iec 61000 magnetic sensor

[LV_Pro]

Not really a LabVIEW question, but I'm trying to quote a project that calls for a "magnetic sensor", that appears, from the requirement document to be used in testing the UUT per IEC 61000-4-3. I'm reluctant to download the mentioned document, as it is $350 US, a bit pricey to just find out the details of the Magnetic Sensor. The author of the requirement document that I am working from (a  Government "standard") seemed to have a specific device in mind:              "Magnetic field sensor. The magnetic field sensor shall have a frequency response
                          bandwidth at least five times greater than the bandwidth of the generated magnetic
                          field, shall provide an rms voltage output, and shall have dimensions less than or
                          equal to four cm x four cm x four cm."

but unfortunately didn't share it with the rest of us. I will be talking to this device (whatever it turns out to be) with LabVIEW, so, indirectly it is a LabVIEW question, but more importantly it a reaching out to a large, worldwide, community of technical pros!  😉

thanks, as always

[mikeporter]

It sounds like to me Put like they're talking about a hall effect sensor to sense rotation of a shaft or something. Assuming that or something similar, you start with an analog input and threshold the output to get square-ish signal that can drive a counter. Any idea how fast this thing needs to be?

I have see magnets strapped to shafts with hose clamps for low speed work and high speed systems that counted the passing of gear teeth.

Mike...

[Dennis_Knutson]

IEC 61000 deals with electo magnetic compatibility. Generated fields and susceptibility to them. Nothing to do with rotation of shafts. I worked at places that required testing per the standard but I wasn't involved at all. Expensive labs did the actually testing. That's about all I know, sorry.

[LV_Pro]

Yes, this is being done for one of the expensive lab. It is for the electromagnetic suscepetibility part, I'm think that I'll just tell them that this has to be TBD, see if someone hidden in their origanization has knowledge (or ideally, the equipment).

The top level document has some very specifc hardware call outs that are specific, but incomplete, another:

Light detector. A light detector shall be used to detect a visible positive alarm
indication as described in Section 5.7, Alarm Indicator Requirements, and shall
provide an analog electrical output that can be interfaced to the computer controller.
(See Section 6.3.13). The light detector shall have a coaxial output connector and an
output impedance of ≥ 50 .

Too many shalls without sufficient info to actually identify what device they are requiring. It shall provide an analog signal (pretty vague) and have a coaxial output connector with a 50 ohm impededanc, or greater! Ok, TELL ME WHAT DEVICE YOU were looking at when you wrote this document!

[jcarmody]

---

@LV_Pro wrote:

[...] Ok, TELL ME WHAT DEVICE YOU were looking at when you wrote this document!

---

I HATE it when the Design Engineer writes a requirement based on the equipment they've used, rather than the capabilities required by the application.  The cynic in me thinks it's because they never bothered to determine the requirements beyond "Hey, this works and it's good enough for me." 

Me: How did you come up with those limits?

Them: Uhhhhh....

Me: Do you really need such a tight tolerance?

Them: Uhhhhh...

Me: Uhhhhh...

I think my cynical side is correct.

[JÞB]

You are dead-on.  some engineer already knows the hardware.  a "TBD" quote is important in those cases.  (unless you have a boatload of cash you don't mind losing)

Im glad I am not the only one to run into this type of quote.  Sorry you did.  They can be profitable if well managed.

[LV_Pro]

My record on providing well engineered solutions has been pretty good, well managed, meh ...