spread spectrum cheating...

[John Larkin]

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

 

[Phil Hobbs]

John Larkin wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

How badly did you miss the limit?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 23:03:54 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

How badly did you miss the limit?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

When we did the box, the customer insisted that all cable shields be
grounded on one end only \"to prevent ground loops\" ! So we didn\'t
ground the cat5 shield at the ESM, the little box that transmits the
clock and data. That fails CE test by about 30 dB. The crazies are
gone so we can ground the shield now and fail by maybe 10.

Grounding, and some baluns, might just fix it, but spread spectrum
would help a lot too.

Strangly, we fail at 62 MHz, the clock frequency, and we can\'t lowpass
filter that.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<sha6mhlu5664pfrguubvalkr56i845tan6@4ax.com>:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

Google double shielded RJ45 cable?

 

[John Walliker]

On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 05:28:19 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
sha6mhlu5664pfrgu...@4ax.com>:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.
Google double shielded RJ45 cable?

Are you testing to class A or B? As this is an industrial application you should be
able to go for class A which gives you an extra 9.6dB.
The measurement receiver will almost certainly have a bandwidth of 120kHz plus
a bit extra for the finite slope of the filters, so if you want a 3dB reduction in the
received signal you will need the clock to be uniformly spread over at least a 250kHz
range. That way, the unwanted signal is within the measurement bandwidth for
only half the time. This may of course be too much for your system to cope with.
Spread spectrum clocks are much more effective at dealing with high harmonics
than the clock fundamental as the deviation gets higher for the harmonics but the
receiver bandwidth stays the same (up to 1GHz).
How is the box powered? If there is a separate power supply, then adding some
common mode inductance such as a ferrite ring or clamp to the power cable
should help a lot.
If the box only connects to one other device plus a power supply, then I don\'t
understand how grounding the shield at one end only can make any sense. It
should be solidly grounded at the main equipment end and be connected to the
internal ground reference in the small box. Any break in the ground structure
to avoid \"ground loops\" should be obtained by having a floating power supply
if possible. A simple double insulated wall wart would achieve this.
An alternative way of breaking round loops if the customer really insists is to do
what ethernet often does - put a small capacitor in series with the shield so that
there is minimal 60Hz coupling but the impedance is low at 62MHz. A ceramic
capacitor selected to be self-resonant at close to 62MHz would be ideal. Murata
and some others are good about providing such data.
If there is a separate power supply, then keep its cable as close as possible to the
data cable during testing to make the dipole antenna created by the two cables as
small as possible.

John

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 2:00:11 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

You probably shouldn\'t sweep at all, but make the box and it\'s cables radiate less.

A balanced clock and balanced data shouldn\'t radiate much at all, and shielded twisted pair ribbon cable with a solid foil shield might well radiate less than RJ45.

Forcing balance with a clamp-on ferrite common mode choke - balun - would help too, as you say.

A 5V swing is probably more than you need. ECL and LVDS both swing through only a volt or so and put a lot less hash on your power supply rail and through your ground returns.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

..<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/>

Joe Gwinn

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 03:45:02 -0700 (PDT), John Walliker
<jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 05:28:19 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
sha6mhlu5664pfrgu...@4ax.com>:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.
Google double shielded RJ45 cable?

Are you testing to class A or B? As this is an industrial application you should be
able to go for class A which gives you an extra 9.6dB.
The measurement receiver will almost certainly have a bandwidth of 120kHz plus
a bit extra for the finite slope of the filters, so if you want a 3dB reduction in the
received signal you will need the clock to be uniformly spread over at least a 250kHz
range. That way, the unwanted signal is within the measurement bandwidth for
only half the time. This may of course be too much for your system to cope with.
Spread spectrum clocks are much more effective at dealing with high harmonics
than the clock fundamental as the deviation gets higher for the harmonics but the
receiver bandwidth stays the same (up to 1GHz).

250K is well inside the sweep range (some do an octave) but outside
the modulation range of most little commercial VCOs, but maybe I can
find one, to replace the 125 MHz XO in the box.

The two knobs to turn, to fool the spectrum analyzer, is how wide a
range to sweep over, and what is the sweep rate? An SA has both a
front-end bandwidth and \"video bandwidth\", essentially lowpass
filtering after the detector.

Another option is a circuit that phase modulates the 62.5 MHz clock
after the FPGA generates it. Shades of the old \"phasing method\" of FM
generation.

How is the box powered? If there is a separate power supply, then adding some
common mode inductance such as a ferrite ring or clamp to the power cable
should help a lot.

The customer provides 24 volts DC, and they insisted I not ground the
low side so I have an isolating dc/dc converter. The claim is that
they are not seeing EMI from the power cable.

If the box only connects to one other device plus a power supply, then I don\'t
understand how grounding the shield at one end only can make any sense.

It never made sense. One fix is to change the RG45 connector and the
box end plate to get a good shield ground, but for some reason the
customer says that\'s not quite good enough.

Of course, customers have been known to be wrong before.

It
should be solidly grounded at the main equipment end and be connected to the
internal ground reference in the small box. Any break in the ground structure
to avoid \"ground loops\" should be obtained by having a floating power supply
if possible.

The PCBs in both boxes are hard grounded to our grounded metal
enclosures. The \"ground loop\" concept was stupid. There are giant
metal pipes between the relevant parts of this machine and they make
\"ground loops\" too. Not to mention all the electrical power conduits
and the building structure steel.

A simple double insulated wall wart would achieve this.
An alternative way of breaking round loops if the customer really insists is to do
what ethernet often does - put a small capacitor in series with the shield so that
there is minimal 60Hz coupling but the impedance is low at 62MHz. A ceramic
capacitor selected to be self-resonant at close to 62MHz would be ideal. Murata
and some others are good about providing such data.
If there is a separate power supply, then keep its cable as close as possible to the
data cable during testing to make the dipole antenna created by the two cables as
small as possible.

John

My real question remains, what sweep width and modulation do I need to
spread the EMI spectrum enough to fool a CE-test-class spectrum
analyzer?

If the SA RF bandwidth is 125K, I might sweep 1 MHz p-p to help. The
digital stuff might tolerate that.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 03/11/2022 03:00, John Larkin wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Mock it up on the bench with a signal generator and a spectrum analyser.
(any old frequency will do you can scale the results)

Try a triangle wave at say 1% of f0 to get a feel for it. That should
give nicer behaviour than a sawtooth. Discontinuities always hurt.

I seriously doubt if you can modulate it in such a way that will be a
recognisable clock signal that will get the fundamental down by 30dB.

Board redesign so the RF hot traces are between the PSU planes might
help. Is something pulling serious current at that clock frequency?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Nov 2022 07:51:04 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<q5k7mh9tchu4r7vtm7pnk1drcbtfvs5ikt@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 03:45:02 -0700 (PDT), John Walliker
jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 05:28:19 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
sha6mhlu5664pfrgu...@4ax.com>:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.
Google double shielded RJ45 cable?

You mentioned 62 MHz,
the 74HC4046A at 5 V goes that high.
Modulate F with VCO pin 9
So modudate with a gaussian ;-)

But I do not like the idea of frequency changing clocks, screening is possibly better.

My real question remains, what sweep width and modulation do I need to
spread the EMI spectrum enough to fool a CE-test-class spectrum
analyzer?

62 MHz? RTL_SDR stick and xpsa:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/xpsa/index.html

If the SA RF bandwidth is 125K, I might sweep 1 MHz p-p to help. The
digital stuff might tolerate that.

How do they make the real spread spectrum stuff?
Noise generator, low pass, VCO?

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-11-03 15:37, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

.<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/

Joe Gwinn

I was surprised to discover that spread-spectrum wasn\'t only an electronics
subject. I came across a youtube video by Steve Mould, explaining that the
grooves in car tyres are unevenly spaced to reduce whining noises.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ock8v7-IG7I>

Check! He\'s right! I never noticed before.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 3. november 2022 kl. 16.50.49 UTC+1 skrev Jeroen Belleman:

On 2022-11-03 15:37, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

.<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/

Joe Gwinn

I was surprised to discover that spread-spectrum wasn\'t only an electronics
subject. I came across a youtube video by Steve Mould, explaining that the
grooves in car tyres are unevenly spaced to reduce whining noises.

and turbine engines have a different number of blades and stators in each stage so
it doesn\'t turn into an air sirene loud enough to make buildings collapse

 

[Martin Rid]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> Wrote in message:r

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures anoptical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twistedpairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS andEMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the littlebox makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,and radiates too much.We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop theamplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency orphase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d needbut more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequencywould have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectralline. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns thespectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtoothfrequency would work?My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, orto replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCOinput to FM the whole FPGA clock and everythin
g. Clock and data wouldsweep together, which is kind of nice.So, how wide andnub how fast should I sweep?

--
300khz resolution band width comes to mind. The SA\'s used use
quasi peak measuring of the emissions. I never looked into
defeating it. But if your wobbling more than 300khz, there\'s a
good chance to fool the detector.

Cheers


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 07:51:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 03:45:02 -0700 (PDT), John Walliker
jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 3 November 2022 at 05:28:19 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
sha6mhlu5664pfrgu...@4ax.com>:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.
Google double shielded RJ45 cable?

Are you testing to class A or B? As this is an industrial application you should be
able to go for class A which gives you an extra 9.6dB.
The measurement receiver will almost certainly have a bandwidth of 120kHz plus
a bit extra for the finite slope of the filters, so if you want a 3dB reduction in the
received signal you will need the clock to be uniformly spread over at least a 250kHz
range. That way, the unwanted signal is within the measurement bandwidth for
only half the time. This may of course be too much for your system to cope with.
Spread spectrum clocks are much more effective at dealing with high harmonics
than the clock fundamental as the deviation gets higher for the harmonics but the
receiver bandwidth stays the same (up to 1GHz).

250K is well inside the sweep range (some do an octave) but outside
the modulation range of most little commercial VCOs, but maybe I can
find one, to replace the 125 MHz XO in the box.

The two knobs to turn, to fool the spectrum analyzer, is how wide a
range to sweep over, and what is the sweep rate? An SA has both a
front-end bandwidth and \"video bandwidth\", essentially lowpass
filtering after the detector.

Another option is a circuit that phase modulates the 62.5 MHz clock
after the FPGA generates it. Shades of the old \"phasing method\" of FM
generation.


How is the box powered? If there is a separate power supply, then adding some
common mode inductance such as a ferrite ring or clamp to the power cable
should help a lot.

The customer provides 24 volts DC, and they insisted I not ground the
low side so I have an isolating dc/dc converter. The claim is that
they are not seeing EMI from the power cable.

If the box only connects to one other device plus a power supply, then I don\'t
understand how grounding the shield at one end only can make any sense.

It never made sense. One fix is to change the RG45 connector and the
box end plate to get a good shield ground, but for some reason the
customer says that\'s not quite good enough.

Of course, customers have been known to be wrong before.


It
should be solidly grounded at the main equipment end and be connected to the
internal ground reference in the small box. Any break in the ground structure
to avoid \"ground loops\" should be obtained by having a floating power supply
if possible.


The PCBs in both boxes are hard grounded to our grounded metal
enclosures. The \"ground loop\" concept was stupid. There are giant
metal pipes between the relevant parts of this machine and they make
\"ground loops\" too. Not to mention all the electrical power conduits
and the building structure steel.

The point is to avoid ground loops at power frequency and harmonics.
One can ground the floating end for RF with a capacitor.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 03.11.22 um 15:51 schrieb John Larkin:

My real question remains, what sweep width and modulation do I need to
spread the EMI spectrum enough to fool a CE-test-class spectrum
analyzer?

If the SA RF bandwidth is 125K, I might sweep 1 MHz p-p to help. The
digital stuff might tolerate that.

The idea is not to betray the SA, it is more like playing with
the specs. There is a noise / energy density that must not
be exceeded. It\'s better to have just-so-results over a wide
frequency region than having too much on one spot.
I think there are clock chips just for this purpose. I did not
remember them, my problem is usually the opposite:
Minimizing the phase noise.

cheers, Gerhard

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:00:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Can you get away with a differential sine wave? It would easier to achieve balance, I would think, with a split phase coupling transformer.
https://www.minicircuits.com/WebStore/Transformers.html
The amplitude and phase imbalances, which are actually pretty good at your frequency, should be 40dB down, then an SMT common mode choke should provide an additional 15dB minimum. A 55dB reduction is pretty good starting point.
https://www.murata.com/en-us/search/productsearch?cate=cgsubChipCommoModeChokeCoil&partno=DLW21*

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:03:42 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 3. november 2022 kl. 16.50.49 UTC+1 skrev Jeroen Belleman:
On 2022-11-03 15:37, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

.<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/

Joe Gwinn

I was surprised to discover that spread-spectrum wasn\'t only an electronics
subject. I came across a youtube video by Steve Mould, explaining that the
grooves in car tyres are unevenly spaced to reduce whining noises.

and turbine engines have a different number of blades and stators in each stage so
it doesn\'t turn into an air sirene loud enough to make buildings collapse

I didn\'t know that, but it certainly makes sense. I thinks some
cooling fans do that as well.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 16:50:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-11-03 15:37, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

.<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/

Joe Gwinn


I was surprised to discover that spread-spectrum wasn\'t only an electronics
subject. I came across a youtube video by Steve Mould, explaining that the
grooves in car tyres are unevenly spaced to reduce whining noises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ock8v7-IG7I

Check! He\'s right! I never noticed before.

I had noticed that on my car, but didn\'t think much about it. Makes
sense, though.

Endmills used on vertical milling machines often have the cutting
edges arranged slightly irregularly around the circumference, so the
bit won\'t sing at the edge-passing frequency. Same idea.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 3. november 2022 kl. 18.48.58 UTC+1 skrev Joe Gwinn:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 16:50:42 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-11-03 15:37, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:00:00 -0700, John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

Wobbling the clock frequency to reduce EMI is in fact a standard trick
going back decades, with commodity chips to do just that.

.<https://www.eetimes.com/isscc-spread-spectrum-clocks-mitigate-emi/

Joe Gwinn


I was surprised to discover that spread-spectrum wasn\'t only an electronics
subject. I came across a youtube video by Steve Mould, explaining that the
grooves in car tyres are unevenly spaced to reduce whining noises.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ock8v7-IG7I

Check! He\'s right! I never noticed before.

I had noticed that on my car, but didn\'t think much about it. Makes
sense, though.

Endmills used on vertical milling machines often have the cutting
edges arranged slightly irregularly around the circumference, so the
bit won\'t sing at the edge-passing frequency. Same idea.

some lathes and mills have the option to vary the spindle speed to avoid chatter

https://youtu.be/kR6KUsh-jg4

 

[Mike Monett VE3BTI]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
We make a bunch of boxes that go into a semi fab tool. One measures an
optical waveform and shoots it to a bigger box, over three twisted
pairs (clock, data, data) using shielded RJ45 ethernet type stuff.

When we originally did it, they told us we were exempt from ROHS and
EMI standards, but now we aren\'t. ROHS is no big deal, but the little
box makes a continuous 62 MHz clock, differential at 5 volt swings,
and radiates too much.

We can\'t lowpass filter the fundamental of course. We can\'t drop the
amplitude much. A common-mode balun might help some.

So one idea is to spread-spectrum, wobulate the clock frequency or
phase to smear the spectral peak below the CE limits.

Has anyone done this? I wonder how wide a frequency sweep we\'d need
but more important is what the equivalent FM modulation frequency
would have to be so the spectrum analyzer never sees the peak spectral
line. Imagine a sawtooth frequency modulation, which turns the
spectral spike into a nice flat plateau. What sort of sawtooth
frequency would work?

My options are to add a modulated phase shifter in the clock path, or
to replace the main XO with a VCO and apply some waveform to the VCO
input to FM the whole FPGA clock and everything. Clock and data would
sweep together, which is kind of nice.

So, how wide and how fast should I sweep?

How badly did you miss the limit?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Cat 8 cable might help. Each twisted pair is foil shielded and the entire
cable has an outer aluminum shield. The cable supports 40 Gbps for 30
meters. Note also the connectors have to be shielded and grounded. An
example from Amazon:

\"CAT8 Ethernet Cable,20FT (6.1 Meters) Shielded Network Cable, 26AWG Cat8
LAN Cable 40Gbps 2000Mhz Internet Cable, High Speed Gaming Ethernet Cable,
Weatherproof, Heavy Duty RJ45 Cable, Router, Switch, Modem\"

$19.99

About this item

Highest Shielding Level & Highest Speed: Cat8 Ethernet cable is made of
4 shielded foiled twisted pair(S/FTP) and single strand OFC wires(26AWG)
which supports bandwidth up to 2000MHz and boosts the speed of data
transmission up to 40Gbps. Also with the additional shielding of Cat8 and
the improved quality in twisting of the pairs, Cat8 Ethernet cord can
reduce any signal interference to the full extent. Allow you to stream HD
videos, music, surf the net, play games at Hyper Speed

Heavy duty & Direct Burial ---The quadruple shielded Cat8 Network cable
is super efficient in reducing EMI/RFI Interference and provide highest
fidelity for long distance data transmission. With upgraded PVC, Cat8 is
waterproofed & anti-corrosion and more durable & flexible for heavy duty
work. Can be buried directly under the ground. Suitable for both outdoor
and indoor use

26AWG & Superior Performance: Comparing with other 32AWG Ethernet
cable, 26AWG Cat8 internet cable is thicker, a lot faster and stable in
data transferring, which is perfectly suitable for AI smart products, Cloud
data Server and other smart home & office products that require high speed
& high performance network

RJ45 Connectors & Wide Compatibility: With two shielded RJ45 connectors
at both ends, the Cat8 Ethernet cable works perfectly with networking
switch, IP Cam, routers, switch, ADSL, Adapters, Modem, Patch panel,
Servers, Networking Printers, VoIP phones, laptop, Coupler, Hubs, Keystone
jack, Smart TV, and other device with RJ45 connectors. Also compatible with
Cat7/Cat5/Cat5e/Cat6/Cat6e

Weatherproof & UV Resistant: Shielded with high quality UV-resistant
PVC jacket, the outdoor rated Cat8 Ethernet patch cable is anti-aging. It
can withstand direct sunlight and extreme cold & humid & hot weather yet
still working efficiently. Premium design with great quality. 18 months
warranty with lifetime welcoming customer service

https://www.amazon.ca/Ethernet-Shielded-Connector-Weatherproof-
Nintendo/dp/B07QNWX64F/





--
MRM