf of our staff, our Board of Director and our entire membership, iNARTE extends a very warm welcome to IN Compliance Magazine. We salute the initiative and dedication of the IN Compliance staff. We wish them a long and rewarding experience in the service of our extended community.

The launch of IN Compliance is not the only new event this year. iNARTE

has also new certification programs: Certified Laboratory Auditor, iNCLA, and Associate level Certification for new and recent graduates planning a career in EMC, ESD or Product Safety Engineering.

This year iNARTE has also formed a group of Education Advisory Committees, EACs, enabling us to offer Training Programs and Professional Development Workshops on different

subjects of interest to our members and the community.

2009 has shown strong support from our membership. Clearly these difficult times have encouraged engineers and technicians to take advantage of career opportunities by honing skills and validating credentials.

NEW PROGRAMS FOR 2009iNARTE Certified Laboratory Auditor, iNCLA

This new program is intended to validate the special skills required in order to be a well qualified internal auditor for a Test or Certification Laboratory. The auditor has responsibility to prepare the laboratory for assessment to ISO/IEC 17025, then to subsequently manage the quality program in accordance with these requirements to maintain accreditation. The program is intended for auditors and quality managers at all laboratories, regardless of technical specialty. ACLASS and iNARTE will coooperate in organizing dedicated training and examination workshops for this program.

Associate Engineer and Associate Technician, iNAE/iNAT

This new program will enable young engineers and technicians with suitable knowledge and skills to become members of iNARTE upon

The iNARTE InformerProvided by the International Association for Radio, Telecommunications and Electromagnetics


graduation from an iNARTE Accredited University, School or Institute. Associate certification is available to graduates who achieve a high GPA and who are endorsed by a senior member of faculty. This credential enables new graduates to enter the work force and build their career, while enjoying the advantages of iNARTE membership as they accumulate experience for full Certification. Graduates from other curricula may also apply for this credential, but further examination will be required.

Training and Professional Development

This new program is intended for practitioners who desire to build their knowledge base in order to enhance career opportunities. iNARTE has Education Advisory Committes to recommend subject matter, location and timing of our training programs. There are two current offerings:

Laboratory Auditor Training (ISO 17025) www.narte.org/h/iNCLAConference.aspOctober 6-9, 2009 Alexandria, VA

ANSI C63.10 Workshop www.narte.org/h/ANSIC63.10Workshop.aspNovember 4-5, 2009 Underwriters Laboratory, RTP, NC

GETTING THE MOST FROM YOUR CERTIFICATIONiNARTE certification is widely recognized as a symbol of excellence in the fields of Telecommunications Engineering, EMC, ESD and Product Safety Engineering. Achieving iNARTE certification is a testament to an individual’s professional excellence and also to their ambition and initiative. However, hanging the certificate on a wall or filing it in a drawer is not the way to get the most from those achievements. Your customers,

managers, peers and colleagues in the industry need to be aware of your credentials.

As a member of iNARTE, the following opportunities are available to you:

y We will advise your management of your certification and your annual renewaI. However, you need to tell us who to write to.

y If you offer consulting, our web site has a place to advertise your specialties.

y If you are looking for a new career or employment opportunity, post your resume on our site and regularly check our job listings page.

y Get free copies of the iNARTE logo to use on your cards and stationary.

y An iNARTE stamp or embosser is an excellent way to sign formal documents.

y Wear the iNARTE lapel pin at work, all business functions, trade shows, etc.

y If you really want to be noticed, we also have high quality Golf Shirts available.

y Send us any papers or articles you have written and we will feature them on our web-site, (subject to approval).

Please remember that we do not distribute our membership lists, except to institutes and organizations with which we have a formal agreement to share information. If you want your credentials independently verified to any other party, you have to let us know.

Brian Lawrence presents a 2009 Achievement award to Mr. Ihara, Senior General Manager of KEC, to recognize their achievement of more than 250 certification

candidates during 2009. The award is a limited addition print of the waterfront at New Bern, NC where Mr. Ihara and KEC members met iNARTE last year.


Accessory Kits for RF Conducted Immunity Test for Bulk Current Injection

AR RF/Microwave Instrumentation has introduced three all-inclusive accessory kits for RF conducted immunity test for Bulk Current Injection (BCI) to various IEC, Military, Avionics and Automotive specifications. The company reports that the three new kits each include attenuators, injection probes, monitor probes, calibration fixtures, calibration resistors and termination resistors (designed to complement AR’s RF conducted immunity test systems) are all the accessories needed to perform BCI testing to various specifications. The three test kits are: Model TK1000 for IEC applications with test system C100250, Model TK2000 for MIL/DO 160 applications with test system C100400 and Model TK3000 for automotive applications with test system C100401. For further information, contact AR RF/Microwave Instrumentation at 215-723-8181 or at www.ar-worldwide.com.

New Asymptotic Solver

Computer Simulation Technology (CST) has announced the introduction of anew CST MICROWAVE STUDIO® solver module for electrically large structures. Engineers working on antenna placement, radar cross section simulation or other electrically large problems will benefit from CST’s newest addition to the CST MICROWAVE STUDIO® solver family. The new CST MWS asymptotic solver targets a range of simulation model sizes beyond the reach of even the successful integral equation solver. The asymptotic solver will be available in CST STUDIO SUITE 2010™, due for release in January 2010. For further information about CST visit www.cst.com.

EM TEST Establishes Branch in US

EM Test has expanded sales and service activities to the US by founding its subsidiary in Hollis, NH. Well known EMC expert, Michael Hopkins is managing the new operation, EM TEST USA Inc. Mr. Hopkins comes to the position with more than 30 years of experience in the EMC arena, previously

holding positions with KeyTek and Thermo Fisher Scientific. With this new expansion, EM TEST USA is now able to offer on-site support of customers with a central service and test center, and is responsible for sales of the entire EM TEST product line. To contact EM TEST USA, call (603) 595-6420.

Company Offers Integrated Solution to Meet New CTIA Requirement

ETS-Lindgren has announced an integrated solution that lets wireless device manufacturers test their products for compliance with new CTIA requirement – The Wireless Association® for over the air performance testing of Assisted-GPS (A-GPS) enabled mobile devices. This requirement will become mandatory for certification test at all CTIA authorized test laboratories (CATLs) upon the release of Version 3.0 of the CTIA’s Test Plan for Mobile Station Over the Air Performance. The company reports that its integrated solution expands their AMS-8000 series of antenna measurement systems to support fully automated A-GPS receiver performance testing per CTIA’s new test plan. For further information visit www.ets-lindgren.com.

Newly Enhanced Ferrite Magnetic Design Tool

EPCOS has introduced its newly enhanced ferrite magnetic design tool to allow design engineers to calculate application-related parameters and represent them on graphs. They can also access digitized material data of all EPCOS ferrites. This new version may be used in both Windows XP and Vista environments. In addition to the new user interface, the graphics options were improved to include a copy function. This new ferrite magnetic design tool is free of charge and may be downloaded from www.epcos.com/tools.

Gore Receives FDA Approval for New Device

W. L. Gore & Associates has announced that it has received approval from the FDA to market the most up-to-date design for the GORE VIABAHN®

Endoprosthesis for device diameters 9 – 13 mm. The product enables streamlined deployment on the same 0.035” guidewire and TIP to HUB direction as the 5 – 8 mm sizes. Additional modifications include radial device expansion, a contoured proximal edge and a lower profile that is now available for most sizes. The company reports its GORE VIABAHN Endoprosthesis family of devices is constructed with a durable, reinforced, biocompatible, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) liner attached to an external nitinol stent structure. The product’s flexibility enables it to traverse tortuous areas and to conform to the complex anatomy of the artery. The device is the only stent-graft approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients suffering from PAD in superficial femoral and iliac artery lesions. For more information visit www.goremedical.com.

Leader Tech Completes Expansion

Leader Tech has recently celebrated the completion of its Global EMI Shielding Technology Center. The project was prompted by a significant increase in demand, domestic and international, for the company’s high performance EMI Shielding products. Leader Tech President, Dario Negrini comments, “Every detail of our new one-of-a-kind facility has been tailor-engineered to streamline and improve our customer service, engineering and manufacturing processes.” The company reports in a time when companies are moving away from the EMI Shielding customer through offshore manufacturing and distribution channels, Leader Tech is staying commited to the US market by continuing to expand its industry experienced team, innovated manufacturing technology and US based facility. For a personal tour, contact Leader Tech at (813) 855-6921.

Lockheed Martin Awards Contract to Construct Advanced PIM Test Facility

Cuming-Lehman Chambers has announced that the company has been awarded a contract to construct an advanced PIM Test Facility for Lockheed

INDUSTRY NEWS


INDUSTRY NEWS

Martin Space Systems at their Newtown, Pennsylvania facility. The Passive Intermodulation (PIM) shielded test chamber will support development and testing for several of Lockheed Martin’s next-generation technologies including GPS III and MUOS, technologies which, according to recent Lockheed Martin press releases, represent more than $3.5 billion in new contracts for the company. Cuming-Lehman Chambers will utilize advanced RF absorbers as well as proprietary building techniques in the design and construction of the 2,668 sq. ft, 53 ft tall PIM Test Facility.

New Spectrum Analyzer Released for General Availability

MetaGeek has announced the general availability of Wi-Spy 2.4i, the latest addition to the company’s line of Wi-Spy Spectrum Analyzer solutions. Wi-Spy 2.4i will allow users to visualize, troubleshoot and optimize their wireless environments with ease-of-use and efficiency. The thumb-drive sized USB device features an internal antenna and ideal portability. Wi-Spy 2.4i allows users to see their full wireless landscape, enabling significantly improved installation of wireless devices and faster troubleshooting of complete networks, offering optimal performance. For more information, visit www.metageek.net.

New 100W 2-6GHz Amplifier

A new 100W 2-6GHz amplifier is being offered by MILMEGA. The company reports that its newest addition was designed to meet the power and frequency testing requirements of IEC 61000-4-3. The full specification is available on the company’s Products page. For more information, please visit www.milmega.co.uk.

Laboratory Begins Testing for ZigBee RF4CE Specification

National Technical Systems (NTS) is now offering ZigBee testing for RF4CE platforms. The ZigBee RF4CE specification was designed for radio-frequency based remote controls, providing a low power solution that removes line-of-sight issues commonly

associated with typical consumer remotes. The RF4CE test program will verify functionality and interoperability of the ZigBee RF4CE platforms across multiple vendors, with product-level certification testing soon to follow. Testing of the specification will allow manufacturers to quickly and easily develop interoperable products based on the standard. For more information visit the company’s website at www.ntscorp.com.

Major Solar Investment from Science Foundation Arizona

TÜV Rheinland PTL reports a joint venture with Arizona State University in which it has been selected as one of five entities among Science Foundation Arizona’s most recent solar investments. The company was chosen to receive this support as part of a larger program called PEPER, Photovoltaic Environmental Performance and Reliability for the Arizona-Wide Electric Grid. PEPER’s goal is to help identify better performing solar products and address industry testing and certification

barriers related to the market introduction of solar products. For more information, visit www.tuvptl.com.

UL Completes Facility Expansion

Underwriters Laboratories has announced the completion of its photovoltaic testing facility expansion in San Jose, California, increasing testing capacity by more than 40 percent. UL reports that the company has invested heavily in solar and other alternative energies and efficient storage technologies such as batteries for electric vehicles to meet the growing global demand for testing services of these new technologies. This most recent expansion of the Photovoltaic Technology Center in San Jose, California, brings the total laboratory space to 32,000 sq. ft. The facility now also houses five extra chambers that assess a variety of PV innovations including crystalline and thin-film technologies, BIPV and concentrated BV. For further information visit www.ul.com.

New Program for Market Access of Telecom Products

Nemko has launched a new service designed for market access of Telecom products, in particular short range devices. Nemko Direct for Telecom is a program based on a network of relationships with regulatory authorities throughout the world to obtain the necessary requirements to enter that market. This service includes testing, documentation, certification, application and payment.

“The unique benefit Nemko Direct for Telecom is we serve as a single point of contact for worldwide market access of telecom products. We have first hand knowledge about the regulatory requirements and country certification processes needed to enter these countries. We also have a special team dedicated to staying current with the requirements for market access,” says Birger Grathen, SVP of Global Sales and Marketing.

The company reports that its new program provides market access in over 150 countries located in the Americas, the Far East, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, Eastern Europe and Oceania. For more information on Nemko Direct for Telecom, visit www.nemko.com.


A.H. Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C3

AMTA 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

AR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Braden Shielding Systems . . . . . . . . . . .C4

Compliance Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

ESD Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

ETS-Lindgren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Elite Electronic Engineering Inc. . . . . . .43

IEEE EMC 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Montrose Compliance Services, Inc. . . .37

Nemko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Product Safety Engineering Society. . . .19

Panashield Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C2

TÜV SÜD America Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Washington Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Subscribe to IN Compliance . . . . . . . . . .35

ADVERTISERS

Advertiser Page Advertiser Page

The IN Compliance team thanks our advertisers, authors and supporters for your help in making the Premiere Issue

of IN Compliance Magazine a reality.

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongcong
View:	228 times
Download:	3 times

UPDATE ON CISPR STANDARDS - In Compliance Magazine · PDF file16 22. 30 38. THE VALUE of . ......

Documents