fwd: Job Opportunities
Mark A. D'Agostino 978 739 7016 md'agost...@tuvps.com http://www.tuvps.com - Original Text From: Mark D'Agostino, on 3/19/98 4:11 PM: To: ig[emc-p...@ieee.org] Cc: Vincent Hawxhurst@ITE_ELP, Frank E. Hensel@ITE_ELP@PSSDG, Joe Janeliunas@ITE_ELP TUV Product Service is a young, fast growing worldwide organization providing North American companies with the necessary European certifications for their products and quality systems in a wide range of industries. TUV Product Service Inc. currently has three openings for Engineers in the Industrial Machinery group. The openings for these locations are Boston, MA, Boulder, CO and Santa Clara, CA. The job consists of testing and evaluating industrial machines to the relevant electrical, mechanical European Norms and Directives as well as Industry Guidelines (SEMI S2-93, SEMI S8-95). The candidate(s) should be familiar with IEC 204-1 / EN 60204-1, Microsoft Word for Windows. Knowledge of the Machinery Directive, SEMI S2-93, UL 508, EN 292-1, EN 294, EN 60 950 and the Low Voltage Directive is a plus. Ability to process paperwork, interface with customers and an attention to detail is a must. 20 - 30 % travel required. Contact: Mark A. D'Agostino TUV Product Service Inc. 5 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers, MA 01923 978 739 7016 978 762 7637 md'agost...@tuvps.com http://www.tuvps.com
Job Opportunities
TUV Product Service is a young, fast growing worldwide organization providing North American companies with the necessary European certifications for their products and quality systems in a wide range of industries. TUV Product Service Inc. currently has three openings for Engineers in the Industrial Machinery group. The openings for these locations are Boston, MA, Boulder, CO and Santa Clara, CA. The job consists of testing and evaluating industrial machines to the relevant electrical, mechanical European Norms and Directives as well as Industry Guidelines (SEMI S2-93, SEMI S8-95). The candidate(s) should be familiar with IEC 204-1 / EN 60204-1, Microsoft Word for Windows. Knowledge of the Machinery Directive, SEMI S2-93, UL 508, EN 292-1, EN 294, EN 60 950 and the Low Voltage Directive is a plus. Ability to process paperwork, interface with customers and an attention to detail is a must. 20 - 30 % travel required. Contact: Mark A. D'Agostino TUV Product Service Inc. 5 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers, MA 01923 978 739 7016 978 762 7637 md'agost...@tuvps.com http://www.tuvps.com
RE: Spira EMI Gaskets
--- On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:54:32 -0700 Rick Busche rbus...@es.com wrote: We have recently started using a spiral gasket on the edges of our VME front panels. I assume the Spira gaskets are the same or similar. If so, they are working MUCH better than the fingers we replaced. Durability is better, insertion resistance lower and in our case we have been able to mix and match with no apparent degradation. Rick Busche rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: MikonCons [SMTP:mikonc...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 9:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Spira EMI Gaskets I just caught Ed's comment on the use of Spira gaskets. I have recommended their POSSIBLE use to one of my clients for sealing around some single-board computer VME cards; however, I have not directly evaluated the performance of Spira gaskets. Their literature makes great claims (up to 130 dB SE out to 1 GHz), but has any of our readers personally evaluated their effectiveness? Thanks for your time, Mike Conn Owner/Principal Consultant Mikon Consulting ---End of Original Message- Mike: We use the Spira gaskets in many places where we used to use other (classic fingerstock, conductive elastomer, knitted wire) types of gasketing. Our mechanical guys like the way that they can control closure forces with the Spira style. I like the Spira mainly for the mechanical properties. Electrically, the gaskets perform as well as classic fingerstock or knit wire mesh. I still have a bit of a preference for wire mesh for some applications, but the Spira is a strong contender as a general gasket choice. When it comes to any manufacturer's claims about shielding performance, I'm always skeptical. With gasketing, as with any other part of your shield solution, material choice is usually secondary to quality of fabrication. Translation: Lot's of stuff will work OK if you don't mess up the workmanship part of the job. I'll rate Spira style gasketing as one (bloody) thumb up. PS: I think Spira has a patent on this design. OTOH, they have been making it for some +20 years, so maybe the patent has expired. Finally, no gasket system creates the equivalent mayhem involved in applying aluminum or copper adhesive foil tape. Harry Callahan must have been thinking about this when he said that when properly used, this can REMOVE fingerprints. ;) -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/19/98 Time: 11:34:11 --
RE: EN55013 (2).
Kaan, I developed and proposed flow chart - Decision tree for peak detector measurements, at least six years ago at U.S. National Committee for IEC TAG for CISPR SC G. I presented the same document later that year in Berlin to CISPR SC A and SC G on behalf of U.S. National Committees. Proposal has been approved with minor modifications suggested by Israel and Japan National Committees. It is published as CISPR Publication 22:1997 Annex B (normative), page 85 and will be propagated as applicable throughout other CISPR publications. Intention of that document was to formalize rather common practice to use peak instead of quasi peak or average detector for conducted disturbance measurements at 150 kHz to 30 MHz. Use of peak detector speed up the measurement process. If product fail the test by using peak detector, there would be still a chance to pass the test by using prescribed QP or AVG detectors. Document allows use of peak detector instead of QP and AVG and QP instead of AVG. It does not mandate it. In a case of dispute, precedence results are with prescribed QP and AVG detectors. Document did not affect limits. Mirko Matejic The Foxboro Company
EN55013 (2).
Hello Group, I presented a question to the group regarding EN55013 Clauses 3.2 and 3.5. and the application of the quasi-peak or average test methods and I receive the following response: You must make a Quasi-Peak measurement. Provided this measurement is below both QP and Average limits you do not have to make an average measurement. If it is not below the average limit you will also need to make an average measurement and compare that to the average limit. The reason for this is that the average reading will never be higher than the QP measurement. The standard is trying to save you time by not having you make unnecessary measurements. The clause only applies to conducted emission measurements. Having said that I notice that disturbance power has QP and average limits. Although not stated in the standard you could still apply the same rationale to disturbance power measurements. If the QP reading is below the average limit there is no need for Average measurements since they will also be below the limit. I understand that Clause 3.2 requires conducted measurements to be verified with the average measurement method (possibly because the low frequencies have long on and off durations which could affect quasi-peak measurements?). I question however, whether a requirement in one clause (3.2) can or should be applied to another clause (3.5) when the limits for quasi-peak measurement are clearly defined in Clause 3.5 with no reference to the paragraph in 3.2 regarding the concern for average measurement verification. In other words, do I believe in and interpret the standard as it is written, or not? I would like to take the position that the committee that produced the EN55013 standard wrote Clauses 3.2 and 3.5 the way that they are for reasons that (apparently) are not common knowledge. Perhaps this issue has been or is being addressed in the EN55013 technical committees and I was hoping that someone from the committees could shed some light on this matter. I am prepared to accept the application of the average measurement paragraph in Clause 3.2 to Clause 3.5 as long as an official source declares this as an appropriate deviation to what the standard presently says and indicates that EN55013 is being changed to reflect this understanding. My reason for asking this question is to clear up the confusion in my mind regarding this issue... and maybe we can all learn something in the process. I also like to see standards that say what they mean and mean what they say - at least as much as is practicable... (I know I am dreaming, but I've got to try!) Kaan L. Gregersen
RE: Spira EMI Gaskets
We have recently started using a spiral gasket on the edges of our VME front panels. I assume the Spira gaskets are the same or similar. If so, they are working MUCH better than the fingers we replaced. Durability is better, insertion resistance lower and in our case we have been able to mix and match with no apparent degradation. Rick Busche rbus...@es.com -Original Message- From: MikonCons [SMTP:mikonc...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 9:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Spira EMI Gaskets I just caught Ed's comment on the use of Spira gaskets. I have recommended their POSSIBLE use to one of my clients for sealing around some single-board computer VME cards; however, I have not directly evaluated the performance of Spira gaskets. Their literature makes great claims (up to 130 dB SE out to 1 GHz), but has any of our readers personally evaluated their effectiveness? Thanks for your time, Mike Conn Owner/Principal Consultant Mikon Consulting
Spira EMI Gaskets
I just caught Ed's comment on the use of Spira gaskets. I have recommended their POSSIBLE use to one of my clients for sealing around some single-board computer VME cards; however, I have not directly evaluated the performance of Spira gaskets. Their literature makes great claims (up to 130 dB SE out to 1 GHz), but has any of our readers personally evaluated their effectiveness? Thanks for your time, Mike Conn Owner/Principal Consultant Mikon Consulting
RE: more Recognized Plastics Directory
Forgot to forward this to newsgroup. - Mel -- From: Mel Pedersen[SMTP:mpeder...@midcom.anza.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 9:18 AM To: 'Peter E. Perkins' Subject:RE: more Recognized Plastics Directory Hello Peter, Your point is well taken, however, I am not interested in flammability data. I am curious about differences in the Thermal Index ratings given by European agencies versus UL. Thermal Index ratings given by European agencies against the IEC 216-1 standard. IEC 216-1 is the corresponding IEC standard to UL 746B for the purposes of determining thermal indexes. In looking at new materials, I sometimes see manufacturers declarations for service temperature ratings that don't seem to match up with the RTI numbers that UL publishes. I am starting to believe that sometimes these advertised ratings are given according to the IEC method. It is interesting that sometimes these manufacturers declare a temperature rating against IEC 85, which is the IEC analog to the UL 1446 insulation system standard. The difference between the IEC and UL methods is that UL uses a control material during these aging test, and the IEC standards (from what I understand, I don't have a copy) do not specify use of a control. I have heard that this results often in a 5 to 10 degree C difference, with UL's number generally being more conservative. Also, when a manufacturer advertises a temperature rating in their catalog, they often don't specify at what thickness that rating is for, or other relevant information. That is why I am looking for a European recognized component directory. Thanks Peter. Any other thoughts would be appreciated. Mel PedersenMidcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom.anza.com Fax: (605) 886-6752 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 12:44 AM To: PSNetwork Subject:more Recognized Plastics Directory PSNet - including Mel Pedersen... Why would you, Mel, look any other place then to UL for a Plastics Recognized Component Directory? From the beginning of their history UL has focused on fire prevention in electrical installations and equipment. This focus has been reinforced because of the North American use of lower voltage for commercial and residential systems than those used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. This lower voltage (V/2) draws a higher current (2xI) which leads to 4x the heating effect (remember I**2 x R) and, historically, more fires in equipment and installations. This UL focus joined with the other forces at work within UL to develop methods for pre-qualification of plastic materials for use in installation components (wiring, switches, outlets etc) and equipment. Thus, the world's largest public database - the UL Plastics Recognized Component Directory. The European approach (until more recently) was not to qualify materials, but qualify parts and pieces of construction using tests such as the Oxygen Index test on finished pieces. This methodology meant that the same material used in another configuration would be tested again and again. So there is plenty of European data, but it doesn't seem to be published in any useable form available to worldwide users. With the ongoing harmonization of standards on a worldwide basis, even the Europeans recognize the benefit of pre-qualification of materials and have been accepting this approach in many standards... IEC 950 and IEC 1010 make heavy use of these prequalified materials to demonstrate adequacy in any application... Moreover, over the last 20 or more years, UL has been quietly moving their requirements into IEC (e.g. IEC 60674 -1, 2, 3-2,3-3, 3-4 to 6, 3-7 (and European standards)) so that the UL database is now more important than ever in showing compliance to the requirements stated in the standards... Further, plastics manufacturers worldwide submit their materials to UL for evaluation enlarging the usefulness of this database. There is some competition, CSA publishes a directory... CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0.17-92 (R1997) evaluation of Properties of Polymeric Materials. The Canadian requirements shadow the UL requirements. They have been accepting materials for evaluation for the last 10 years or so. The last CSA directory I used was quite a bit thinner than the UL directory... Well, I didn't intend for this to be a UL sales pitch, but do believe that their large database will be the basis of choice for selection of plastics materials for use in equipment meeting worldwide requirements. - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website:
Re: nyce
This is the NOM Certification for Mexico Symbol -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD wo...@sensormatic.com To: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 7:26 PM Subject: nyce I saw a HP personal computer box with a symbol made of arrows in a square with the letters nyce adjacent. What does this symbol mean?
RE: CE and/or e-mark for products operated in vehicles
Andeas, I believe that we have to consider the two scenarios :- a) when the vehicle is parked and b) when it is moving. If the vehicle is parked then there should be few safety issues. If the vehicle is moving then there are an additional two scenarios :- a) the PC is operated by the driver and b) the PC operated by a passenger If the driver was operating the laptop then surely the driver would be breaking law by taking their eyes from off the road. If a passenger was operating the laptop then I reckon that the laptop should also comply with 95/54. Because it is impossible to guarantee where, when, how and by whom the laptop is likely to be used then it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution and include 95/54 but I too would be interested in any comments from the group. Arthur Poolton (Approvals Manager) Mitsubishi Electric - PC Division -- From: andreas.tho...@toshiba-teg.com[SMTP:andreas.tho...@toshiba-teg.com] Sent: 19 March 1998 09:38 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CE and/or e-mark for products operated in vehicles Dear compliance colleagues, I like to hear you opinion about the question, which directive a product should observe which can be operated in a vehicle (e.g. car), but also in other environments. For products which are designed to be operated exclusively in vehicles like car audio equipment or car power supplies it seems to be clear that this euipment falls under the EC-Directive 95/54 and must carry the e-mark. Products which can be used in different environments, e.g. a laptop computer equipped with GPS-system, have to carry therefore the CE-mark and the e-mark and must comply to both directives (95/54 and 89/336) ?? Please give me your comment. Kind regards Andreas Thomas Product Safety Toshiba Europe
CE and/or e-mark for products operated in vehicles
Dear compliance colleagues, I like to hear you opinion about the question, which directive a product should observe which can be operated in a vehicle (e.g. car), but also in other environments. For products which are designed to be operated exclusively in vehicles like car audio equipment or car power supplies it seems to be clear that this euipment falls under the EC-Directive 95/54 and must carry the e-mark. Products which can be used in different environments, e.g. a laptop computer equipped with GPS-system, have to carry therefore the CE-mark and the e-mark and must comply to both directives (95/54 and 89/336) ?? Please give me your comment. Kind regards Andreas Thomas Product Safety Toshiba Europe
Re: RF Exposure
Ed, SARTest Ltd is a new company offering equipment and services for testing whether mobile telephony equipment meets the various new standards set for the protection of human health. http://sartest.com/ Regards, Glen At 11:53 AM 3/17/98 -0800, you wrote: Looking for a supplier of mannequins (head, upper torso, whole body?) to simulate and measure the absorption of RF energy from very close emitters (cell phones, man-pack radios, telemetry). Anyone have any leads for anything from raw materials to complete dummies? -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 Date: 03/17/98 Time: 11:51:54 -- *** SONY Wireless Telecommunications Company Glen A. Seebruch, Senior EMC Engineer Phone: (619)673-2400 ext. 4528 Cellular: (619)787-0375, Fax: (619)676-3714 ***
Re: more Recognized Plastics Directory
Mel Pedersen wrote: Forgot to forward this to newsgroup. - Mel -- From: Mel Pedersen[SMTP:mpeder...@midcom.anza.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 9:18 AM To: 'Peter E. Perkins' Subject:RE: more Recognized Plastics Directory Hello Peter, Your point is well taken, however, I am not interested in flammability data. I am curious about differences in the Thermal Index ratings given by European agencies versus UL. Also, when a manufacturer advertises a temperature rating in their catalog, they often don't specify at what thickness that rating is for, or other relevant information. That is why I am looking for a European recognized component directory. Thanks Peter. Any other thoughts would be appreciated. Mel PedersenMidcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom.anza.com Fax: (605) 886-6752 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 12:44 AM To: PSNetwork Subject:more Recognized Plastics Directory PSNet - including Mel Pedersen... Why would you, Mel, look any other place then to UL for a Plastics Recognized Component Directory? From the beginning of their history UL has focused on fire prevention in electrical installations and equipment. This focus has been reinforced because of the North American use of lower voltage for commercial and residential systems than those used in Europe and much of the rest of the world. This lower voltage (V/2) draws a higher current (2xI) which leads to 4x the heating effect (remember I**2 x R) and, historically, more fires in equipment and installations. This UL focus joined with the other forces at work within UL to develop methods for pre-qualification of plastic materials for use in installation components (wiring, switches, outlets etc) and equipment. Thus, the world's largest public database - the UL Plastics Recognized Component Directory. The European approach (until more recently) was not to qualify materials, but qualify parts and pieces of construction using tests such as the Oxygen Index test on finished pieces. This methodology meant that the same material used in another configuration would be tested again and again. So there is plenty of European data, but it doesn't seem to be published in any useable form available to worldwide users. With the ongoing harmonization of standards on a worldwide basis, even the Europeans recognize the benefit of pre-qualification of materials and have been accepting this approach in many standards... IEC 950 and IEC 1010 make heavy use of these prequalified materials to demonstrate adequacy in any application... Moreover, over the last 20 or more years, UL has been quietly moving their requirements into IEC (e.g. IEC 60674 -1, 2, 3-2,3-3, 3-4 to 6, 3-7 (and European standards)) so that the UL database is now more important than ever in showing compliance to the requirements stated in the standards... Further, plastics manufacturers worldwide submit their materials to UL for evaluation enlarging the usefulness of this database. There is some competition, CSA publishes a directory... CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 0.17-92 (R1997) evaluation of Properties of Polymeric Materials. The Canadian requirements shadow the UL requirements. They have been accepting materials for evaluation for the last 10 years or so. The last CSA directory I used was quite a bit thinner than the UL directory... Well, I didn't intend for this to be a UL sales pitch, but do believe that their large database will be the basis of choice for selection of plastics materials for use in equipment meeting worldwide requirements. - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - Mel, You are on the right track... UL's RTIs are determined by many factors, including thickness, where the material will be used, how the material will be used, and how the material matches up to similar material used in a similar fashion (the control). These are just the basic factors. This is how the same material can get many different RTIs at different thicknesses, or even the same thickness. A manufacturer's temperature claim could be anything, possibly just the temperature where the material starts to physically degrade (whatever that means,ie starts to melt, flow, discolor, get brittle). I don't know personally of any European directories, but perhaps you may wish to email Larry Bruno or Steve Giannoni at UL's Plastics Group in NY. They have/had a hand in their plastics seminars and the development of UL's RTI
