Dave Heald Wrote: > "Regardless, every piece of CO equipment (at least owned by the RBOC) >should be immune to 9.8 or so V/m signals and any exceptions should be >known by the CO administrators as such information is included in a NEBS r>eport (Immunity to 10V/m is a conditional requirement only - I believe >1.7 V/m is the Requirement but any malfunctions from 1.7 < level < 10 >V/m must be noted in the report with frequencies, symptoms, and minimum >susceptibility levels)."
My copy of GR-1089 ( Issue 2, dated December 1997 says 8.5 V.m for the Conditional Requirement, not 10 V/m as you stated. SR-3580 dated November 1995 does mention 10 V/m, but then if you look at what it refernces, namely GR-1089, Criteria 16,18, it is 8.5 V/m. A typo or miscalculation? Who knows? If 10 V/m immunity is required, it is above and beyond what GR-1089 currently requires. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
