Re: Korea standard for drives
Yes, you still need to test all of ITE products for Koera EMI approval in Korea government authorized in Korea. However, Koera government will start to authorize lab outside of Korea from next year July. Its just plan and I am not sure exact when. Korea EMI standards exactly same as CISPR pub 22. No immunity test needed. Plase contact me anytime for Korea standards, Ryan Kim --- Your original message --- I have a client who is requesting testing to Koreas EMC standards. As far as I know Korea requires testing to be done in country. This is still true, right? Does anyone know the standards for ITE? Thanks in advance for any input, Jason L. Chesley Business Services Group Manager EMC Technology Services, Inc. UL - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Korea standard for drives
I have a client who is requesting testing to Koreas EMC standards. As far as I know Korea requires testing to be done in country. This is still true, right? Does anyone know the standards for ITE? Thanks in advance for any input, Jason L. Chesley Business Services Group Manager EMC Technology Services, Inc. UL - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
[no subject]
Its put up or shut up time for me. I claim that CFR 47, ANSI c63.4 and/or CISPR 22 all require compliant peripherals or host systems when they are required as part of the EUT test setup but I can't find the actual paragraphs to demonstrate my point. As I understand the regulations you can make no modifications to support devices, except that which restores them to their original manufactured condition. In other words I have been known to clean mating services, retighten enclosures and shields, but no other modifications. The justification seems fairly simple to me. If you have to modify someone else's equipment there isn't a chance in hell that the manufacturer will implement it just because you say so. Equally important in this argument is that you cannot identify through test identify a non-complying signal as belonging to the support equipment rather than the EUT and then claim compliance. This concept has been stuck in my head for many years, probably dating back to the earliest MP-4 documents and part 15 regulations. I vaguely associate it with the sections that described peripherals to exercise equipment and what was or was not acceptable. I would appreciate some skull scratching here, but preferably can someone provide the FCC/CISPR citation on this point. I have spent an interesting amount of money testing big name devices looking for very quite support equipment. Obviously, I would prefer to win this argument but on the other hand it sure makes the search for peripherals that meet my needs a lot easier. Thanks Gary McInturff - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Korea standard for drives
Haitong EMC in Korea has its own cooperation in Silicon Valley. e-mail : hait...@soback.kornet21.net http://www.haitong.com BWS Tech 300 orchard city drive suite 132 campbell, CA95008 Tel : 408-378-2123 Contact Ryan Kim president of Haitong EMC - Your roiginal message -- In general, Korea has statutory requirements which are identical to IEC/CISPR. For specifics, depending on the type of equipment, you can contact the Radio Research Laboratory (the controlling agency) in Korea (+82-0343-52-4001). Another government lab that can be used for testing is Haitong EMC e-mail : hait...@soback.kornet.nm.kr fax : 82-339-72-4118 Korea will accept CB reports for safety, and these must be submitted to KITECH-KTL for a Korean report which is then sent to KNITQ for type approval. Bob Martin Sr. Technical Manager Intertek Testing Services (978)263-2662 fax (978)263-7086 r...@itsqs.com -Original Message- From: Jason Chesley [SMTP:103401.1...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 7:19 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Korea standard for drives I have a client who is requesting testing to Koreas EMC standards. As far as I know Korea requires testing to be done in country. This is still true, right? Does anyone know the standards for ITE? Thanks in advance for any input, Jason L. Chesley Business Services Group Manager EMC Technology Services, Inc. UL - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
FW: Statement of compliance
-- From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:do...@ftc2.aei.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 1998 2:54 PM To: _EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Statement of compliance Dear EMC-PSTC Group, Please bear with me for a short survey. I am interested in learning what is your interpretation of certain statements of compliance used on product documentation. This is prior to any investigation into certificates and reports that may be available for the product. Please check the appropriate response and if you wish make comments on how acceptable for use you feel a product is when you read these statements. I will not initially comment as I want unbiased remarks. If you want a copy of the results please indicate this in your reply. 1) Designed to meet (safety standards list) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion X unacceptable comments: Designed to meet leaves me wondering 2) Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion X unacceptable comments: See #1 above 3) Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion X unacceptable comments: Again Designed to meet leaves me wondering. Sounds like a FINE PRINT for problems. 4) Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable X no opinion ___ unacceptable comments: I will have to trust your competence short of asking to see qualifications and test rationale. I am too lazy to pursue the latter two and I usually do not trust anyone but myself. 5) Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ... highly acceptable X acceptable ___ no opinion ___ unacceptable comments: Implies an honest effort on your part to expose any product discrepancies without bias. I can accept that. My Response, Bandele Rockford Engineering Services, Inc. If you have the time and interest please include any other statements of compliance that you have seen or used. As ever, Doug Powell, Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Fort Collins Colorado USA do...@ftc2.aei.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: THANK YOU: Frank Goto
BLUSHJim thank you. Helping out a good cause was thanks in itself, so your message was an added plus. I was hesitant to send this out to the group but felt somewhat remiss if I didn't mention that members such as yourself made the job that much more enjoyable, and not to forget the continuing efforts of Ed Price and Jim Bacher. I'm out of the line of fire now! Hope you continue to enjoy the group. Sincerely, Frank Goto - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: FR-4 Dielectric Constant Used in Simulations ...
Douglas Mckean wrote: Just a suggestion, but would it be too much to ask people who did some of the tremendous studies in simulations and analysis scenerios with printed circuit boards to do best case and worst case scenerios with a RANGE of FR-4 values and then to have the Dk of the board for the frequencies of interest actually MEASURED? I found that ALL simulations presented used the typical Dk = 4.7 value that can vary with great latitude from mfr to mfr (dependent upon mfr-ing techniques) and can vary with frequency. I even took one person aside after their presentation, (a very good one I might add) and discussed this point with them. They hadn't thought of this. We're talking at the Ph.D. level. Now maybe that isn't such a big concern for them, but it is for me. The 4.7 value is at best a fantasy. Also, my understanding is that Dielectric Constant is done with DC voltage while the more general Permittivity is done with frequency. Am I being to overly something-or-other? Discussion? Ideas? Flames? Regards, Doug Hello Doug, for my opinion there is no TYPICAL epsr value for FR4! In the past we have done many investigations to realized impedance values on PCB. We have measured the impedance (with TDR) and we have measured the geometry of the traces (copper width, copper thickness and thickness of dielectric) for microstrip and stripline structures. Than we have computed the impedance with a field sover and compare with the measurement. In this way we have found the epsr-values for our dielectrics. These computations agree very well with the data provided from our PCB manufacturer. The actual epsr value is a function of the thickness of the materials (that means of the ratio of glass and epoxy). Thinner materials have a lower epsr value (for example for a 130 my core about 3.85-4.0) than thicker materials (for a 310 my core or prepreg about 4.2). We used these values in our Signal Integrity simulations and have not found any problems or differences between simulation results and lab measurements. The above values are primarily valid for frequencies above 300 - 500 MHz (Please think about the timing relations of the TDR measurement) I hope this help a little bit. Best regards Hans-Joerg -- Dr.-Ing. Hans-Joerg John email: john@sni.de Siemens Nixdorf Informationsystems phone: +49 5251 820 347 OEC ES DB3 fax: +49 5251 820 349 EMC and Signal Integrity Support Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 D-33106 Paderborn Germany - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Peripherals
Gary, I have had my problems with support equipment and peripherals also. And, having used a lot of big name products, mostly computers, etc., I was surprised at how many of them failed when my product was turned off and theirs was left running. It is quite common for test house guys to say Oh, that's the host, we'll ignore that one. I finally got to the point where I put them outside the test environment, i.e. below the floor or outside the shield room. I do this because I don't sell them and figure that if I run self test mode and don't see the problem, then it is either the other guy's stuff or my I/O. If it is my I/O, I will fix it. If it is the other guy's stuff, I leave it alone. I can't / won't fix their non-compliant equipment, don't have either the time or money to do so. I did eventually find a quiet PC and monitor which I guard with my life. I have even coerced the software guys into making their latest stuff play with my older PC so I can keep using it. I can't point to the reference you are asking for. It seems to me that if the support / host equipment is required to be on the table during test, then the entire thing must comply. It can be difficult to point the finger at one piece and say that it is the source of the problem, especially on the immunity side. If you try several different pieces of support equipment and the system continues to fail, it probably is within the common unit, i.e. your product. If you find that changing the support equipment can make the system pass, then either you have a marginal product or a too-sensitive support equipment. In this case, you have a decision to make, and a tough one at that. Sorry I am not more help on this one. Regards, Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Korea standard for drives
In general, Korea has statutory requirements which are identical to IEC/CISPR. For specifics, depending on the type of equipment, you can contact the Radio Research Laboratory in Korea. Korea will accept CB reports for safety, and these must be submitted to KITECH-KTL for a Korean report which is then sent to KNITQ for type approval. Bob Martin Sr. Technical Manager Intertek Testing Services (978)263-2662 fax (978)263-7086 r...@itsqs.com -Original Message- From: Jason Chesley [SMTP:103401.1...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 7:19 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Korea standard for drives I have a client who is requesting testing to Koreas EMC standards. As far as I know Korea requires testing to be done in country. This is still true, right? Does anyone know the standards for ITE? Thanks in advance for any input, Jason L. Chesley Business Services Group Manager EMC Technology Services, Inc. UL - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). application/ms-tnef
RE: Korea standard for drives
In general, Korea has statutory requirements which are identical to IEC/CISPR. For specifics, depending on the type of equipment, you can contact the Radio Research Laboratory (the controlling agency) in Korea (+82-0343-52-4001). Another government lab that can be used for testing is Haitong EMC e-mail : hait...@soback.kornet.nm.kr fax : 82-339-72-4118 Korea will accept CB reports for safety, and these must be submitted to KITECH-KTL for a Korean report which is then sent to KNITQ for type approval. Bob Martin Sr. Technical Manager Intertek Testing Services (978)263-2662 fax (978)263-7086 r...@itsqs.com -Original Message- From: Jason Chesley [SMTP:103401.1...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 7:19 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Korea standard for drives I have a client who is requesting testing to Koreas EMC standards. As far as I know Korea requires testing to be done in country. This is still true, right? Does anyone know the standards for ITE? Thanks in advance for any input, Jason L. Chesley Business Services Group Manager EMC Technology Services, Inc. UL - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). application/ms-tnef
Re: Requirements for Mexico
Nick, I used Net Connection Corporation to help us get product into Mexico. This was about 1 year ago. My contact was Richard Swarz, phone: 310-471-2706, fax: 310-471-0421, e-mail address: ncc1...@nccrc.com, address: 2101 STRADELLA ROAD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90077. Web address: http://www.nccrc.com/ (This is the new address, I confirmed it works.) Some other web addresses I used: http://naftalink.web.com.mx/1301.html OBTAINING A NOM CERTIFICATION http://naftalink.web.com.mx/1302.html PARTIAL LIST OF MANDATORY MEXICAN STANDARDS later Best Regards, David A. Sanders Compliance Engineer Scitex Digital Printing, Inc. 3000 Research Blvd. Dayton, OH 45420-4099 tel: 937-259-3358 fax: 937-259-3655 E-mail: dave.sand...@scitexdpi.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
UL Ratings for Wires
Could someone please tell me the difference between UL1015, UL1017, UL1061, and UL1067 for rating wires? Regards, John R. Kretsch, P.E. Compliance Engineering Supervisor ADC Broadband Communcations - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
IEC 60065 Sixth Edition
Does anyone know what changed in the sixth edition or does it just incorporate the ammendments to the fifth edition? Chris James Dolby Labs Inc UK c...@dolby.co.uk - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: UL Ratings for Wires
1015: PVC, 0.031 wall, 105C, 600V 1017: PVC, 0.047 wall, 80C, 600V 1061: Semi-rigid PVC, 0.009 wall, 80C, 300V 1067: ??? -- From: john_kret...@adc.com[SMTP:john_kret...@adc.com] Reply To: john_kret...@adc.com Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL Ratings for Wires Could someone please tell me the difference between UL1015, UL1017, UL1061, and UL1067 for rating wires? Regards, John R. Kretsch, P.E. Compliance Engineering Supervisor ADC Broadband Communcations - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
noise measurement requirements
The European Machinery Directive (89/392/EEC) requires that the instructions must give information concerning airborne noise emissions. The Machinery Directive does not lay down noise limits (unlike other European Directives relating to noise emission). Machinery that falls within the scope of the Machinery Directive, however, will only be able to be CE marked, once the requirements of section 1.7.4 (noise information) have also been complied with. Technical equipment which is not covered under the Machinery Directive may, however, be covered under other national regulations. In Germany for instance, the German Equipment Safety Law (the German GS-mark indicates compliance) requires also that noise information must be given in the instructions (requirements are very similar to the requirements of the Machinery Directive). A proper test report with indication of the test method (standard), operating conditions, test environment, test equipment, etc., should (must) be part of the technical construction file. There are European standards dealing with noise emissions for various equipment. These standards can (should) be used in order to determine the noise emission values. For most machinery (depending on the noise emission) on-site testing with portable sound level meters could be performed. Wilfried Beyer, wbe...@us.tuv.com TUV Rheinland of NA Orlando Area Office Sanlando Center Office Park, Suite 160 2170 West State Road 434 Longwood, FL 32779 Phone (407) 774-1222 Fax (407) 774-1033 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Statement of compliance
Doug, 1) Designed to meet (safety standards list) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion _X_unacceptable comments: Tracking changes that affect safety becomes the responsibility of the user. This is no better than non-agency marked products. To me it means that the product may or may not meet all of the requirements of the standard and that the manufacturer is not responsible for keeping up with the standards to ensure designed to meet intent. 2) Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion _X__ unacceptable comments: Same as 1 above. Again, tracking changes that affect safety becomes the responsibility of the user. This is no better than non-agency marked products. I would only consider these products if they were not safety critical. We obtain safety marks for our products and the safety agencies do not like components that do not have a safety mark. Traceability and factory inspections become a hassle without the safety mark. 3) Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion _X__ unacceptable comments: Same issues as with 1 2 above. If tested by third party, why not go the extra distance and get a safety mark? How available is the test report? How much time will need to be expended to confirm the acceptability of the component? 4) Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion _X__ unacceptable comments: Same as 2 above. Here I would at least think that the whole standard had been applied to the product. Again, this would be the standard dated at a certain point in time. Any changes to the standard after that date would not be incorporated. How much time would be spent on finding the date of the standard used? 5 Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ... ___ highly acceptable ___ acceptable ___ no opinion _X__ unacceptable comments: Same as 4 above. Again, if tested by third party, why not go the extra distance and get a safety mark? How available is the test report? How much time will need to be expended to confirm the acceptability of the component? I would be interested in a copy of the results. later Dave - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Water Damage to Chambers
As part of our hurricane preparedness, we have to consider what would happen to our EMC chambers if they get wet. 1) Can anyone provide some real life guidance on the ability of the laminated walls (steel and wood) to withstand a good soaking? 2) Also, what is the most advisable fire protection method for inside of chambers: water, CO2, other? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: UL Ratings for Wires
John, 1067: polyethylene insulation + polyethylene jacket, 60C, 10kVdc. Regards, Doug Kealey Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. Transmission Network Systems __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: UL Ratings for Wires Author: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] at IMS List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/1/98 12:54 PM 1015: PVC, 0.031 wall, 105C, 600V 1017: PVC, 0.047 wall, 80C, 600V 1061: Semi-rigid PVC, 0.009 wall, 80C, 300V 1067: ??? -- From: john_kret...@adc.com[SMTP:john_kret...@adc.com] Reply To: john_kret...@adc.com Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:41 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL Ratings for Wires Could someone please tell me the difference between UL1015, UL1017, UL1061, and UL1067 for rating wires? Regards, John R. Kretsch, P.E. Compliance Engineering Supervisor ADC Broadband Communcations - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
CE Industrial rated RS-232 interface card sources
Hello, Does anybody know of a RS-232 interface card that can meet CE industrial ratings including industrial level surge on the I/O lines themselves? Thanks for your help Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Info on ballast requirements
Hello All I'd like to know if there's any international standard for ballasts to be EMC compliant. The standard is restrictive? Is there any difference between CE standards or FCC standards? Any information will be welcome. Best Regards -- == Muriel Bittencourt de Liz INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Caixa Postal - 5119 88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422 e-mail: mur...@inep.ufsc.br Homepage: http://www.inep.ufsc.br == - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: UL Ratings for Wires
john_kret...@adc.com writes: Could someone please tell me the difference between UL1015, UL1017, UL1061, and UL1067 for rating wires? John, We use UL 1015 and UL 1061. UL 1015 is 600 V, 105 deg. C insulation. UL 1061 is 300 V, 80 deg. C insulation. The other two numbers are not in my Alpha or Belden catalogs. Regards, Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Peripherals
All, I believe you guys are referring to 47CFR2.1033, Application for certification: (8) If the equipment for which certification is being sought must be tested with peripheral or accessory devices connected or installed, a brief description of those peripherals or accessories. The peripheral or accessory devices shall be unmodified, commercially-available equipment. See also the previous section, 47CFR2.1031: The general provisions of this subpart [section] 2.901 et seq. shall apply to applications for and grants of certification. As for products only subject to a Declaration of Conformity, there is this requirement in 47CFR2.1075a (Retention of records): (1) A record of the original design drawings and specifications and all changes that have been made that may affect compliance with the requirements of [section] 2.1073. My interpretation is that unmodified, commercially-available support equipment are only required for FCC Certification. For Declarations of Conformity, I would take the retention-of-records requirements one step further. I would not modify support equipment unless it does not disguise emissions from the EUT, and I would justify it in the test report per 47CFR2.1075a3 (Retention of records): (iv) A description of the equipment under test (EUT) and support equipment connected to, or installed within, the EUT; To be fair, one argument against my intepretation is the following section, which explicitly requires that modifications to the EUT (but not support equipment,) be documented: (viii) A description of any modifications made to the EUT by the testing company or individual to achieve compliance with the regulations; Please also note that the requirements of 47CFR2.1075a (Retention of records) may not apply to equipment assembled using modular components. See 47CFR2.1075b. My 2 cents, Dan From owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Tue Sep 1 11:28:03 1998 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:36:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Peripherals To: gmcintu...@packetengines.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org From: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Gary, I have had my problems with support equipment and peripherals also. And, having used a lot of big name products, mostly computers, etc., I was surprised at how many of them failed when my product was turned off and theirs was left running. It is quite common for test house guys to say Oh, that's the host, we'll ignore that one. I finally got to the point where I put them outside the test environment, i.e. below the floor or outside the shield room. I do this because I don't sell them and figure that if I run self test mode and don't see the problem, then it is either the other guy's stuff or my I/O. If it is my I/O, I will fix it. If it is the other guy's stuff, I leave it alone. I can't / won't fix their non-compliant equipment, don't have either the time or money to do so. I did eventually find a quiet PC and monitor which I guard with my life. I have even coerced the software guys into making their latest stuff play with my older PC so I can keep using it. I can't point to the reference you are asking for. It seems to me that if the support / host equipment is required to be on the table during test, then the entire thing must comply. It can be difficult to point the finger at one piece and say that it is the source of the problem, especially on the immunity side. If you try several different pieces of support equipment and the system continues to fail, it probably is within the common unit, i.e. your product. If you find that changing the support equipment can make the system pass, then either you have a marginal product or a too-sensitive support equipment. In this case, you have a decision to make, and a tough one at that. Sorry I am not more help on this one. Regards, Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Peripherals
Dan, Thank you very much for providing the paragraphs. I happen to be away from my office and can't get to these documents handily. I follow your logic on the DoC equipment modifications thread but (theirs always a but(t)). We are now discussing interpretation and intent. I think that the FEDS are allowing for a change in the field during test time. The assumption is that you make a change that will be manufacturable. In fact I always re-test to insure this is true, particularly if it is a mechanical rather than component value change. As a manufacturing of the actual EUT I have control over the production of the test item. I don't have that luxury with other vendors equipment. They could change it, but let's face it they are more likely to tell you that the only people they have a problem with is when your equipment, and do nothing. So in this case documenting the change doesn't really solve the problem unless you were to modify each peripheral as well. I guess I should point out that I don't have a huge problem. On occasion I have some troubles with somebody else's stuff and I have no reason to believe it to be anything other than the single sample I happen to be looking at. Its more that I don't have the time in the schedule, or the nature to mess around during tests. I look for rock solid peripherals and won't use one unless I first check it out and am satisfied that it not only meets the limits but provides some margin to those limits. Thanks again Dan. Gary -Original Message- From: dir...@patriots.east.sun.com [SMTP:dir...@patriots.east.sun.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 12:52 PM To: gmcintu...@packetengines.com; s_doug...@ecrm.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Peripherals All, I believe you guys are referring to 47CFR2.1033, Application for certification: (8) If the equipment for which certification is being sought must be tested with peripheral or accessory devices connected or installed, a brief description of those peripherals or accessories. The peripheral or accessory devices shall be unmodified, commercially-available equipment. See also the previous section, 47CFR2.1031: The general provisions of this subpart [section] 2.901 et seq. shall apply to applications for and grants of certification. As for products only subject to a Declaration of Conformity, there is this requirement in 47CFR2.1075a (Retention of records): (1) A record of the original design drawings and specifications and all changes that have been made that may affect compliance with the requirements of [section] 2.1073. My interpretation is that unmodified, commercially-available support equipment are only required for FCC Certification. For Declarations of Conformity, I would take the retention-of-records requirements one step further. I would not modify support equipment unless it does not disguise emissions from the EUT, and I would justify it in the test report per 47CFR2.1075a3 (Retention of records): (iv) A description of the equipment under test (EUT) and support equipment connected to, or installed within, the EUT; To be fair, one argument against my intepretation is the following section, which explicitly requires that modifications to the EUT (but not support equipment,) be documented: (viii) A description of any modifications made to the EUT by the testing company or individual to achieve compliance with the regulations; Please also note that the requirements of 47CFR2.1075a (Retention of records) may not apply to equipment assembled using modular components. See 47CFR2.1075b. My 2 cents, Dan From owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Tue Sep 1 11:28:03 1998 Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 08:36:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Peripherals To: gmcintu...@packetengines.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org From: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Gary, I have had my problems with support equipment and peripherals also. And, having used a lot of big name products, mostly computers, etc., I was surprised at how many of
EN ISO 9614 Sound Power Levels
A co-worker came rushing into my office in a panic, concerned that computer makers were scrambling to meet a new sound level requirement ISO 9614. The partial title of 9614 is ACOUSTICS - DETERMINATION OF SOUND POWER LEVELS OF NOISE SOURCES. Does anyone have any knowledge of this requirement? If so, what equipment would be affected and what directive requires it? Thanks, Jim Lyons Mgr - Product Compliance GTECH Corp. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Peripherals
Gary, Actually, the law is different if you are producing a system assembled using modular components. Again, see 47CFR2.1075b. (I will send this to you off the alias.) I got this from: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html#page1 From your email, I can't tell if your company sells a system that includes the OEM support equipment, or if you are just including the support equipment during EMI testing in order to exercise an interface on your equipment. For my first response, I assumed the latter. Again, the rules are different, depending on the Responsible Party. See 47CFR2.909, which I will also send to you in separate email. Good Luck, Dan From gmcintu...@packetengines.com Tue Sep 1 16:29:56 1998 From: Gary McInturff gmcintu...@packetengines.com To: 'dir...@patriots.east.sun.com' dir...@patriots.east.sun.com, Gary McInturff gmcintu...@packetengines.com, s_doug...@ecrm.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Peripherals Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 13:29:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Dan, Thank you very much for providing the paragraphs. I happen to be away from my office and can't get to these documents handily. I follow your logic on the DoC equipment modifications thread but (theirs always a but(t)). We are now discussing interpretation and intent. I think that the FEDS are allowing for a change in the field during test time. The assumption is that you make a change that will be manufacturable. In fact I always re-test to insure this is true, particularly if it is a mechanical rather than component value change. As a manufacturing of the actual EUT I have control over the production of the test item. I don't have that luxury with other vendors equipment. They could change it, but let's face it they are more likely to tell you that the only people they have a problem with is when your equipment, and do nothing. So in this case documenting the change doesn't really solve the problem unless you were to modify each peripheral as well. I guess I should point out that I don't have a huge problem. On occasion I have some troubles with somebody else's stuff and I have no reason to believe it to be anything other than the single sample I happen to be looking at. Its more that I don't have the time in the schedule, or the nature to mess around during tests. I look for rock solid peripherals and won't use one unless I first check it out and am satisfied that it not only meets the limits but provides some margin to those limits. Thanks again Dan. Gary -Original Message- From: dir...@patriots.east.sun.com [SMTP:dir...@patriots.east.sun.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 12:52 PM To: gmcintu...@packetengines.com; s_doug...@ecrm.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Peripherals All, I believe you guys are referring to 47CFR2.1033, Application for certification: (8) If the equipment for which certification is being sought must be tested with peripheral or accessory devices connected or installed, a brief description of those peripherals or accessories. The peripheral or accessory devices shall be unmodified, commercially-available equipment. See also the previous section, 47CFR2.1031: The general provisions of this subpart [section] 2.901 et seq. shall apply to applications for and grants of certification. As for products only subject to a Declaration of Conformity, there is this requirement in 47CFR2.1075a (Retention of records): (1) A record of the original design drawings and specifications and all changes that have been made that may affect compliance with the requirements of [section] 2.1073. My interpretation is that unmodified, commercially-available support equipment are only required for FCC Certification. For Declarations of Conformity, I would take the retention-of-records requirements one step further. I would not modify support equipment unless it does not disguise emissions from the EUT, and I would justify it in the test report per 47CFR2.1075a3 (Retention of records): (iv) A description of the equipment under test (EUT) and support equipment connected to, or installed within, the EUT; To be fair, one argument against my intepretation is the following section, which explicitly requires that modifications to the EUT (but not support equipment,) be documented: (viii) A description of any modifications made to the EUT by the testing company or individual to achieve compliance with the regulations; Please also note that the requirements of 47CFR2.1075a
Immunity Of Pace-Makers
Hello All, EN 50061 EN50061/A1 are standards for protection against electrical-magnetic interference. Does anyone know what the test levels are for: ESD Radiated Susceptibility EFT Surge Magnetic Effects Any information would be helpful - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
