The recent August 1999 issue of Conformity magazine indicates that indeed
the test methodology of C63.4 does include the open chassis test and the 6
dB above limits. The article indicates a clarification was made about this
process in a recent OET notice. The notice itself wasn't identified so you
would have to search the FCC's site for it.
Before one and all start throwing daggers and putting hexes on me. I want to
point out that I am not endorsing the process, although I certainly
understand, why folk like Michael might want this type of system.
Finally, I will resist a dig at the sanity of many of the European rules.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 4:18 PM
To: 'michael.garret...@radisys.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: CE Marking requirements
As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B
compliance
process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a
"compliant"
unit.
What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and
mark the
motherboard based on that test ALONE.
If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the
infamous
CE+CE=CE
approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for
emissions.
Comments:
(a) there is no requirement to test "open chassis" and that we can
CE mark
the
board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the
class B
levels
within a chassis of our choosing.
RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for "open
chassis"
testing.
The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here.
(b) we are still required to perform "open chassis" tests, however,
there is
no
6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B
levels with
the
cover off.
RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO "open chassis" test.
WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the
TCF route.
Ugh.
Thank you
Charles Grasso
Advisory Engineer
StorageTek
1 StorageTek Drive
Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247.
Tel:303-673-2908
Fax:303-661-7115
email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com
RMCEMC Web Site:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/
-----Original Message-----
From: michael.garret...@radisys.com
[mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: CE Marking requirements
Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the
specific
requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be
getting
varying
stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of
our
products. These are big enough players that pitting one against
another is
not
something I want to undertake at this point.
We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself
and with
a
chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are
currently
going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet
both FCC
Class
B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products
has been
if
we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but
we'll be
testing
to EN 55024 of immunity, as well.
The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus
testing of the
motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an
additional
6dB
margin for "open chassis" measurement, so long as those frequencies
fall
back
within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear
to be a
problem for our product.
We have been told by different parties that for Europe,
(a) there is no requirement to test "open chassis" and that we can
CE mark
the
board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the
class B
levels
within a chassis of our choosing
and
(b) we are still required to perform "open chassis" tests, however,
there is
no
6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B
levels with
the
cover off.
We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the
(b)
approach.
I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the
levels that
we're
not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due
to a
slight
drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers'
dispositions.
I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test
requirements
specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them
if you
can
point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction
in the
next
day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that
someone
in
the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading
from my
life by pointing me in the right direction.
Regards,
Michael Garretson
Compliance Engineer
RadiSys Corporation
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
