>From the peanut gallery: CISPR 11 Classifies ISM Equipment into different categories: Group 1 & 2 and Class A & B
>FROM CISPR 11 (with comments): Group 1 ISM equipment: group 1 contains all ISM equipment in which there is intentionally generated and/or used conductively coupled radio-frequency energy which is necessary for the internal functioning of the equipment itself. (Translate this to mean internal clocks and compare it to the definition of Digital Devices used be the FCC.) Group 2 ISM equipment: group 2 contains all ISM equipment in which radio-frequency energy is intentionally generated and/or used in the form of electromagnetic radiation for the treatment of material, and EDM and arc welding equipment. (The devices that transmit RF energy intentionally into the environment for industrial purposes) Excluded from the testing requirements and limits of this standard are components and subassemblies not intended to perform any stand-alone ISM function. Class A equipment is equipment suitable for use in all establishments other than domestic and those directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies buildings used for domestic purposes. (This seems very straight forward and I believe is the same wording as found in CISPR 22 and 47 CFR Part 15) NOTE 1 Operation of equipment which does not meet the class A limits but does not result in unacceptable degradation of radio services may be sanctioned on a case-by-case basis by the competent national authority. NOTE 2 Although class A limits have been derived for industrial and commercial establishments, administrations may allow, with whatever additional measures are necessary, the installation and use of class A ISM equipment in a domestic establishment or in an establishment connected directly to domestic electricity power supplies. (I get a chuckle out of NOTE 2) Class B equipment is equipment suitable for use in domestic establishments and in establishments directly connected to a low voltage power supply network which supplies buildings used for domestic purposes. I'm in agreement with Derek and think that it isn't a 61326 typo, but a correct clarification. If I want to do more research on a measurement technique or equipment I pick up CISPR 16. For a particular test method for a specific type of product, CISPR 11 or 22 or 14, etc. A vast majority of the products that I see are Group 1 Class A devices per the definitions above. I would call most "Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use" scientific devices falling under ISM. Regards, Doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:28 AM To: John Woodgate Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: IEC/EN 61326 & CISPR stds Hi Folks, just for my own benifit, why would CISPR 16 be the right choice. I thought CISPR 16 was intended to define everything about testing EXCEPT the methods and limits. Cheers, Derek. John Woodgate wrote on 9/8/2006, 4:15 AM: > In message > <[email protected]>, dated > Fri, 8 Sep 2006, [email protected] writes > > >CISPR 11 is specifically for ISM RF equipment. It only applies to > >equipment that intentionally radiates in the ISM bands and should not > >therefore be quoted for other equipment. > > No, it doesn't only apply to intentional radiators. It applies to > anything that uses radio-frequency energy, with, now, a very liberal > definition of 'radio-frequency'. In fact, the scope is so ambiguous that > it could be applied to almost anything. Steps are being taken to correct > this. > > > >My point is that 61326-1:2005 calls (in my opinion, incorrectly) CISPR > >11 for all equipment types, when it ought to be CISPR 16 for the > >non-ISM stuff. > > I believe you are right; it sound like a simple typo with BIG > consequences. Do we have anyone involved with IEC SC65A who can take > this up? > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk > There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. > John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK > > - > > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas [email protected] > Mike Cantwell [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > David Heald: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
