Re: NEBS compliance for 100baseT / 1000base T
Muhammad, during the common-mode surge, if your integrated connector is rated for 1500V min. isolation, you should not sink any CM surge current into your EUT (other than that due to any stray capacitance within the connector on the edges of the surge) - thus no dumping of surge current to your ground plane. The surge protection behind the connector would be for DM protection. Regarding the requirement (R4-11) - it states that the "EUT shall not be damaged and shall continue to operate properly after the application..." Since this states *after* instead of *during*, my interpretation is that during the surge event, errors can occur (e.g. dropped bits, etc.), but after the surge, it must continue proper operation. My initial thought is that a reboot would not be acceptable, however, I suppose the acceptance of a non-manual-intervention reboot as a result if the surge event would depend on the definition of *after* (how long after would be acceptable?? should it be interpreted as *immediately after*?). Any other thoughts out there? -Scott Muhammad Sagarwala wrote: > Thanks Scott,The main reason I don't want anything getting into the > secondary side is, I don't want the common mode voltage on the ground > plane to rise once the surge protection cricuitry kicks in. This > could cause wierd problems on the board (e.g. chips might reset). I > don't clearly understand the requirement (needless to say I haven't > gone through the document in detail) if the equipment is supposed to > keep working after the surge or it is allowed to reboot and come on > line automatically.As always, inputs/suggestions/criticism most > welcome...Thanks a lot to all the people in this forum who responded > to my email. Your suggestions have/will help me a lot.Muhammad > > -Original Message- > From: Scott Lemon [mailto:sle...@caspiannetworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 6:56 AM > To: Muhammad Sagarwala > Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: Re: NEBS compliance for 100baseT / 1000base T > > Hello Muhammad, > > Unless you are customer premises equipment, you should only > have to meet the intrabuilding surge requirements of GR-1089 > (typically metallic ethernet interfaces are not intended as > outside plant lines). Using the RJ-45 with integrated > magnetics should be an acceptable configuration as long as > you are comfortable that the internal wiring can handle the > differential mode surge current (verify from supplier). > Most of them advertise at least 1500V isolation, so they > should not have a problem with the common mode surge. Why > are you concerned about placing the surge protection behind > the transformer? In differential mode, the integrated > transformer (1:1?) and magnetics should attenuate the > maximum amplitude transferred to the secondary side somewhat > and the surge protection can handle any that happens to make > it into the secondary, thereby protecting your chip. I know > Semtech makes a device especially for 100BaseT, but not sure > about 1000BT. > > Muhammad Sagarwala wrote: > > > Hello Gurus, > > > > I am new to this list so pardon me if my questions sound > > naive. > > > > The question I had was, for nebs compliance we need to > > pass power cross and lightening tests. For boards with > > copper ports (100baseT and 100base T), is it possible to > > use rj45 connectors with integrated magnetics and still > > get pass these tests. Has anybody done that - if yes, is > > it possible to share the method. I believe there are > > components (e.g. sedactors) one can use, but > > > > those are capacitve and might impact the signal > > integrity. Also, mostly that kind of stuff is used on the > > line side of the transformer. I am just a little bit > > hesistant to put in on the secondary side... > > > > Any input would be highly appreciated... > > > > Thanks > > > > Muhammad > > > -- > Regards, > > Scott Lemon > CASPIAN NETWORKS > RTP, NC > Ph:(919) 547-1078 > Fx: (919) 547-1010 > sle...@caspiannetworks.com > www.caspiannetworks.com > >
Re: NEBS compliance for 100baseT / 1000base T
Hello Muhammad, Unless you are customer premises equipment, you should only have to meet the intrabuilding surge requirements of GR-1089 (typically metallic ethernet interfaces are not intended as outside plant lines). Using the RJ-45 with integrated magnetics should be an acceptable configuration as long as you are comfortable that the internal wiring can handle the differential mode surge current (verify from supplier). Most of them advertise at least 1500V isolation, so they should not have a problem with the common mode surge. Why are you concerned about placing the surge protection behind the transformer? In differential mode, the integrated transformer (1:1?) and magnetics should attenuate the maximum amplitude transferred to the secondary side somewhat and the surge protection can handle any that happens to make it into the secondary, thereby protecting your chip. I know Semtech makes a device especially for 100BaseT, but not sure about 1000BT. Muhammad Sagarwala wrote: > Hello Gurus, > > I am new to this list so pardon me if my questions sound naive. > > The question I had was, for nebs compliance we need to pass power > cross and lightening tests. For boards with copper ports (100baseT > and 100base T), is it possible to use rj45 connectors with integrated > magnetics and still get pass these tests. Has anybody done that - if > yes, is it possible to share the method. I believe there are > components (e.g. sedactors) one can use, but > > those are capacitve and might impact the signal integrity. Also, > mostly that kind of stuff is used on the line side of the > transformer. I am just a little bit hesistant to put in on the > secondary side... > > Any input would be highly appreciated... > > Thanks > > Muhammad -- Regards, Scott Lemon CASPIAN NETWORKS RTP, NC Ph:(919) 547-1078 Fx: (919) 547-1010 sle...@caspiannetworks.com www.caspiannetworks.com
Re:
Hi Vijay, **reply below: Regards, Scott "Wani, Vijay (V)" wrote: > Thank you all for your valuable input. i apologize for late reply. i ordered > a copy of EN60950:2000. (thanks, Chris, George and constantin) and now, it > is getting much clearer. however, i have some questions and would appreciate > any comment. > > as per EN60950:2000, 4.7.2.1: > 1. Except where method 2 of 4.7.1 is used exclusively, or as permitted > in 4.7.2.2, the following parts are considered to have a risk of ignition > and, therefore, require a FIRE ENCLOSURE: > - components in PRIMARY CIRCUITS; > > So if i am interpreting Rich and Scott's e-mail right (great explanation), > i do not need FIRE ENCLOSURE, if primary circuit is supplied by a Limited > Power source. For an existing device, how do i know whether the primary > circuit is supplied by a Limited Power source? are cell-phones, PDA's > typically supplied by Limited Power Source? > **Once you receive your EN60950, go to section 2.5 where LPS is discussed. LPS characteristics are broken down into two major types: 1) inherently limited (inherent in the circuit design-e.g. high impedance source), and 2) not inherently limited (requires an overcurrent protection device). Circuits must perform to the limits within tables 2B or 2C to be classified as LPS. > > as per 4.7.3.4 > 2. Inside FIRE ENCLOSURE, materials for components and other parts, > (including MECHANICAL and ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE located inside FIRE > ENCLOSURS) shall comply with on of the following: > - be of FLAMMABILITY CLASS V-2 OR FLAMMABILITY CLASS HF-2; OR > - pass the flammability test described in clause A.2; or > - meet flammability requirements of a relevant IEC component standard which > includes such requirements. > > Does this mean; if i have an enclosure inside a FIRE ENCLOSURE, than it has > to be V-2 eventhough there are no safety hazards resulting from complete > disapperance of the enclosure? **Yes. In this scenario (assuming it does not serve as an electrical/mechanical enclosure), the key attribute of the "internal" enclosure you mention is not it's function as an enclosure, but it's fuel load. Therefore, once inside the fire enclosure, the internal enclosure is simply another internal "component" and must meet the flame rating for internal components or otherwise comply with the exemptions outlined in the standard. > > > thank you. > > vijay wani > > --- > 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: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com > Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ > Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list" --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Re: Criteria for UL V0 plastic enclosure
Hello Rich, In the case of LPS, wouldn't the plastic enclosure still be considered "decorative" plastic "outside" a fire enclosure and required to meet HB flame class (per UL 60950, 4.7.3.3)? Regards, Scott Rich Nute wrote: > The choice is yours. If your product is supplied by a > Limited Power Source, then you may use any plastic for the > enclosure. If your product is not supplied by a Limited > Power Source, then you must use V1 or better plastic for --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Shipping Ckt Packs into EU
Hello Group, I am considering a strategy for shipment of individual circuit packs into the EU. These circuit packs are part of an overall (rack mountable shelf) custom ITE system which will be evaluated to the appropriate requirements/directives (LVD and EMC) and will have a CE marking. I envision two scenarios where individual packs/groups of packs may be shipped into the EU: 1) As part of the placement of the "system" on the EU market for the first time. Packs will be packaged separately from the chassis for shipment to avoid potential shipping damage. 2) As replacement "components" and/or spares. Question: What is the most effective way to label the individual circuit packs (or other "component") packaging and/or shipping documentation to avoid questioning/problems at the point of entry into the EU? The recommendation in the past has been to state on the shipping documents something like "No CE marking required - product is a spare/replacement component of an overall system which itself bears the CE marking." I have also been told to complete a "declaration of incorporation", however, I believe this only applies to components under the machinery directive. Anyone have any proven techniques for shipping component circuit packs (and other components) which do not individually bear the CE marking? Thanks! Scott -- Regards, Scott Lemon sle...@caspiannetworks.com www.caspiannetworks.com --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Re: CE Mark on Product Packaging
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the statement below is entirely correct. It is my understanding (per EMC directive and published guidelines) that the Manufacturer or Authorized Representative is responsible for affixing the CE marking and drawing up the DoC and that only the "Authorized Rep" (if applicable) must be "established within the community." In other words, the Manufacturer (who draws up the DoC and tech docs) does not have to be established in the community, but if an Authorized Rep is used, they must be. It is clear that when neither the Manufacturer or the Auth Rep are established within the community, the obligation to keep the DoC "available" is the responsibility of the party placing the product on the market (importer). Scott Lemon Caspian Networks Bill Ellingford wrote: > Under the EMC directive, the person making a DOC and > placing the goods on the market would be an EU resident. --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Safety of Indicating LEDs
Hello Group, The scope of EN 60825-1 says LEDs are included whenever the word "laser" is used, meaning they are to be evaluated the same way lasers are. Does this apply to status indicating LEDs (non-lasing)? If so, are manufacturers expected to test every status-indicating LED on the product as if it were a laser? When googling, I came across a reference to a standard IEC/TS 60825-6, "Safety of products with optical sources, exclusively used for visible information transmission to the human eye" (1999-07). Is this the appropriate standard to use when evaluating status-indicating LEDs? If so, how do the requirements/tests compare to that in 60825-1? As far as I can tell, "EN" 60825-6 (if it exists) has not been published in the OJ and therefore cannot be used for presumption of compliance to the LVD. What is the approach for indicating LEDs for EU compliance (CE marking)? Thanks in advance! -- Regards, Scott Lemon CASPIAN NETWORKS sle...@caspiannetworks.com www.caspiannetworks.com --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
Re: date of publication relevance
Brian, The CB Scheme is based on IEC standards, not EN standards (although in many cases they are identical with the exception of some national or group deviations). The engineer may be referring to the IEC equivalent to the 01 Nov 2001 EN version of 61010. Just because IEC publishes a standard (or new revision/edition), it does not mean that it is automatically accepted by all countries participating in the CB scheme for a particular category. The participating countries have to publish in the "CB Bulletin" which version of a particular standard is acceptable in that country (as well as any deviations to the IEC standard). If no countries yet recognize a particular version of an IEC standard (per the CB bulletin), then the NCB's cannot issue an official CB Report/Certificate to that standard. This may be the situation in your case. Brian O'Connell wrote: > Good people of the PSTC > > The safety agency engineer, doing the CB report, says that he cannot use > EN61010-1:2001 because it is not yet "recognized". > > As the DOP = 01 Nov 2001, I do not understand. > > Can someone please educate me > > R/S, > Brian O'Connell > Taiyo Yuden (USA), Inc. > > --- > 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: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old > messages are imported into the new server. -- Regards, Scott Lemon CASPIAN NETWORKS RTP, NC Ph:(919) 547-1078 Fx: (919) 547-1010 sle...@caspiannetworks.com www.caspiannetworks.com --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Define Continuous DC Voltage
Chris, check out IEC 479-1 (Effects of current on human beings and livestock). Real interesting reading - it mainly analyzes human body impedances (measurements taken on living humans and corpses) and discusses physiological effects of AC in range of 15-100 Hz and DC. In their study, it appears that 10 mA (in this AC range) is the point above which harmful physiological effects can occur and around 25 mA for DC. Above these limits, time of exposure will determine the threat of permanent and harmful effects. They do indicate that the physiological effects experiments were conducted on animals and were "adapted" to human beings. Human corpses were used in gathering human body impedance measurements from 25V to 5000 V. Barbecue anyone? -Scott Lemon Chris Maxwell wrote: > My GUESS is that someone (who loved > to torture living organisms) must have performed tests to figure out how > DC current affected people (or monkeys, or rats... something). They > then must have performed tests with different AC frequencies. Perhaps > they even plotted a graph of "hazardous" voltage/current versus > frequency. I would imagine that this is the type of data used by the > IEC or any other safety organizationn to set hazardous voltage levels. --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Radiated Emissions EUT Config
Hello Group, I am in search of opinions regarding the acceptable EUT configuration for radiated emissions testing. If a system is comprised of one or more independent shelf-level products (e.g. one shelf in a rack or several racks full), at what level is it acceptable to test? Assume that the system can be sold as one independent fully functional "shelf" or as numerous interconnected shelves (interconnection just increasing "system" capacity). For example, one shelf could be sold and deployed, then 6 months later another shelf added (cabled up to the first), and so on, etc. 1. Would it be acceptable to test at the "shelf" level? 2. If not, where is the line drawn? Two? Ten? In a typical CO you may see racks and racks of the same equipment shelves/chassis - chances are, they were not all tested together - where is it reasonable to stop? FCC (ref. ANSI C63.4)/EN300386/GR1089 have some guidance, differing slightly, but not clear. Any and all opinions/experiences from the group are welcome. Thanks and Regards, Scott Lemon Caspian Networks --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
SONET ESD performance
Hi group, I am looking for guidance with respect to allowable "service-affecting responses" for a SONET system (e.g. OC-48) when tested to GR-1089 ESD immunity requirements. GR-1089 R2-3 states that "service-affecting responses, unless within system operating limits,...shall not occur." Para. 2.3 gives "maximum of one errored second per discharge" as a limit on bit errors, but no other specific guidance. Anyone out there willing to share their GR-1089 pass/fail criteria for ESD testing on a SONET system with respect to performance during the discharge?? Are there any documents that are recommended as reference? Thanks in advance! Regards, Scott Lemon sle...@caspiannetworks.com --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
RE: FDA laser classes
Thanks Martin, Notice 42 makes it clear. I can only think the guy I talked to at CDRH either didn't know about it or he is interpreting it to only include the examples noted in the notice (CD players, etc. where the laser is totally buried in the product). My application is similar to yours where I provide an optical communications interface which uses a Class 1 laser module. Regards, Scott Lemon email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com -Original Message- From: Martin Lindquist [mailto:mlind...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FDA laser classes Scott, My understanding is that (for our Class I components (OC3 transceivers) at least), according to Notice 42 (Dec. 18, 1989), initial and annual reports are not required if you comply with the four points listed (see actual notice for more information): 1. No modification of performance or intended use and incorporation of the certified product results in only the concealment of the original manufacturer's certification and identification labels required by 1010 2. The labeling requirements of 1010 and 1040.10 would be met if the certified product were removed from the product in which it was incorporated 3. The labeling requirements of 1040.10(g) would be met in any service configuration of the certified product 4. The laser safety information provided by the certifying manufacturer is distributed with the product Jumping into Table 1 of Part 1002 there is no requirements for Distribution records. I even went so far as to verify this (via email) with the CDRH last year. Note that this is for a Class I OC-3 laser module component used by us in its intended use and manufactured by someone else (HP, etc), where the manufacturer has done all the filing, attestations, etc., and where the module does not contain a higher Class laser. In other words, according to the CDRH and Notice 42 we are a 'distributor' of the module and thus not subject to initial and annual reports, nor is any additional certification and identification labels required on the outside of the final product. Your situation may well require the 5 points you list, but take a look at Notice 42 (and Notice 41 as well (Aug. 9, 1988)), along with the other notices in the following PDF (link provided to me by John Juhasz). Your compliance contact may not have been aware of these, or he may be holding you to a higher standard than is required by the CDRH, I can't say. Notices: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/pdf/laspol01.pdf <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/pdf/laspol01.pdf> (Notice 42 is page 87 of 105) Reporting form: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/pdf/lasrpt0p.pdf <http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/pdf/lasrpt0p.pdf> If nothing else, you may have learned something new today and be able to go home early... :) Martin. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Scott Lemon Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:00 AM To: 'Bandele Adepoju'; 'John Juhasz'; 'Martin Lindquist'; '|Moshe Valdman' Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FDA laser classes Bandele, This is not my understanding after talking to a compliance specialist in CDRH yesterday. He informed me that manufacturers that incorporate class 1 lasers (which have themselves followed the required reporting requirements, etc. per the CFR and CDRH guidelines) must still: 1. file an initial product report per 1002.10 2. file an annual report per 1002.13 3. file a report of accidental radiation occurrences (as applicable) per 1002.20 4. end product must have a certification label per 1010.2 5. end product must have an ID label per 1010.3 He indicated that all other reporting requirements (including supplemental reports) are not required of the end product manufacturer. This seems to correlate somewhat with the Aug 23, 1985 notice (at least the second to the last paragraph). I contacted Mr. Manuel Karos at CDRH (non-medical lasers) at (301) 594-4646. This was my understanding - it might not be a bad idea if someone else wants to contact the office as well to substantiate and report back to the group. Regards, Scott Lemon sle...@caspiannetworks.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 8:09 PM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Martin Lindquist'; '|Moshe Valdman' Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FDA laser classes Hello all, Manufacturers who only incorporate certified Class 1 lasers into their products only need to comply with the record keeping requirements of 21CFR 1002. They do not need to submit initial and annual reports. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com <mailto:badep...@jetstream.com> -
DC circuits
Hello Group, I have a good idea (first hand knowledge) of what UL looks for with respect to dc supply circuitry
RE: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation
Peter indicates that he is using this cap in an application up to 72 Vdc which is hazardous voltage according to UL 1950. Hazardous voltage must be separated from earth by at least basic insulation (clause 2.3.3.2). Regards, Scott Lemon Caspian Networks - RTP email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com phone: (919) 466-0315 fax: tbd -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:26 PM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation Peter, I understand you want to use this capacitor between the Central Office battery and Ground (Protective Earth). Why do you need Basic Insulation anyway if you interconnect to Protective Earth. >From my point of view, you only need Operational insulation. Regards, Chris Collin On Thu, 05 October 2000, Peter Merguerian wrote: > Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org > X-Listname: emc-pstc > To: > Delivered-To: altavista.com%globalass...@altavista.com > X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org > X-Sender: itldom /pmerguerian@10.0.0.2 > X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients > Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) > from ruebert.ieee.org (199.172.136.3) > by smtp.c012.sfo.cp.net (209.228.13.220) with SMTP; 5 Oct 2000 03:44:44 -0700 > by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17721; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:35:25 -0400 (EDT) > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Length: 1102 > X-Received: 5 Oct 2000 10:44:44 GMT > Precedence: bulk > Subject: Suitability of X2 Capacitors as Basic Insulation > X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to > majord...@majordomo.ieee.org > [Un]Subscribe requests to > majord...@majordomo.ieee.org > From: Peter Merguerian > Return-Path: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Reply-To: Peter Merguerian > Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:28:26 +0200 > Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001005112826.00890790@10.0.0.2> > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) > > > Is it possible to use a 250 Vac X2 approved capacitor as a y capacitor > (input to ground) for a unit with an input voltage of 48/60Vdc up to 72Vdc? > In other words, is an X2 capacitor suitable for basic insulation? > Peter Merguerian > Managing Director > Product Testing Division > I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. > Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 > Or Yehuda 60251, Israel > > Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 > e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il > website: http://www.itl.co.il > > TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE > EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY! > > > > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EN 300 386 in OJ?
Earlier this year, I believe that ETSI EN 300 386 was formally adopted as an EU harmonized standard for telecom network equipment. However, looking on the DG III web page, it looks like this standard has not yet been published in the OJ. I had heard earlier that the anticipated target for publication in the OJ was June '00, but I guess that did not happen. Anyone have an update on 300 386 wrt publication in the OJ? I guess until it is published, we continue to use 300 386-2 (or others). Thanks and Regards, Scott Lemon Sr. Compliance Engineer Network Reliability and Compliance Engineering Caspian Networks Research Triangle Park, NC email: sle...@caspiannetworks.com ph: (919) 466-0315 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Radiated E/H Field Emissions Extrapolation
Group, I am looking for a formula/rule of thumb, etc. for extrapolating the results of radiated emissions testing on a partially filled cabinet-based product (e.g. two out of four identical shelves populated) to determine (roughly) what the entire populated cabinet may produce. I have heard and considered doubling the emissions results (6 dB) from the two shelves, but feel this may be too conservative. Any thoughts/input appreciated. Regards, Scott Lemon (esn 351-4487, 919-991-4487) Product and Network Dependability Nortel Networks RTP, NC - 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, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
fw:Telecommunication Directive
Group, I have heard that the requirement for the crossed hockey sticks with a line through it (for the purpose described below) has not really been enforced in the EU and therefore is rarely used. Does anyone have any experience one way or another?? Regards, Scott Lemon Nortel ---forwarded-message> Feb 11 10:21:00 1998 To: Scott (A.) Lemon :0H31 (BNR) BNRTP BNR Nathan (N.B.) Belsher :0H32 (BNR) BNRTP BNR emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (INTERNET) From: ndev...@entela.com (INTERNET) Subject: Telecommunication Directive Attached: OriginalHeader.txt Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org(INTERNET) Hello, I am looking for an electronic copy of the marking required by Annex VII of the Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive (91/263/EEC). The marking is the crossed hockey sticks with the circle and line through it. It is used to identify equipment/connectors that are "...capable of being connected to the public telecommunications network, but is not intended for such purpose,...". Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Toll Free: 1 800 888 3787 Ext. 671 Direct: 1 616 248 9671 Fax:1 616 248 0591 e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
fw:Telecommunication Directive
Group, I have heard that the requirement for the crossed hockey sticks with a line through it (for the purpose described below) has not really been enforced in the EU and therefore is rarely used. Does anyone have any experience one way or another?? Regards, Scott Lemon Nortel ---forwarded-message> Feb 11 10:21:00 1998 To: Scott (A.) Lemon :0H31 (BNR) BNRTP BNR Nathan (N.B.) Belsher :0H32 (BNR) BNRTP BNR emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (INTERNET) From: ndev...@entela.com (INTERNET) Subject: Telecommunication Directive Attached: OriginalHeader.txt Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org(INTERNET) Hello, I am looking for an electronic copy of the marking required by Annex VII of the Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive (91/263/EEC). The marking is the crossed hockey sticks with the circle and line through it. It is used to identify equipment/connectors that are "...capable of being connected to the public telecommunications network, but is not intended for such purpose,...". Thanks Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Toll Free: 1 800 888 3787 Ext. 671 Direct: 1 616 248 9671 Fax:1 616 248 0591 e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
