CE Requirements for Marine equipment

[brian_kunde]

A company I'm representing manufacturers Engine Panels and Pilot House Controls
for boats, yachts, and tankers. Most of the components in these assemblies are
gauges and mechanical controls, but some incorporate electronic gauges and
controls.  On a recent contract with a European boat manufacturer, we have been
asked to verify these type of assemblies to meet the European requirements for
application of the CE marking.

Is there a new approach directive that this type of product would fall under? 
If so, what standards would apply?

If not, what tests and levels would some of you experienced people recommend we
test this product to keeping in mind the environment in which it will operate?

Thank you in advance. 
Happy holiday.

Brian Kunde 
Group Leader 
Compliance Testing Center 
 
LECO Corporation 
3000 Lakeview Ave. 
St. Joseph, MI  49085 
(616) 982-5423 phone 
(616) 982-8964 fax 
brian_ku...@leco.com 




-
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).

Re[2]: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[sitarski]

I am aware of one manufacturer who inquired about this subject with an
authority in Europe and was told that the DOC must be "readily available"
for inspection.  When asked whether posting on the internet would satisfy
that criteria, the answer was affirmative.  You might like to inquire to
another official source and see if the same answer is given.  This company
now posts all DOCs and certificates of compliance (safety) on their web
site.

M.Sitarski
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY

Bob:

  Yes this is my understanding, The EC DofC just
  identifies the signatory and the copy resides with the
  EC agent.


__ Reply Separator
_
Subject: Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
Author:  Robert Tims  at Internet
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:12/15/98 1:33 PM


Hi all,
I have a question to clarify..
Is it to be understood that the EC DofC can be signed by the US
manufacturer,
and authorized copy of said document just has to reside with the rep in the
EC?
This could save me a lot of time and bs.
Regards,
Bob Tims



Mike Hopkins wrote:

> I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:
>
> "1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the
> standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with
> this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity
issued
> by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within
the
> Community.."
>
> Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his authorized
> representative established within the Community" can sign the
> Declaration.
>
> Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> > [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> >
> >   Greetings to all:
> >
> >   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the
Signatory
> >   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based
manufacturer.
> >
> >   Thanks in advance,
> >
> >   Bill Jacowleff
> >   VDO Control Systems
> >   150 Knotter Drive
> >   Cheshire, CT 06410
> >   Phone: 203 271-6394
> >   FAX :  203 271-6200
> >   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com






-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Mike Hopkins]

Excellent!   Note: this applies to Technical Construction Files and Type
Acceptance as well. But on to the third paragraph:

"Where neither the manufacturer nor his authorized representative is
established within the Community, the above obligation to keep the EC
declaration of conformity available shall be the responsibility of the
person who places the apparatus on the Community market."

This paragraph (without any comma's) clearly implies the manufacturer could
be outside the EU. If that's true (then back to paragraph 1), a US
manufacturer can sign the DofC ! 

In the 1997 "Guidelines on the application of Council Directive 89/336/EEC
of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to electromagnetic compatibility" (whew!!), there are a number of
clarifications that refer to the manufacturer and his obligations, including
statements that the manufacturer, ... "has sole and ultimate responsibility
for conformity of this apparatus to the applicable directives...", and is,
"... the sole and ultimate responsible person..." regarding EMC. 

There IS one place where your (Tania) comment about comma's is relavent:
>From the guide mentioned above, section 3. Definitions, in the 4th paragraph
under comments is the statement (with comma placed appropriately): "If a
manufacturer, his authorized representative in the EEA or the importer
offers an apparatus covered by the Directive..." In this case the
manufacturer is not assumed to be in the EU.

Enough of that My own opinion is that the manufacturer in any country
can sign a Declaration of Conformance, but it must be kept on file in the EU
by a representative of the manufacturer or by the importer.

Happy Holidays to all  
That's all the document research time I have this month


Mike Hopkins
mhopk...@keytek.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 2:23 PM
> To:   'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Mike
> Hopkins'
> Subject:  RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
> Mike, et al.
> 
>   [For lack of a comma, some people can be hanged!]
> 
> What has never been clear to me is whether the manufacturer should also be
> "established in the community"  or whether this is only applicable to the
> distributor who places the product on the market.
> 
> Look at the two following sentence fragments without and with a comma.  In
> my mind, placing a comma after the word 'manufacturer' definitely removes
> him from requiring to be part of the EU community.  However, without the
> comma, I am less sure.
> 
> I would like to see others comment on this!
> 
>   "issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative
> established within the
>   Community.."(no comma)
> 
>   "issued by the manufacturer, or his authorized representative
> established within the Community.."  (comma)
> 
> Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
> tgr...@lucent.com
> 
> 
>   --
>   From:  Mike  Hopkins[SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
>   Sent:  Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 AM
>   To:  'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
>   Subject:  RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
>   I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:
> 
>   "1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied
> the
>   standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus
> with
>   this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity
> issued
>   by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established
> within the
>   Community.."
> 
>   Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his
> authorized
>   representative established within the Community" can sign the
>   Declaration. 
> 
>   Mike Hopkins
>   mhopk...@keytek.com
> 
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
>   > [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
>   > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
>   > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
>   > Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
>   > 
>   >   Greetings to all:
>   >   
>   >   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the
> Signatory
>   >   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based
> manufacturer.
>   >   
>   >   Thanks in advance,
>   >   
>   >   Bill Jacowleff
>   >   VDO Control Systems
>   >   150 Knotter Drive
>   >   Cheshire, CT 06410
>   >   Phone: 203 271-6394
>   >   FAX :  203 271-6200
>   >   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
>   > 
>   > -
>   > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion

Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[rayh]

Anyone;

Can anyone tell me what is an actual "authorized representative established 
within the Community.." for a USA product manufacturer and how this is 
accomplished.

Thanks!

Ray Hulinsky

RCIC - http://www.rcic.com
Regulatory Compliance Information Center




-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Mike, et al.

[For lack of a comma, some people can be hanged!]

What has never been clear to me is whether the manufacturer should also be
"established in the community"  or whether this is only applicable to the
distributor who places the product on the market.

Look at the two following sentence fragments without and with a comma.  In
my mind, placing a comma after the word 'manufacturer' definitely removes
him from requiring to be part of the EU community.  However, without the
comma, I am less sure.

I would like to see others comment on this!

"issued by the manufacturer or his authorized representative
established within the
Community.."(no comma)

"issued by the manufacturer, or his authorized representative
established within the Community.."  (comma)

Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
tgr...@lucent.com


--
From:  Mike  Hopkins[SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 AM
To:  'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:

"1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied
the
standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus
with
this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity
issued
by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established
within the
Community.."

Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his
authorized
representative established within the Community" can sign the
Declaration. 

Mike Hopkins
mhopk...@keytek.com


> -Original Message-
> From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
>   Greetings to all:
>   
>   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the
Signatory
>   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based
manufacturer.
>   
>   Thanks in advance,
>   
>   Bill Jacowleff
>   VDO Control Systems
>   150 Knotter Drive
>   Cheshire, CT 06410
>   Phone: 203 271-6394
>   FAX :  203 271-6200
>   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> 
> -
> 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).

-
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).


-
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).

RE: Varistors to ground

[Jim Eichner]

Volker:  Thanks for the explanation.  

I am left with 2 questions:

1. You wrote "The new decision is not part of the upcoming safety
standard for IT products, IEC 60950 3rd edition, which is likely to be
available beginning of next year".  What does that omission tell us?  If
the 3rd edition has been written by people aware of the OSM/EE
decisions, who consciously did not include the decisions in the new
edition, then do they mean that varistors to ground are acceptable and
not subject to the "requirements" in the 2 decisions you quoted?

2. It isn't clear whether the recent decision allows a varistor approved
to IEC 601051-1 without a spark gap and fuse or whether the new decision
overrules the old decision in this respect.

Thanks again for any clarification anyone can offer.

Regards,

Jim Eichner
Statpower Technologies Corporation
jeich...@statpower.com
http://www.statpower.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
exists.  Honest.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Volker Gasse [SMTP:ga...@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 2:34 AM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Varistors to ground
> 
> 
> The mentioned Cenelec decision is taken from the 'List of decisions
> from
> CENELEC Operational Staff Meeting for Electronic Equipment (OSM/EE)'.
> Here representatives from EU Testhouses meet to discuss
> interpretations of
> clauses in safety
> standards such as EN 60950 for IT products. These decisions are to be
> followed
> by all European
> testhouses. However, those decisions should be
> interpretations/clarifications
> to the existing
> standards, but not addition of new requirements.
> 
> For EN 60950, Clause 1.5.1, Decision 98/2 states:
> 
> 'A combination  of a varistor in series with a spark gap (Gas-Tube)
> [between the mains and the protective earth]
> complying with Basic Insulation, and with a fuse will be accepted for
> 
> a. Pluggable equipment Type B and permanently connected equipment:  by
> all
> countries
> b. Pluggable equipment Type A: by all countries except DK, UK and SE.
> For pluggable equipment Type A two fuses are required.'
> (To be sure that even by non-polarized plugs a fuse is provided)
> 
> This interpretation is an extension to a decision which was already
> issued in
> 1/94:
> 
> 'If a Varistor  is separately approved according to Publications IEC
> 601051-1
> and IEC 601051-2, it can be accepted without a protective device. If a
> Varistor  is not separately approved, a protective device against the
> short-circuit is required.
> Varistors tested according to CECC 42200 are considered as acceptable
> in the
> same way as tested to IEC 601051.
> Varistors between the mains and the protective earth cannot be
> accepted by the
> following countries:
> Pluggable equipment, type A:
> Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.'
> The new decision is not part of the upcoming safety standard for
> IT products, IEC 60950 3rd edition, which is likely to be available
> beginning
> of next year.
> One of the reasons for requiring the spark gap in series with the
> varistor is a
> possible increase
> in leakage current if the varistor has been exposed to several mains
> transients.
> 
> It should be noted, that IEC/EN 60950 does not require the use of
> transient
> suppressing
> components.
> 
> Concerning the
> 
> mit freundlichen Gruessen/ best regards
> Volker Gasse
> 
> IBM Germany, Technical Relations/Product Safety,
> Tel: +49 7031-16-6796, Fax: -6916, e-mail: ga...@de.ibm.com
> Mail:  3114/7103-91, D-70548 Stuttgart, Germany
> 
> -- Forwarded by Volker Gasse/Germany/IBM on
> 15.12.98 11:20
> ---
> 
> 
> owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on 15.12.98 02:11:00
> Please respond to jeich...@statpower.com
> To: j...@bighorn.dr.lucent.com
> cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Varistors to ground
> 
> 
> John:  Sorry I can't help, but I am interested in what replies you
> get.
> 
> 
> I also wonder what force the Decision carries.  Is it a mandatory part
> of the Low Voltage Directive?  How does it relate to the LVD or to the
> various EN's in force under the LVD?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these murky waters!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jim Eichner
> Statpower Technologies Corporation
> jeich...@statpower.com
> http://www.statpower.com
> Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
> exists.  Honest.
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Boucher, John [SMTP:j...@bighorn.dr.lucent.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 9:07 AM
> > To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> > Subject: Varistors to ground
> >
> > All:
> >
> > I have received a copy of a CENELEC Decision (dated 6/98) regarding
> > the use
> > of varistors between mains conductors and ground. This particular
> > Decision
> > is written in a rather unclear fashion (at least its unclear to
> me...I
> > tend
> > to be rather literal in my interp

Re[2]: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Bill . Jacowleff]

  Bob:
  
  Yes this is my understanding, The EC DofC just 
  identifies the signatory and the copy resides with the 
  EC agent.


__ Reply Separator _
Subject: Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
Author:  Robert Tims  at Internet
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:12/15/98 1:33 PM


Hi all,
I have a question to clarify..
Is it to be understood that the EC DofC can be signed by the US manufacturer, 
and authorized copy of said document just has to reside with the rep in the EC? 
This could save me a lot of time and bs.
Regards,
Bob Tims
  
  
  
Mike Hopkins wrote:
  
> I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph: 
>
> "1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the 
> standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with
> this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued 
> by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the 
> Community.."
>
> Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his authorized 
> representative established within the Community" can sign the
> Declaration.
>
> Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com 
> > [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer 
> >
> >   Greetings to all:
> >
> >   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory 
> >   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer. 
> >
> >   Thanks in advance,
> >
> >   Bill Jacowleff
> >   VDO Control Systems
> >   150 Knotter Drive
> >   Cheshire, CT 06410
> >   Phone: 203 271-6394
> >   FAX :  203 271-6200
> >   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com 
> >
> > -
> > 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). 
>
> -
> 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).
  

-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Mike Hopkins]

That's certainly our interpertation. We do the tests here, sign the DofC
here, then place a copy on file with one of our divisions in The
Netherlands. 

Mike Hopkins
mhopk...@keytek.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Tims [SMTP:rt...@emx.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:34 PM
> To:   Mike Hopkins
> Cc:   'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
> Hi all,
> I have a question to clarify..
> Is it to be understood that the EC DofC can be signed by the US
> manufacturer,
> and authorized copy of said document just has to reside with the rep in
> the EC?
> This could save me a lot of time and bs.
> Regards,
> Bob Tims
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Hopkins wrote:
> 
> > I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:
> >
> > "1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the
> > standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with
> > this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity
> issued
> > by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within
> the
> > Community.."
> >
> > Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his authorized
> > representative established within the Community" can sign the
> > Declaration.
> >
> > Mike Hopkins
> > mhopk...@keytek.com
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> > > [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> > > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> > > Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> > >
> > >   Greetings to all:
> > >
> > >   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the
> Signatory
> > >   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based
> manufacturer.
> > >
> > >   Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > >   Bill Jacowleff
> > >   VDO Control Systems
> > >   150 Knotter Drive
> > >   Cheshire, CT 06410
> > >   Phone: 203 271-6394
> > >   FAX :  203 271-6200
> > >   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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).
> >
> > -
> > 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).

-
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).

Re: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Robert Tims]

Hi all,
I have a question to clarify..
Is it to be understood that the EC DofC can be signed by the US manufacturer,
and authorized copy of said document just has to reside with the rep in the EC?
This could save me a lot of time and bs.
Regards,
Bob Tims



Mike Hopkins wrote:

> I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:
>
> "1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the
> standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with
> this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued
> by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the
> Community.."
>
> Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his authorized
> representative established within the Community" can sign the
> Declaration.
>
> Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> > [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> > To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> > Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> >
> >   Greetings to all:
> >
> >   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory
> >   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer.
> >
> >   Thanks in advance,
> >
> >   Bill Jacowleff
> >   VDO Control Systems
> >   150 Knotter Drive
> >   Cheshire, CT 06410
> >   Phone: 203 271-6394
> >   FAX :  203 271-6200
> >   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> >
> > -
> > 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).
>
> -
> 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).


-
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).

Construction equipment and EMC

[Richard Cass]

(stay with me on this one, it really does apply to this group)

I call this one:  Just when you thought you were finally smarter than your 
parents.

[background information: My father (who recently turned 83) is a retired heavy 
construction equipment (bulldozers, cranes, dump trucks, etc.) operator & 
mechanic.]  I was talking to my father the other night and I was explaining 
about some of the emissions and susceptibility testing we were doing on our IT 
equipment.  Beyond the concept of not interfering with his tv, I thought to 
myself that he wasn't going to really understand what the point was.  After I 
got done my long winded explanation he said 'oh, its like my friend Joe [name 
changed] a couple of years back and his crane problem'.  He then relayed the 
following story while I stood there looking like a cheap fly trap <:O

This guy Joe was a crane operator.  He was operating an enormous crane with a 
boom nearly 200 feet long at a major construction project [If you didn't know: 
new construction equipment is all push button and joy stick controlled due to 
the "advances" in microprocessor based controls linked with "advanced" servo 
hydraulic systems].  He was having some minor difficulty with this very new and 
very expensive crane.  So, with the crane idling, he went to his truck and got 
his cell phone to call the factory tech rep.  He came back and called the tech 
rep from the cab of crane.  While talking to the factory rep on his portable 
cell phone, the crane operator happened to move to a different position within 
the cabin of the crane.  Without the operator touching any of the controls, the 
crane simultaneously started booming up, swinging, and lifting on the line.  The
factory rep at that point, based on what he was hearing over the phone [and to 
his credit in my opinion] figured out what was happening.  So he screamed to the
crane operator; shut your #$@#% phone off and run.  The operator got clear of 
the thing and no one was hurt.  However, there was major damage to the crane 
because it tried to pull blocking attached to the lines through the pulleys and 
sheaves in the boom.

Obviously my father understood the concept of EMC interference in a very real 
world sense.  So besides the obvious EMI/EMC lesson learned, this story is also 
a reminder that if you ever think that all your advanced education and vast 
industry experience makes you smarter than the people that raised you, think 
again.

Happy holidays,
Richard Cass


-
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).

Re: EN 61000-4-4

[bma]

An experienced EMC test technician told me it's easier to fail the EUT to 
put all I/O cables together in the capacitive coupling box than to deal 
with them one by one. I think his experience is consistent with general EMC 
theory because the EUT receives more EFT/B interferences when all cables 
were in the coupling box together.

So we might use "all together" as a preliminary evaluation method.

Barry Ma


-
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).

Capacitors Dry or Wet?

[Russell, Ray]

Happy Holidays,

I'm working on a project that will ship to Japan and requires a motor
starting capacitor. Would any one know if there are requirements that
dictate whether a dry or wet type cap are required for Japan? How about the
rest of the world?

Thank you for your assistance,

Ray Russell
Regulatory Compliance Engineer


-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Matejic, Mirko]

Mike,

Enclosed is recent interpretation from DG3:

" As a general rule, the manufacture must ... draw up EC declaration of
conformity. New Approach directives do not require the manufacturer to be
established in the Community."
Mirko Matejic

From:   elena.santi...@dg3.cec.be
Sent:   Friday, November 13, 1998 1:11 AM
To: mmate...@foxboro.com
Subject:Re: DOC Signatory

 
The manufacturer is obliged to understand both the design and construction
of the product to be able to take the responsibility for the product, i.e.
for it being in compliance with all provisions of the relevant New Approach
directive(s). As regards conformity assessment, the manufacturer's
responsibility depends on the procedure applied. As a general rule, the
manufacture must take all measures necessary to ensure that the
manufacturing process assures compliance of the products (e.g. to operate a
quality system), to affix the CE marking to the product, to establish a
technical documentation and to draw up EC declaration of conformity.  
New Approach directives do not require the manufacturer to be established in
the Community. Thus, the responsibilities of a manufacturer established
outside the Community are equal to those of a manufacturer established in a
Member State.
Elena Santiago


-Original Message-
From:   Mike  Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 AM
To: 'bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com';
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:

"1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has
applied the
standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of
apparatus with
this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of
conformity issued
by the manufacturer or his authorized representative
established within the
Community.."

Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his
authorized
representative established within the Community" can
sign the
Declaration. 

Mike Hopkins
mhopk...@keytek.com


-
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).

RE: EMC Requirements for Microphones

[Dedicated Micros]

Dear all,
This was getting a bit long so I threw the rest away.  Lets put microphones to 
bed,  so for all of you wanting to hit the EMC specs for radio microphones, the 
standard you need to test to is ETS 300 445:1996, there is an amendment ETS 300 
445/A1:1997.  This specification has been published in the OJ.
I-ETS 300422:1995 looks like a technical spec only.
This information is contained on pages 785 and 786 of the British Standards 
Catalog.
For microphones with leads, the swingy ones! then look at EN55103 Pts 1&2.
I Hope this clarifies the situation.

Ian Ball
Dedicated Micros
UK

Oh.
How many sound engineers does it take to change a light bulb?

Two.Two.One.Two


-
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).

Re: EN 61000-4-4

[Robert Tims]

Ray,
I agree with your interpretation. Besides your good reasons, testing each port 
individually assures as much repeatability and uniformity of application of the 
transient field as possible...
Regards,
Bob Tims
Compliance Engineer
Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc.
robert.t...@ericsson.com

r...@isco.com wrote:

> Erik;
>
> I have used IEC 1000-4-4:1995. EN should be muich the same.
>
> In section 8.2 "Execution of the test" - "The test plan shall specify" - 
> "sequence of application of the test voltage to the EUT's ports, each one 
> after the other or to cables belonging to more than one circuit, etc."
>
> I have understood this to mean that we test each "port" [generally one 
> connector or cable] sepatately, ["one at a time, one after the other"]. 
> Sometimes one "port" consists of one cable with connections going to more 
> than one circuit, in this case we test that cable as a whole ["cables 
> belonging to more than one circuit, etc." ].
>
> I would be interested how others do this.
>
> Ray Hulinsky
>
> RCIC - http://www.rcic.com
> Regulatory Compliance Information Center
>
> -
> 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).


-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Mike Hopkins]

I'll quote from the directive, Article 10, 1st paragraph:

"1. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the
standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with
this Directive shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued
by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the
Community.."

Seems clear to me that either the manufacturer, "... or his authorized
representative established within the Community" can sign the
Declaration. 

Mike Hopkins
mhopk...@keytek.com


> -Original Message-
> From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:07 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
>   Greetings to all:
>   
>   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory
>   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer.
>   
>   Thanks in advance,
>   
>   Bill Jacowleff
>   VDO Control Systems
>   150 Knotter Drive
>   Cheshire, CT 06410
>   Phone: 203 271-6394
>   FAX :  203 271-6200
>   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> 
> -
> 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).

-
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).

RE: Varistors to ground

[WOODS, RICHARD]

Volker, thank you for this useful information. You indicated that
the decisions are to be followed by all of the test houses, yet many of the
decisions appear to be accepted in only some countries. If all of the test
houses are expected to follow the decision, why are country exceptions
allowed and what does it mean to us designers?


-
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).

Re: EN 61000-4-4

[Lisa_Cefalo]

I find it best to test all at once unless you run into some problems, then
one by one to find the problem child





r...@isco.com on 12/14/98 05:04:09 PM

Please respond to r...@isco.com
  
  
  
 To:  emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
  
 cc:  (bcc: Lisa Cefalo/US/MKS)   
  
  
  
 Subject: Re: EN 61000-4-4
  







Erik;

I have used IEC 1000-4-4:1995. EN should be muich the same.

In section 8.2 "Execution of the test" - "The test plan shall specify" -
"sequence of application of the test voltage to the EUT's ports, each one
after the other or to cables belonging to more than one circuit, etc."

I have understood this to mean that we test each "port" [generally one
connector or cable] sepatately, ["one at a time, one after the other"].
Sometimes one "port" consists of one cable with connections going to more
than one circuit, in this case we test that cable as a whole ["cables
belonging to more than one circuit, etc." ].

I would be interested how others do this.

Ray Hulinsky



RCIC - http://www.rcic.com
Regulatory Compliance Information Center




-
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).





-
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).

RE: Signatory for US based Manufacturer

[Crabb, John]

NCR keeps a copy of the Declarations of Conformance on file in Europe
(in London), signed by a legal "person" (our International Intellectual
Properties
Counsel) who is based in London. It is also signed by the Director of 
Operations of the US manufacturing plant.
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , 
NCR  Financial Solutions Group Ltd.,  Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2
3XX
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289  (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243.   VoicePlus
6-341-2289.


> -Original Message-
> From: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> [SMTP:bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com]
> Sent: 14 December 1998 21:07
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Signatory for US based Manufacturer
> 
>   Greetings to all:
>   
>   I am interested in finding out who usually acts as the Signatory
>   for a EC Declaration of Conformance for a US based manufacturer.
>   
>   Thanks in advance,
>   
>   Bill Jacowleff
>   VDO Control Systems
>   150 Knotter Drive
>   Cheshire, CT 06410
>   Phone: 203 271-6394
>   FAX :  203 271-6200
>   Email: bill.jacowl...@chr.carsys.philips.com
> 

-
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).

RE: Varistors to ground

[Volker Gasse]

The mentioned Cenelec decision is taken from the 'List of decisions from
CENELEC Operational Staff Meeting for Electronic Equipment (OSM/EE)'.
Here representatives from EU Testhouses meet to discuss interpretations of
clauses in safety
standards such as EN 60950 for IT products. These decisions are to be followed
by all European
testhouses. However, those decisions should be interpretations/clarifications
to the existing
standards, but not addition of new requirements.

For EN 60950, Clause 1.5.1, Decision 98/2 states:

'A combination  of a varistor in series with a spark gap (Gas-Tube)
[between the mains and the protective earth]
complying with Basic Insulation, and with a fuse will be accepted for

a. Pluggable equipment Type B and permanently connected equipment:  by all
countries
b. Pluggable equipment Type A: by all countries except DK, UK and SE.
For pluggable equipment Type A two fuses are required.'
(To be sure that even by non-polarized plugs a fuse is provided)

This interpretation is an extension to a decision which was already issued in
1/94:

'If a Varistor  is separately approved according to Publications IEC 601051-1
and IEC 601051-2, it can be accepted without a protective device. If a
Varistor  is not separately approved, a protective device against the
short-circuit is required.
Varistors tested according to CECC 42200 are considered as acceptable in the
same way as tested to IEC 601051.
Varistors between the mains and the protective earth cannot be accepted by the
following countries:
Pluggable equipment, type A:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.'
The new decision is not part of the upcoming safety standard for
IT products, IEC 60950 3rd edition, which is likely to be available beginning
of next year.
One of the reasons for requiring the spark gap in series with the varistor is a
possible increase
in leakage current if the varistor has been exposed to several mains
transients.

It should be noted, that IEC/EN 60950 does not require the use of transient
suppressing
components.

Concerning the

mit freundlichen Gruessen/ best regards
Volker Gasse

IBM Germany, Technical Relations/Product Safety,
Tel: +49 7031-16-6796, Fax: -6916, e-mail: ga...@de.ibm.com
Mail:  3114/7103-91, D-70548 Stuttgart, Germany

-- Forwarded by Volker Gasse/Germany/IBM on 15.12.98 11:20
---


owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on 15.12.98 02:11:00
Please respond to jeich...@statpower.com
To: j...@bighorn.dr.lucent.com
cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Varistors to ground


John:  Sorry I can't help, but I am interested in what replies you get.


I also wonder what force the Decision carries.  Is it a mandatory part
of the Low Voltage Directive?  How does it relate to the LVD or to the
various EN's in force under the LVD?

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these murky waters!

Regards,

Jim Eichner
Statpower Technologies Corporation
jeich...@statpower.com
http://www.statpower.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really
exists.  Honest.



> -Original Message-
> From: Boucher, John [SMTP:j...@bighorn.dr.lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 9:07 AM
> To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
> Subject: Varistors to ground
>
> All:
>
> I have received a copy of a CENELEC Decision (dated 6/98) regarding
> the use
> of varistors between mains conductors and ground. This particular
> Decision
> is written in a rather unclear fashion (at least its unclear to me...I
> tend
> to be rather literal in my interpretations of written requirements),
> and I
> am struggling with defining the actual requirements.
>
> If anyone out there has received this Decision, and believes they are
> clear
> about what the actual bottom line requirements are, please let me
> know. I
> have muddled through some of the issues, but need some confirmation on
> a
> couple of points (see the questions below). It may seem to some that
> the
> answers to these questions are straight-forward in the Decision, but I
> have
> studied this Decision (maybe too much) and find these points unclear.
>
> 1) Is this Decision only for pluggable equipment type A, or is the
> spark-gap
> / fuse requirement in effect for pluggable equipment type B as well?
>
> 2) Will  Denmark, UK, and Sweden accept varistors to ground if the
> circuit
> contains a spark-gap and two fuses?
>
> 3) The installation instructions for our PABX systems include the
> requirement for a permanently connected ground wire between the
> equipment
> ground and an approved building ground (this ground wire is in
> addition to
> the "green wire" lead in the AC mains). This wire is required for all
> our
> PABX systems (AC and DC powered systems, pluggable type A, type B, and
> permanently connected systems). Does this permanent ground connection
> provide an exemption to this Decision?
>
> If this Decision means DK, UK, SE will simply not accept varistors to
> ground, then

ANNOUNCE - FAQ: Sources of EMC & Safety Compliance Information, 32nd Issue

[Bill Lyons]

   FAQ: Sources of EMC & Safety Compliance Information

This is to let you know that I have just posted in two parts the 32nd
issue of the above FAQ to the newsgroup for regulatory/compliance matters 
and EMC and safety specifications and testing, 

   sci.engr.electrical.compliance  ("s.e.e.c").

The message IDs are:

Part 1: <913712811...@lyons.demon.co.uk>  Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:06:51 GMT
Part 2: <913712995...@lyons.demon.co.uk>  Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:09:55 GMT

The FAQ is archived at the following URL:

http://world.std.com/~techbook/compliance_faq.html

and the latest version should appear there in the next few days.

The textfiles may be accessed at:

Part 1: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk/seecfaq1.txt
Part 2: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk/seecfaq2.txt

Hope you find the FAQ useful:  suggestions for additions or corrections 
are welcomed.  

And a merry Christmas and a happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year to 
you all!

Bill.

-- 
Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org
 (maintainer of the s.e.e.c FAQ)
 http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk

=
Claude Lyons Limited  Brook Road  Waltham Cross   Herts EN8 7LR   England
 Voltage and Power Control - Precise Electrical Instrumentation
Tel: +44 1992 768 888 Fax: +44 1992 788 000 Telex: 22724 CL LTD G
email: i...@claudelyons.co.uk   URL: http://www.claudelyons.co.uk
=



-
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).

RE: EMC Requirements for Microphones

[John Harrington]

Advertising?

From:   "Monika Lopez" 
To: "'Kevin Richardson'" ,
"'EMC-PSTC - IEEE'" 
Subject:RE: EMC Requirements for Microphones
Date sent:  Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:01:38 -0800
Send reply to:  "Monika Lopez" 

> Hi Kevin,
> CKC Laboratories, Inc. is one of the few labs in the United States that is
> accreditated through DATech that can perform the required tests for type
> approval of such devices.  I-ETS 300 422 is one of the standards used for
> testing wireless microphones.  CKC Laboratories, Inc. is accreditated to
> test to this standard and many others. There is no need to go to a European
> Lab for testing.   We have experience in testing and receiving certification
> from European agencies.  If you would like further details or would like to
> schedule testing please give us a call at 209-966-5240.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Monika Lopez
> CKC Laboratories, Inc.
> 5473A Clouds Rest
> Mariposa, CA 95338
> Email: mlo...@ckc.com 
> Phone: (209) 966-5173
> Fax: (209) 742-6133
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Richardson
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 12:44 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC - IEEE
> Subject: EMC Requirements for Microphones
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Does anyone have any information regarding how microphones are covered by
> European EMC requirements and regulations.  I understand 89/392/EEC does
> not mention microphones but as most regulations/standards do not provide a
> definitive listing of all products types covered I am wondering if this
> really means microphones are not covered by the EMC regulations/Directives
> etc.
> 
> I am interested in finding out if there are any EMC requirements for any
> types of microphones (ie dynamic, condenser and radio).
> 
> Regarding radio microphones and their receiver units:
> I do not believe there would be any requirements for the radio microphone
> itself as it is an international transmitter and therefore not intended to
> be covered but what about the receiver unit?  Are the receiver units and
> the radio microphone treated as a "system" and because the "system"
> involves an intentional transmitter EMC is not required or is the receiver
> unit treated separately as a sound/audio receiver ie CISPR13/EN55013 ?
> 
> Any help/information would be appreciated.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kevin Richardson
> Stanimore Pty Limited
> Ph: 02-43-29-4070   Fax: 02-43-28-5639  Int'l: +61-2-43-2x-
> Email:  k...@compuserve.com (Internet)
>k...@technologist.com (alternate Internet)
>   100356,374 (Compuserve)
> 
> -
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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).
> 
> 


John Harrington
EMC Group Manager, KTL Hull
Telephone : +44 (0) 1482 801801
Fax : +44 (0) 1482 801806
email : jharring...@ktl.com


-
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).

RE: Stage Lighting Controls

[Anthony Henn (MEPCD)]

Try EN55103-1&2 - Audio, video &entertainment lighting control,
professional...

> -Original Message-
> From: Art Michael [SMTP:amich...@connix.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 3:38 PM
> To:   emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject:  Stage Lighting Controls
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
> Can anyone tell me what the requisite IEC and/or EN standard/s for Stage
> Lighting and Automation Controls are ?
> 
> ThanX and regards,
> 
> Art Michael
> 
> Happy Holidays to All
> 
> 
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
> *   International Product Safety Bookshop   *
>   *  Check out our current offerings! *
>   *  *   
> * A new service of the Safety Link  *
>  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
> 
> 
> -
> 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).

-
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).

[no subject]

[Christina J. Johnson]

Please take a few minutes to help me out!  I am putting together the
 following information for a personal research project.  All responses
will be considered anonymous and will not be revealed to any other
source.  I would like to get 100-200 responses from different sources
where possible.  In order to avoid flooding the list and to remain
anonymous, please email me directly.  
 
 I am interested in finding out what various labs use for their equipment
on their OATS's or  anechoic chamber sites for full compliance testing. 
Please provide manufacturer and model numbers of each analyzer or
receiver used  where possible as well as what emissions standards 
you test to.  Additionally, if you could  please confirm if you are a 
manufacturer who performs your  own testing or if you are an
independent test facility and if possible please specify the approximate 
number of employees working  in the test facility.
 
Thanks for your help

Email: chrisj...@juno.com  

___
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

-
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).

Re: NEC Question/Observation

[Robert Johnson]

This is not yet prohibited by the code. Therefore I suppose agencies are
somewhat obliged to approve a product provided it has the proper warnings.

You can resolve the situation by moving the existing wiring into an additional
box and provide a short length of new wire to the fixture's device box (note,
you must make splices in a box). Some fixtures actually solve the problem by
providing a wiring box at the end of a short pipe so it is cool enough for
standard wiring. Recessed incandescent fixtures have always been a problem in
this respect, especially with the advent of extra thick and loose attic
insulation. Remember as well to pay attention to the recommended wattage rating
for lamps or you can cook wires in a lot of fixtures, and if there's a little
wafer of insulation between the fixture and the box, remember to leave it in
place.

Note that in many localities, a "qualified electrician" (= licensed) is required
even to replace the fixture.

Bob

rbus...@es.com wrote:

> During a recent re-model at home I decided to replace the ceiling lamp in
> the dining room. Reading the instructions for the new lamp it stated:
>
>  " Warning, light fixture to be connected to wiring rated 80 degrees C. Most
> home older than 1985 will have 60 degree C wiring. Consult a qualified
> electrician".
>
> I was surprised that 1) I could buy a common light assembly and not have it
> correctly rated for the application, 2) a "qualified electrician was
> required" and 3) I question what changes would be necessary to properly use
> the light. Obviously you could run a new 80 degree C line, but this seems to
> be a bit of an overkill. Is this REALLY what they are suggesting? I would
> think that adequate thermal insulation between the fixture and the existing
> wiring would be all that is required The fixture itself would have 80 degree
> c wires.
>
> My apologies for submitting this national electrical code question, I
> realize it is not generally applicable to the products generally discussed
> on this list, but perhaps someone has some thoughts on it.
>
> Rick
> rbus...@es.com
>
> -
> 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).


-
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).

RE: EN 61000-4-4

[Kevin Harris]

I'm sorry I disagree with Mike's assessment. To take that argument to
it's logical conclusion would mean that I have to test the AC side at
the same time as I did my I/O. I've been told before by a couple of test
houses in the UK that all the cables at once is not acceptable according
to UKAS (UK test house accreditation agency). In section 6.3 of the
standard paragraph 5 says " The clamp itself shall be closed as much as
possible to provide maximum coupling capacitance between the cable and
the clamp" (no plurals there). This test is difficult enough to
reproduce this test from set up to set up without introducing the
uncertainties of  how a bundle of cables was arranged in the clamp.  

Regards,

Kevin Harris
Manager, Approval Services
Digital Security Controls
1645 Flint Road
Downsview, Ontario
CANADA
M3J 2J6

Tel +1  416 665 8460 Ext. 378
Fax +1 416 665 7753 

email: harr...@dscltd.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Mike  Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 3:34 PM
> To:   'Collins, Erik D.'; 'emc-pstc list server'
> Subject:  RE: EN 61000-4-4
> 
> Place all cables in the clamp together I agree the standard is
> not
> clear, but the intent was always that all the I/O cables be placed in
> the
> clamp together.
> 
> The idea is to simulate transients being coupled between lines in
> cable
> trays, especially where noisey ac lines are run near or adjecent to
> I/O
> lines. It's not likely the signals would be coupled to one line and
> not to
> another; in fact, because of the very fast pulses, everything gets
> very well
> coupled very quickly.
> 
> Mike Hopkins
> mhopk...@keytek.com
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Collins, Erik D. [SMTP:collin...@lxe.com]
> > Sent:   Monday, December 14, 1998 10:40 AM
> > To: 'emc-pstc list server'
> > Subject:EN 61000-4-4
> > 
> > When performing EFT/B on signal and control lines using the
> capacitive
> > coupling clamp, should you:
> > 
> > 1.  Place all cables in the clamp together
> > 2.  Place all cables in the clamp independently
> > 3.  Both
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Erik D. Collins
> > EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
> > LXE Inc.
> > Phone 770-447-4224 x3240
> > Fax   770-447-6928
> > 
> > Check out our website @:
> > http://www.lxe.com
> > 
> > -
> > 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).
> 
> -
> 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).

-
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).

Re: Heater Air Temperature

[Nick Williams]

EN60335-2-30:1992 section 11.8 modifies table 3 of EN60335-1:1995 as follows:

Heaters for mounting at high levels and no limit
fire guards and their immediate surrounds:

Air outlet grilles and their immediate surrounds, if of metal and which are
acessible to the test rod (notes 1, 2)

fan heaters 175K
other heaters   130K

Other metal surfaces which are accessible to the test rod (note 1):

if of metal  85K
if of glass 100K


Air-outlet grilles of built in heaters provided wth air-openings at floor
level or sill level:

if of metal  45K
if of other materials50K

Surface of the felt pad (note 3) 60K


notes:

1) "The test rod is 75mm in dia, of unrestricted length and with a
hemispherical end."

2) "If the air outlet grille cannot be identified and the air is emitted
through a substantial part of the enclosure, a temperature rise limit or
85K applies."

3) The felt pad is part of the tests of clause 11.2 and I'm not going to
repeat all the test here

4) The temperatures given are RISES, not absolutes.

5) EN60335-2-23, the standard for hair care appliances, and EN60335-1, the
general requirement, make no restrictions on the limit of temperature for
the outlte grille of hairdryers etc.

HTH


Nick.





>Dear All,
>
>For a floor-mounted unattended household appliance used in
>bathrooms, what is the maximum air temperature which should be
>measured at the heater grill? The heater element is something
>similar to ones employed in portable cord-connected room heaters.
>
>From UL499, I was able to depict 65 deg C temperature rise at an
>assumed ambient of 25 deg C. However, this does not seem to be
>correct, since Listed portable room heaters and/or portable hair
>dryers can produce air temperatures of up to 130 deg C.
>
>Can someone help?
>
>
>Best Regards and Happy and Safe Holidays to All
>PETER S. MERGUERIAN
>MANAGING DIRECTOR
>PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
>I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
>HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
>OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL
>
>TEL: 972-3-5339022
>FAX: 972-3-5339019
>E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
>Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il
>
>-
>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).




-
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).