Chicago EMC Event
Dear list members, The Chicago EMC Society are completing plans for a 1 day EMC minicon to be held in May 1999. The emphasis of the event is: 1) Emerging EMC technologies, an exhibits hall will be situated close by with many vendors offereing sample products. 2) Legal aspects of EMC. 2) What really is happening in Europe, a two hour presentation by an impartial retired CB employee. 3) An EMC Tutorial addressing fundamental concepts and resporces in the Chicago area. 4) Poster papers addressing current EMC Issues. The cost of the minicon will be under $50, including lunch. Would list members interested in attending this even please make themselves known to the writer so that they can be included on a mailing list. Thanks, Derek Walton Chairman, IEEE EMC Society Chicago Chapter. - 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).
Australian Safety Requirements
Hello everyone! My product ( ITE) is installed in cars and I am looking for regulations that govern this type of product and installation? I have found contacts with regard to EMC but nothing on Safety. Does anyone have an email address of a regulatory agency that deals with Safety of ITE in vehicles? Regards, Judd Stewart - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Fw: AFG1A Gyratory Compactor
Posted for Fowell Whitfield: From: fwhitfi...@rheintech.com Subject: AFG1A Gyratory Compactor Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:41:55 -0500 To: emc-p...@ieee.org I am currently evaluating a device from Pine Instrument Company that needs to be tested according to the EN 61010-1 Safety Standard. (i.e. Safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboratory use). The device is used to test asphalt samples and can be used both in the field and in the laboratory.I have not seen the actual device yet but I have a number of photographs. The input specifications are 15 amps at 115 Vac. The client needs answers to the following questions: 1.Should the specified current rating be the maximum or typical? 2.Can ground wires with crimped on ring terminals be stacked onto ground studs? How many per stud ? 3.The AC power entry module is rated 15 A. The breaker/switch is rated 15 A. Are these ratings okay? 4.Do the diode bridge in the transformer secondary and the filter capacitor need to have or agency approval or recognition ? 5.An OMRON G7L general purpose relay is used in the primary circuit. It has the following specifications: - High-capacity, high-withstand voltage relay compatible with momentary voltage drops. - No contact chattering for momentary voltage drops up to 50 % of rated voltage. - UL Class B construction standard. - Wide-range AC activated coil that handles 100 to 120 VAC at either 50 or 60 Hz. - Miniature hinge for maximum switching capacity, particularly for inductive loads. - Flame resistant materials (UL94V-0 qualifying) used for all insulation material. - Quick-connect, screw and PCB terminals available. - Standard models are UL, CSA and TUV approved; VDE versions are now available. - Conforming to IEC 950. Is the relay acceptable for the device? 6.At the Omron relay, there is a 12-volt DC coil used to switch line voltage. Should the wires that are close be double insulated(with tubing)? There is also a diode across the low voltage coil. Should its leads be double insulated? How should this be done? 7.Is it acceptable to use brown wires and blue wires on the 48 VAC transformer secondary ? If not, what colors are acceptable? 8.None of the hook up wires or cables have European recognition-they have UL/CSA. Is that okay or do we need European-approved cables? Can anyone recommend a vendor for these ? 9.Must all metal parts of the frame and body be firmly connected i.e. grounded, even if there are no electrical wires near them? For example, must the front and rear actuator guards be earth grounded? ( Changing from the rubber-backed washer to a normal flat should take care of this if it is needed.) Should this function be checked on each production unit ? What, if anything, must be tested and documented on each and every production unit? Any help that members of the group can give will be highly appeciated. Fowell Whitfield Safety Engineer Rhein Tech Labs ---End of Original Message- -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/01/1999 Time: 15:43:32 -- - 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: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Dave, I see here that we hold a different opinion... My opinion is that when I buy something I expect it to work. Perhaps with us all using windows this expectation has slipped a little ( come on LINUX! ). As a consumer, immunity testing is not a quality issue, it is a must. I don't hold true to the aspect of EMC being expensive either, my lab ( and I bet a number of other labs ) charge is well under $1k/day for testing. We can cover a lot of ground in that time. I don't believe that the bigger, more expensive labs do a better job either. They have much more over head, which you end up paying for... Ironically, they have little knowledge about what's being tested too: I bet a load of things ( which you can be held accountable for ) get missed. I believe that the best solution is a smaller lab that serves several companies, so that they intimately know what's being tested, and in short order can fully evaluate new designs and/or design changes. This is the way we operate, and so far, we have impressed our customers and the competent body we use when called for. Ironically, I've seen companies spend more money trying to avoid meeting EMC requirements than it would cost to comply. EMC should be a way of life, if it's designed in ( and by now it should be ), verification by test is not that expensive Derek Walton. Owner L F Research - 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: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335
Derek: It is not so much as being organized but to what extent. Except for a few critical applications there is no need for mandatory immunity requirements if there are emission requirements. Probably the reverse is also true but to my knowledge this has never been proven. Immunity is considered by most a quality issue and as such does not need to be a part of a certification process. Some say having immunity is like using a belt and suspender. There is a growing concern that EMC means Eliminate Minor Companies. The European SLIM group is and has been investigating the necessity for all the mandatory EMC standards. Even in Europe there is concern that too many tests are required before a product can be introduced into the market. One should ask if there is a justification for additional requirements. Being organized should have nothing to do with any certification process. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 1:12 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; n...@conformance.co.uk Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EMC requirements proposed for IEC60335 Folks, I posed the question of Immunity standards being enforced in the USA to Art Whal(?) of the FCC. He did not see the need for immunity enforcement. After a lengthy discussion I formed the opinion that it is most likely the FCC will never press this issue, it will have to come from another STDs body. Pity the USA isn't as organized as Europe;-) Derek. - 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: EMC and Software
Bob, In my experience in the commercial computing arena at NCR I have found that software can definitely influence radiated emissions. My experience is in very high speed digital systems. In systems where the dominant EMI sources are from the I/O signals on cables, then the bit pattern of that signal has a big influence on radiated emissions. The bit pattern is determined by software, or firmware, or some set of computer instructions. For example, I have a very high speed digital system that idles with a bit pattern that is much like a repetitive clock pulse. It produces a very strong emission at its characteristic frequency. However, when the system is truly operating and sending real data, the signal bit patterns on the cables are much more complex, producing a much richer spectrum of radiated emissions, but with the peaks many dB lower than the idle pattern's peak. In this case, the software has a real influence on the emissions spectrum. I think that if you had a system that had noisier boards, so that an important EMI source were common-mode signals on the ground plane from clock signals (a common problem), then software activity may have much less effect on radiated emissions. Yes, the effects are system dependent, but for some categories of systems, software activity is an important ingredient in producing radiated emissions. I have another example! We use arrays of disk drive storage (many gigabytes) in our systems. Typically, these arrays are driven by SCSI cables. We have found over the years that we should run software programs that try to maximize disk activity (reads and writes) when performing EMI compliance tests. We usually get stronger emissions when the drives are very active. This is another example of software influencing radiated emissions. This is a bit of a ramble, but I hope the thoughts are helpful to you. Jim Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org Senior Consulting Engineer NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com Tel: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 -- From: rehel...@mmm.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 10:30 AM To: Knighten, Jim Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC and Software Sorry for not being clear: I have received and read a fair amount of data on the containment and recovery from ESD spikes through the use of software. Can software also control and/or limit the amount of emissions from equipment? Harmonics? Voltage variations? I know the question is broad and the answers may be equipment specific. But when software and hardware design engineers get together on a design, are there any general rules of thumb or specifics that they should be aware of in terms of EMC? Thanks again, Bob Heller === === Knighten, Jim knigh...@trans.sandiegoca.ncr.com on 03/01/99 11:54:44 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US cc: Subject: RE: EMC and Software Bob, Before I respond to this, could you please elaborate a little. I am not certain I understand what you are asking for? Jim Knighten Dr. Jim Knighten e-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org Senior Consulting Engineer NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com Tel: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 -- From: rehel...@mmm.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 6:03 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC and Software Could someone provide their knowledge of or resources for the control or mitigation of EMI through the use of software? Thanks, Bob Heller 3M Company - 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: EMC and Software
In message 86256727.004c9043...@em-stpmta-01.mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com writes: Could someone provide their knowledge of or resources for the control or mitigation of EMI through the use of software? Bob and EMC-PSTC colleagues: There was an excellent colloquium on this subject at the IEE in London last November. I am appending below a copy of the announcement (which did appear here last year), and the IEE or Richard Marshall may be able to provide copies of the digest. -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY OF SOFTWARE IEE, Savoy Place, London WC2R 0BL, UK Thursday, 12 November 1998 Colloquium organised by IEE Professional Group E2 (Electromagnetic compatibility). Co-sponsored by the British Computer Society. Appropriate software resilience can significantly improve the immunity of computer based hardware that must operate despite electromagnetic interference. Input, output and network connections pose particular problems. In cost-sensitive applications the requirement for filtering and shielding can be reduced, and in high integrity systems software can help ensure fault-tolerant or fail-safe response to extreme electromagnetic stress. Accordingly the Colloquium will address the software design techniques that can improve immunity to lightning and electrostatic discharge, to radiation from cellular phones and other transmitters and to mains-borne interference. Software design to minimise emissions will be of interest. Closely related hardware such as watchdog circuits will be covered. Contributions covering the interaction between software resilience and EMC testing will be welcomed, as will descriptions of new developments and tutorial papers. Special provision will be made for short contributions describing specific problems and their solutions. For details of attendance at the Colloquium, contact The Institution of Electrical Engineers, Savoy Place, London WC2R 0BL, UK Tel: +44 171 240 1871 ext 2205 or 2206 +44 171 836 0313 (recorded announcements re meeting changes) Fax: +44 171 240 7735 email: confere...@iee.org.uk URL: http://www.iee.org.uk/ Although the formal deadline (14 August 1998) for submissions has passed, a late contribution may be possible by submitting a synopsis to: Richard C Marshall The Dappled House, 30 Ox Lane, Harpenden, Herts AL5 4HE, U.K. Tel: +44 1582 460 815 email: richard.marsh...@lineone.net N.B. In response to queries in the EMC-PSTC mailing list (for details of this list see section 1.4 of the s.e.e.c FAQ), Richard responded with the following FAQs: Readers have asked: * If they can get the colloquium papers? The answer is yes, after the event, and at a charge. Email me at richard.marsh...@lineone.net if you want details in November. * What is it all about? Two examples: * Software filtering of inputs. I have recently done a fast-transient test to IEC801-4 on a microprocessor based product that serves two different functions according to the position of a remote switch. It failed the test, jumping from one function to the other when the test was applied. (The IEC801-4 bursts are quite brief but recur every 300 ms during the test). If the software had been written to wait and check again, say 200 ms after the switch appeared to have changed, that it was indeed still changed, then the product would have been immune to this interference. The resulting delay in responding to the switch would not have mattered in this application and a few extra lines of code cost nothing when the device is in quantity production. * Reset and restart after program corruption Watchdogs are actually quite difficult to design, but a good one can ensure that a product recovers without any help from the user after impulsive interference - fast transient or ESD - which can change the failure from performance criterion A to performance criterion B in EN50082-1. Now, have readers any experiences of this sort of software design/EMC interaction that they could share? If so I would like to hear them!. Richard Marshall Richard Marshall Limited, Herts., UK Analogue rf design; EMC; Safety Critical Systems (see above for address, phone email details) - 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: C Tick..
Best person to consult with is Kevin Richardson in Australia. His address follows. He has helped us out and I highly recommend his services. His URL is: 100356@compuserve.com Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:13 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Sparacino,George' Subject: RE: C Tick.. George, See Comments below. -- From: Sparacino,George[SMTP:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com] Reply To: Sparacino,George Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: C Tick.. Good day, I was asked to investigate what is required to obtain the C tick for our products. Our products have been evaluated to the applicable stds as prescribed by the EMC directive for ITE equipment (emissions immunity). My Questions: I understand that the c tick marking is a required marking of EMC approval for electronic devices. Does this cover both emissions immunity ? or just emissions ? Just emissions. Can I request applications myself (I'm in the USA) or do I need an Australian rep to do this ? An Australian National must make the initial application that assigns a number to your products via the importer or the Australian branch of your company. This number is part of the C-tick mark logo placed on each product. Could I present my existing reports / certificates (created to satisfy EMC directive), or am I required to generate new ones in a specified (ACA) report format. Your existing reports are sufficient to be legal. However, in the case of conflict, the results of an Australian lab have the final say. Thanks for any help you can give me. George Good luck, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic The comments above are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of my company. - 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: C Tick..
The MRA with Australia is currently in force..and A2LA (AALA) and NVLAP are both signatories. === = Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com on 03/01/99 01:35:29 PM Please respond to Jim Hulbert hulbe...@pb.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: C Tick.. One further note: I believe a U.S. lab that is accredited by either AALA or NVLAP is considered a certified lab under mutual recognition agreement. However, I'm not sure of the current status of the MRA. Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes -- Forwarded by Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI on 03/01/99 02:33 PM --- From: WOODS RICHARD wo...@sensormatic.com AT SMTPGWY on 03/01/99 08:58 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org AT SMTPGWY@pbiccmail, 'Sparacino George' sparaci...@andovercontrols.com AT SMTPGWY@pbiccmail cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: RE: C Tick.. George you can find a complete description of the requirements at http://www.sma.gov.au/ http://www.sma.gov.au/ . Only emissions are required. The person residing in Australia and responsible for placing the product on the market is responsible for making the application. Reports are not required to be submitted, but must be available for inspection. Existing reports are acceptable, however, the authorities have the right to accept reports only from certified labs. -- From: Sparacino,George [SMTP:sparaci...@andovercontrols.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: C Tick.. Good day, I was asked to investigate what is required to obtain the C tick for our products. Our products have been evaluated to the applicable stds as prescribed by the EMC directive for ITE equipment (emissions immunity). My Questions: I understand that the c tick marking is a required marking of EMC approval for electronic devices. Does this cover both emissions immunity ? or just emissions ? Can I request applications myself (I'm in the USA) or do I need an Australian rep to do this ? Could I present my existing reports / certificates (created to satisfy EMC directive), or am I required to generate new ones in a specified (ACA) report format. Thanks for any help you can give me. George - 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). RFC822.TXT Description: Text - character set unknown
Re: Standards history
I can fill in a little. It will be interesting to hear other historical views. EN60950 was copied from IEC 950 IEC 950 has been renumbered to IEC 60950 in line with the EC numbering scheme. IEC 950, Information Technology Equipment First edition1986 Amendment 1Nov-88 Amendment 2Jun-90 Second editionSep 91 Amendment 1Feb-92 Amendment 2Jun-93 Amendment 3Jan-95 Amendment 4Jul-96 Third editionAny day now. IEC 950 was the result of the merger of IEC 380 on business equipment, and IEC 435 on data processing equipment. Sorry, I don't have date histories on 380 or 435. IEC 950 has recently incorporated telecom needs, deriving much from IEC guide 105, EN 41003 and UL 1459 into the standard starting with the second edition third amendment and expanded significantly in the fourth amendment. IEC 435 was developed in the 1970s and inherited the aspects of a couple cultures. In general terms, the fire control portions came from North America, mostly out of UL 478, and the shock control portions came from Europe, mostly from VDE standards. The fire control portions seem to reflect the concerns in North America of largely wood construction which is quite sensitive to fire propagation. UL had previously developed a substantial base of flammability testing and construction rules which were incorporated as flame resisitance ratings and enclosure requirements into UL 478. The shock control seems to be driven from the increased risk of shock from higher mains voltages in Europe. Double insulation and the SELV circuit concept was the primary means to improve shock risk. At the same time IEC 950 was merging from its office and data processing roots, UL was doing the same by merging UL 114, office equipment and UL 478, data processing, into UL 1950, ITE. All use of UL 114 and 478 will be ended on 15 March 2000. CSA likewise merged CSA 143, office equipment and CSA 154, data processing, into CSA 220. UL and CSA made a transition from their old formats to CSA 950 in the IEC 950 format (with deviations) in the current edition. CSA 143 and 154 expired on 30 September 1993 and CSA 220 on 30 September 1999. EN60950 closely followed the IEC 950 schedule with: First edition 1988 Amendment 11990 Amendment 21991 Second edition1992 Amendment 11992 Amendment 21993 Amendment 31995 Amendment 41997 Third editionAlso close on the heels of IEC 950. Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello All, I doing a research that deals with EN standards. I'd like to know if someone has a brief historical of the changes from the early standards till actual standards (for example, IEC555 turned to IEC1000-3-2 and after EN61000-3-2). I'd like to know the reason for different naming and if possible the year of the changing... Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely Muriel -- == 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.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: CE mark self certification
Dan, I have to agree with Rich Nute of HP (message below), but I would like to add to it. Unless you have had experience creating a decent TCF and have a good example of one, it would be wise, at least once, to use a NB. This way you would have a nice example of a document. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 24 Fax: 516-567-8322 -Original Message- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [mailto:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 4:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: CE mark self certification Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of going through a notified body for CE Mark as opposed to self certifying? It costs a load of money to retain the services of a notified body and I was wondering what you really get from it. Thanks, Dan GE Fanuc Automation __ Daniel W. Biggs Test Engineer Hardware Development GE Fanuc Automation PO Box 8106 Charlottesville, VA 22906 PH: (804) 978-6946 Fax: (804) 978-5588 E-mail: daniel.bi...@cho.ge.com ** Its a business decision. Assuming the documentation takes the same amount of time, regardless whether a NCB or you... If you use a NCB, your company pays them for their work and their profit. You can do something else. If you prepare a TCF, your company pays you for the work, but doesn't pay anyone any profit. You should be faster than the NCB (since you know your product well). So it should be less costly to do the TCF. But, you can't do something else. What do you get from the NCB? A document. What do you have with a TCF? A document. The only advantage of using the NCB is that the document might be less prone to a critical review by authorities than a TCF. If you are going to other countries outside the EU, a CB Certificate and Test Report can be used to quickly and reasonably obtain any necessary certifications. Otherwise, its one test per country. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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: CE mark self certification
Perhaps you are paying too much for a Notified Body. Shop around. The one major reason of using a NB is that you have lots of variants that you don't want to spend money on lots of tests. So, you make logical arguments to the NB instead of testing. I know of one major pc company that does this and they pay very little to their NB. -- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [SMTP:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 4:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: CE mark self certification Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of going through a notified body for CE Mark as opposed to self certifying? It costs a load of money to retain the services of a notified body and I was wondering what you really get from it. Thanks, Dan GE Fanuc Automation __ Daniel W. Biggs Test Engineer Hardware Development GE Fanuc Automation PO Box 8106 Charlottesville, VA 22906 PH: (804) 978-6946 Fax: (804) 978-5588 E-mail: daniel.bi...@cho.ge.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: CE mark self certification
To be proper the NCB should only issue test reports, the Declaration always has to come from the manufacturer but can be based on your own testing or an NCB. NCB's can still very good in that they can give you access to markets in other countries besides just the European Union. Just a thought!!! Monty Griffith Senior Product Safety Engineer EMC Quality Manager Intergraph Compliance Services Ph. (256) 730-6017 Fx. (256) 730-6239 http://mecsrv.b29.ingr.com -Original Message- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [SMTP:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 3:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: CE mark self certification Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of going through a notified body for CE Mark as opposed to self certifying? It costs a load of money to retain the services of a notified body and I was wondering what you really get from it. Thanks, Dan GE Fanuc Automation __ Daniel W. Biggs Test Engineer Hardware Development GE Fanuc Automation PO Box 8106 Charlottesville, VA 22906 PH: (804) 978-6946 Fax: (804) 978-5588 E-mail: daniel.bi...@cho.ge.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: CE mark self certification
Can an example of a TCF be found other than by this expensive route? === John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com on 03/02/99 07:43:50 AM Please respond to John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com To: 'Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)' bigg...@gemischova.ge.com 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: CE mark self certification Dan, I have to agree with Rich Nute of HP (message below), but I would like to add to it. Unless you have had experience creating a decent TCF and have a good example of one, it would be wise, at least once, to use a NB. This way you would have a nice example of a document. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 24 Fax: 516-567-8322 -Original Message- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [mailto:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 4:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: CE mark self certification Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of going through a notified body for CE Mark as opposed to self certifying? It costs a load of money to retain the services of a notified body and I was wondering what you really get from it. Thanks, Dan GE Fanuc Automation __ Daniel W. Biggs Test Engineer Hardware Development GE Fanuc Automation PO Box 8106 Charlottesville, VA 22906 PH: (804) 978-6946 Fax: (804) 978-5588 E-mail: daniel.bi...@cho.ge.com ** Its a business decision. Assuming the documentation takes the same amount of time, regardless whether a NCB or you... If you use a NCB, your company pays them for their work and their profit. You can do something else. If you prepare a TCF, your company pays you for the work, but doesn't pay anyone any profit. You should be faster than the NCB (since you know your product well). So it should be less costly to do the TCF. But, you can't do something else. What do you get from the NCB? A document. What do you have with a TCF? A document. The only advantage of using the NCB is that the document might be less prone to a critical review by authorities than a TCF. If you are going to other countries outside the EU, a CB Certificate and Test Report can be used to quickly and reasonably obtain any necessary certifications. Otherwise, its one test per country. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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: CE mark self certification
Good Question. I had a TCF done once by an NB, and then completed other TCF's based on that example and it was well received where ever I sent it. I never conducted research into another example of a TCF. Anyone? John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 24 Fax: 516-567-8322 -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 2:45 PM To: John Juhasz Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: CE mark self certification Can an example of a TCF be found other than by this expensive route? === John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com on 03/02/99 07:43:50 AM Please respond to John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com To: 'Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)' bigg...@gemischova.ge.com 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: RE: CE mark self certification Dan, I have to agree with Rich Nute of HP (message below), but I would like to add to it. Unless you have had experience creating a decent TCF and have a good example of one, it would be wise, at least once, to use a NB. This way you would have a nice example of a document. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 24 Fax: 516-567-8322 -Original Message- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [mailto:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 4:53 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: CE mark self certification Can anyone explain the advantages/disadvantages of going through a notified body for CE Mark as opposed to self certifying? It costs a load of money to retain the services of a notified body and I was wondering what you really get from it. Thanks, Dan GE Fanuc Automation __ Daniel W. Biggs Test Engineer Hardware Development GE Fanuc Automation PO Box 8106 Charlottesville, VA 22906 PH: (804) 978-6946 Fax: (804) 978-5588 E-mail: daniel.bi...@cho.ge.com ** Its a business decision. Assuming the documentation takes the same amount of time, regardless whether a NCB or you... If you use a NCB, your company pays them for their work and their profit. You can do something else. If you prepare a TCF, your company pays you for the work, but doesn't pay anyone any profit. You should be faster than the NCB (since you know your product well). So it should be less costly to do the TCF. But, you can't do something else. What do you get from the NCB? A document. What do you have with a TCF? A document. The only advantage of using the NCB is that the document might be less prone to a critical review by authorities than a TCF. If you are going to other countries outside the EU, a CB Certificate and Test Report can be used to quickly and reasonably obtain any necessary certifications. Otherwise, its one test per country. Best regards, Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.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: CE mark self certification
Chaps, What in particular about a TCF contect puzzles you? Derek. Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility - 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: CE mark self certification
Nothing about the content is puzzling..the basic required content is pretty much defined. I am more curious as to the format, presentation, added extras, handling of measurement uncertainty, etc. that is used by industry wide TCF creators. The content of EMC Test Reports are clearly defined by accrediting agencies...but I guarantee you they are as different as night and day across the industry. Bob Heller lfresea...@aol.com on 03/02/99 02:51:20 PM To: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US jjuh...@fiberoptions.com cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: CE mark self certification Chaps, What in particular about a TCF contect puzzles you? Derek. Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility - 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: CE mark self certification
Bob, here is what I do I prepare a main report. In this report I give all the background data, the make up of the system, what specifically is there for EMC purposes etc.. As part of this report I have the table saying what the equipment has to meet, this table references additional reports where the data supporting our claims can be found. If we have to make an exception, for whatever reason, I include that in the report where data is. I keep Appendicies for containing details when changes have to be made. I include tationale if the change is small. Large changes result in the CB getting chance to review the document again and issue another certificate. Just FYI, all documentation, including the CB documents are in Adobe Acrobat and the references are hot linked. It fits neatly on a CD ROM, I keep one copy at work and one at home. Some aspects of the TCF will be on our website soon, but the TCF does contain too much detail on how we make things happen for it all to be public. Any use to you? Best regards, Derek. - 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).
C-Tick importer variation
Hi, I have a doubts here regarding the Australia EMC framework. Electronic products importing into AS/NZ requires to comply to EMI (emission) requirement and the respsonble party need to declare the DoC. He would need to hold the DoC with supporting documents. Test reports from recognise test house would be preferred. Let narrow down to the following assumption. The electronic product does not have connection to telephone network and no AC power input. The responsible party be an importer. And all products from my company is imported thru them. The test house is either NATA accredited or having MRA with NATA accreditation. The C-Tick mark is having supplier code used on the label. Now the situation is that our importer has registered with ACA(say having N123). We are purchasing/OEM products from supplier A. The supplier A is having their Australian importer (say N555) on the product label. What are my options for importing the product into AS/NZ in respect to which supplier code to use. Questions: 1) Are we allow to use N555? If yes, what documents, proof or/and letters do we need from the supplier? 2) Do our importer needs to declare the DoC? 3) If we are requesting the supplier to change the brandname on the product label, is N555 still applicable? How about change of model # too? 4) If we are to remove N555 on the product and use N123, is re-testing required? 5) If there's product non-conformance found in the market, who will be the responsible one? Who would be audited, and for worst case, who would be fine? Your feedback/advice is much appreciated. Regards Koh - 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: C-Tick importer variation
Koh, You can continue to import product with the N555 code on it if your importer (N123) has a written agreement with importer N555 to do so. Your importer will need to maintain this letter in his files for ACA audits. I know that this has come up recently and that the ACA has accepted this procedure, in fact they have required it. Check with them. Dick Shultz On 3/2/99 8:36 AM WOODS, RICHARD wo...@sensormatic.com said OEM devices may be imported by more than one company. Each importer is responsible for filing their own application, having their own approval, applying the c-tick mark, and issuing a DoC. One importer cannot use the markings of another importer. Either the OEM or the importer may apply the label. Each importer can use the test data from the OEM. If the model number on the product differs from the one on the test report, the OEM should issue a declaration of identity stating that the two products are identical. -- From: kohscp [SMTP:koh...@cyberway.com.sg] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:08 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: C-Tick importer variation Hi, I have a doubts here regarding the Australia EMC framework. Electronic products importing into AS/NZ requires to comply to EMI (emission) requirement and the respsonble party need to declare the DoC. He would need to hold the DoC with supporting documents. Test reports from recognise test house would be preferred. Let narrow down to the following assumption. The electronic product does not have connection to telephone network and no AC power input. The responsible party be an importer. And all products from my company is imported thru them. The test house is either NATA accredited or having MRA with NATA accreditation. The C-Tick mark is having supplier code used on the label. Now the situation is that our importer has registered with ACA(say having N123). We are purchasing/OEM products from supplier A. The supplier A is having their Australian importer (say N555) on the product label. What are my options for importing the product into AS/NZ in respect to which supplier code to use. Questions: 1) Are we allow to use N555? If yes, what documents, proof or/and letters do we need from the supplier? 2) Do our importer needs to declare the DoC? 3) If we are requesting the supplier to change the brandname on the product label, is N555 still applicable? How about change of model # too? 4) If we are to remove N555 on the product and use N123, is re-testing required? 5) If there's product non-conformance found in the market, who will be the responsible one? Who would be audited, and for worst case, who would be fine? Your feedback/advice is much appreciated. Regards Koh - 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).
EMC Requirements for the Czech Republic
Hello All, I seem to remember reading that the Czech Republic now accepted DoCs for ITE based on European norms, both for EMC and safety. Can anybody confirm or deny? Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.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).
CE marking - self-certification
PSNet This ongoing discussion of self certification brings to the surface several issues... In applying the CE marking to equipment, the manufacturer must sign the Manufacturer's Declaration of Conformity. In doing so, it must include a list of the Directives and Standards that the manufacturer claims to meet. The manufacturer is allowed to do all the work to ascertain compliance without the use of any outside help. In fact, that is commonly encouraged by the EU. In looking at the practicallity of this, hardly any small companies have the resources of an in-house, full EMC lab to determine the acceptability of their product to meet these requirements. So, this is often hired out. On the mechanical and electrical safety side, most engineering departments feel that they can properly assess their equipement against the requirements. This is usually the point of discussion of self-certification. Just one reminder, however, that the person who signs the MDoC for the company bears personal criminal liability in EU law if they sign falsely. So, the signer should ask carefully if the evaluators of the equipment not only understood the technical requirements, but do they understand the usual European interpretation of these requirements. If there is any doubt in having this Euro understanding, the use of a Notified Body on the first few projects will go a long way in assuring that the Euro interpretation is understood and used in the product evaluation. So it costs a lot of money, you say... What's it worth to insure that you don't get harassed about your meeting the requiements by some NCB who is following up on a complaint... or worse, find yourself not being able to defend compliance to the requirments because you didn't understand the usual Euro interpretation of the requirements... This little homily can, again, be classified as a word to the wise or deficient... pick your poison... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - 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).
Argentina's Resolution 92
Per Resolution 92, Argentina was scheduled to require a Conformity-to-Type Certificate for electronic apparatus effective 18 June, 1999. The problem, of course, was that when the resolution was published they did not have the infrastructure nor MRAs in place to accomplish this task. Has anyone heard of any change in their capabilities to test, MRAs with other agencies, or a change in the date? - 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).
