Kaz, Your questions are exactly along the line I was thinking of. In the U.S., I could assume that the smart jack is provided by the telco. and it's the demarkation point. However, I don't know what the telcos. provide in the EEU. The safest approach is to assume nothing and make sure my company's product meets EN55024 by itself. That way you avoid misunderstandings. But I don't want to spend extra money on parts and testing if I don't have to. Any comments from our European forum members?? Regards, Debbie Mallory AFC, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 11:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question
Folks, Just to add to the mix of questions so far, here's a few more that Debbie may wish to consider: 1) is the demarkation point for the product clearly identified? 2) Is a smart jack always to be used with the product? Who supplies it (i.e. mfg. or customer)? 3) Is the product in question specified to meet the immunity requirements with/without the use of the smart connector? 4) Are there a million+1garden variety smart jacks or is there only a unique smart jack to connect with this particular product? 5) What will the customer's obligations for installation and deployments of the product be? I guess the point I'm raising is that the product Debbie(below) refers to has to live up to it's specs...whatever they are. If the immunity spec is not to be met stand-alone (i.e. without smart jack) due to whatever the mfg. pushes onto the customer...that's fine but it should be clearly identified on the mfg's side and to their customers in one way or another. Any assumptions that are made regarding what it is that Telcos supply is ok as well...they might be wrong however, so the design docs, approvals and customer supplied information should clearly spell out what the product meets and what the customer's obligations are prior to deployments, implementation and possible field issues. My 2 Cents...if I'm way off track, please accept my apologies. Kaz Gawrzyjal, P. Eng. [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> -----Original Message----- From: Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: RE: EN55024 question Bandele - Please forgive an ignorant question: I'm not going to pretend to be an EMC standards expert, but I fail to see how the presence or absence of processing an incoming signal has anything to do with whether there is a direct or indirect connection to outside lines. To wit: "outside" is easily enough understood as a line (presumed metallic) that enters a building structure from an uncontrolled environment and subject to transients. Direct implies to me that there is no interposing hardware, other than interconnects (no voltage surge suppression devices, galvanic isolating equipment, etc). Is this an interpretation from a Notified Body or known to be the intent of the standards committee that wrote the requirement? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Bandele Adepoju Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM Hello Debbie, If the jack has processing capabilities (if it takes the incoming data signal and reprocesses it or reformats it), any connection to it is considered to be an "indirect" connection. If the jack does not have processing capabilities (if it passes the data signal straight through), any connection to it is considered to be a "direct" connection. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] forwarding for Debbie... ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: EN55024 question Author: Debbie Mallory <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: 8/25/00 10:59 AM > Hello, > > I have a question about the use of the word "directly" in Note 2, of Table > 2, in EN55024: 1998. It says "Applicable only to [telecommunication] > ports which according to the manufacturer's specification may connect > directly to outdoor cables." > > If the TTE has a T1/E1 interface that connects to the "outdoor cable" via > a smart jack, is this considered a direct connection (and thus subject to > immunity testing) or does it not apply? > > Can I make any assumptions about whether phone companies throughout the > EEU install smart jacks at the customer premises? > > Thanks for your comments. > > Regards, > > Debbie Mallory > AFC, Inc. > Largo, FL ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
