re-compliance testing aims to duplicate the test setup used by your third-party test lab. Fortunately, setting up a conducted emissions test in-house is relatively simple and can be performed on the benchtop (Figure 1).

Ideally, you should procure a copy of the appropriate EMC test standard used, depending on the product type. For example, for military testing, you’ll need a copy of MIL-STD-461. For commercial, industrial or medical products, you’d use one of the IEC standards, such as IEC/EN 61326, IEC/EN 60601 or the generic IEC/EN 61000-6-3, which will refer back to CISPR 11 or CISPR 32. For automotive modules, you’ll need a copy of CISPR 25. These will describe the equipment and setups and test limits required. I also have more detailed information in my EMC Troubleshooting Trilogy, Volumes 1 and 2 [Reference 1].

easurement uncertainty is a crucial concept in the field of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing. It refers to the doubt that exists regarding the result of a measurement. No measurement is perfect, and even the most precise instruments have some degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty can stem from various factors, including the measuring instrument, the environment, the operator, and the method itself. Understanding and accounting for measurement uncertainty is essential to ensure the test results are reliable and accurate.

In the context of EMC testing, accurate measurements are vital to determine whether electronic devices comply with regulatory standards. If the uncertainty in measurements is too high, it could lead to incorrect conclusions about a device’s compliance, potentially resulting in either unnecessary redesigns or non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

n Parts 1 and 2, we explored the need for testing HIRF, the assumptions that were made to determine the field strengths, and the environments they would apply to. There were four HIRF environments created:

• HIRF Environment II: Aircraft Normal
• HIRF Environment III Rotorcraft Severe HIRF

f you usually spend your time testing to one standard, it can be easy to forget about some of the little things that differ from standard to standard. One thing that’s easy to overlook is the different ways that equipment under test (EUTs) are required to be bonded (or not bonded) to a ground plane. Let’s start by looking at the difference between Figures 2 and 3 of MIL-STD-461 Rev G.

In both cases you have the EUT sitting directly on the surface of the test bench. In the first, the surface is metallic (usually copper), and in the second, it’s non‑conductive except for a small area where the LISNs sit.

n today’s increasingly complex electromagnetic environments, the need for radiation hazards (RADHAZ) assessments and testing have reached critical importance. RADHAZ refers to the potential danger posed by radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation. This term is commonly used in military, aerospace, and engineering contexts, especially in environments where high-powered RF transmitters are present. These dangers have traditionally been attributed to high-power intentional transmission equipment such as radars and long-range communications. However, low-power RF transmitters operating at close distances can also cause harm to personnel, ignite fuel, and initiate or disable electrically initiated explosive devices (EIDs).

This article will examine each of the three primary hazard areas covered by a RADHAZ assessment and dive into how these assessments are generally conducted. These hazard assessment areas cover…

hildren now make up roughly one-third of all internet users worldwide. Greater connectivity has enabled young people to benefit from educational content, communication tools, and entertainment, but it has also exposed them to harmful content, exploitation, data privacy risks, and potential addiction problems. The United Nations has confirmed that its Convention on the Rights of the Child¹ also applies to the digital world.

One area gaining strong focus is age verification. For policymakers, age verification is a critical tool to enforce child protection laws and uphold digital rights. For digital service providers, it’s a strategic imperative for ensuring compliance, building trust, and protecting brand integrity.

n previous articles I have written, I have talked about what is reasonably foreseeable misuse and how that should be taken into account during the design of the product,¹ how to navigate the safety hierarchy,² and how to create effective warnings and instructions.³ All of these subjects merge when discussing the foreseeability of product users not following warnings and instructions.

While considerable confusion arose over the years about what effect these limitations had on liability, the concept of “misuse” as a defense or limitation on a manufacturer’s duty became firmly entrenched in the law.

his is the fifth of seven articles devoted to the topic of shielding to prevent electromagnetic wave radiation. The first article [1] discussed the reflection and transmission of uniform plane waves at a normal boundary. The second article, [2], addressed the normal incidence of a uniform plane wave on a solid conducting shield with no apertures. The third article, [3], presented the exact solution for the shielding effectiveness of a solid conducting shield. The fourth article, [4], presented the approximate solution obtained from the exact solution. Both the exact and approximate solutions were derived for a good conductor in the far field of the radiating source. This article begins by discussing the topic of shielding effectiveness in the near field by introducing the concept of wave impedance.

he increasing demand for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in road vehicles is fueling the development of high-speed automotive serial links. ADAS features such as adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, and parking assistance rely heavily on cameras, sensors, and radar. To support high image resolution and video frame rates, state-of‑the-art automotive I/O may operate at data rates higher than 10 Gbps [1]. Automotive ICs are rated for system-level ESD robustness, rather than only component-level ESD, which makes ESD protection design for high-speed automotive I/O more challenging than for most other high-speed I/O. Specifically, in addition to component-level ESD qualification tests like human body model (HBM) and charged device model (CDM), many automotive products need to pass ISO-10605 qualification [2], which is a test standard for road vehicles based in part on the similar but more general IEC 61000-4-2 standard. Figure 1 shows an example of an 8kV discharge current waveform. The near-30-A peak current is well above the magnitude of the HBM and CDM.