RE: UL Yellow Book
There may be other places but I ordered my through Global Engineering Documents at http://global.ihs.com/ . There are two volumes. Recognized Component Directory and Recognized Plastics Directory. Combined they are a little over $100.00 US. And I would recommend getting both. There are no web sites other than those belonging to the individual component manufacturer. I doubt that UL would have the server horsepower to handle the number of site hits. Would be extremely helpful if they every got around to putting the whole works onto a CD Rom. The ability to do a text search could save us all lots of time. Gary -Original Message- From: Nezam Najafi [SMTP:nezam.naj...@madge.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 11:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:UL Yellow Book To All: Can any one tell me how to obtain the UL yellow book. Is there any site to make a query to find out if a components is UL listed or recognized? I will thank you for any repose in advance. Regards, Nezam Najafi Madge Networks, Inc. 625 Industrial Way West Eatontown NJ 07724 Voice: 732-460-6825 Fax: 732-460-6964 - 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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz
TEC in Mountain View is now producing a 1-6 GHz pre-amp for EMC applications. SMA or N. Call John Fisher Jr. for details at 800-TEC-DOES === Best Regards Hans Mellberg EMC Consultant __ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Job Opening for Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Ladies and Gentlemen, Compaq Computer Corp., Tandem Division, located in Cupertino, CA (near San Jose) is looking for a Sr. Regulatory Compliance engineer. We're looking for someone with 5-10 years of hands-on design related Product Safety or EMC experience in meeting global safety or emissions/immunity standards, can work on multiple assignments, and likes working in a team environment. Regulatory design skills must include: cabinet/enclosure, printed circuit boards, power systems, power line and I/O filtering. Responsibilities will be to provide design guidance, test plans, test and troubleshooting support, regression testing, compliance verifications and compliance test report preparation. Please reply to this message or fax your resume for immediate consideration to (408) 285-2553, Attention: Roger Volgstadt Thank you. Regards. - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
80/80 calculation rules for CISPR22/EN55022
Dear colleagues, My subject of interest is the statistical rule explain in chapter 9.2 of EN55022 (also called the 80/80). Reading the standard, I don't know on which value I have to apply the rule. In fact, I usually apply the rule on each suspect frequency (about 5 by product) and I compare the calculated LEVEL to the Limit, in dBµV. One of my customer is asking me to make this calculation on the MARGIN. For each product, I have to take the worst margin, and I make the calculation for the x products I have. The calcul gives a result which has to be compare to 0 (zero). The resulting margin has to be less than 0. How do you perform this calculation ? On which value do you perform it (margin, level, azimuth, height of antenna, ...) ? What are your own experience with your products or your customer ? In advance, I thank you a lot for your answer, which, I'm sure, will be of great value (80/80 calculation, of course !!) Best regards, Pierre Selva Laboratory responsible EMC and Safety laboratory SMEE Actions MesuresPh : 33 4 76 65 76 50 ZI des Blanchisseries Fx : 33 4 76 66 18 30 38500 VOIRON - France e-mail : actionsmesu...@compuserve.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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE:Ground Bond Test
As usual Egon, you are correct we have abandoned are old 25 Amp tester and created a new fixture to allow us to do the continuity tests at twice the rating of the branch protection, 30,40 or 60 Amps. We tried many different approaches and quoted many different standards but this issue is one that UL and CSA will not budge on. You may get by at 25 if you list under UL1950 Second Edition for U.S. only but third edition or a C-UL mark will have you testing at 30 Amps or twice the rating of the branch protection. Also UL does not consider supplementary protector ratings as applicable, so if you want to base your test current on inherent devices in the equipment you have to make sure the protection device is listed to the proper UL standard. By the way, CSA 0.4 is required not only in Canada, but also in the US. Since both countries have adopted the same binational CSA950/UL1950 standard, and since CSA 0.4 is specifically required by this standard, this has become an official requirement for the US. This is an unequivocal requirement, so I have no doubt that all US safety agencies are diligently performing the CSA tests. Monty Griffith Senior Product Safety Engineer EMC Quality Manager Intergraph Compliance Services Ph. (256) 730-6017 Fx. (256) 730-6239 http://cscsrv.ics.ingr.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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: ground bond test
Interesting how the this forum hits on my concerns. I recently had a new product witnessed by a UL engineer from NorthbrooK. He wanted to see the ground bond test performed and so I ran the test for two minutes at 30A and 6Vac. When he saw this, he demanded the test be run at 12Vac which is beyond the capability of the tester. Is there any requirement to run this at 12V? The test described in UL 1950 3rd edition 2.5.11 states The test voltage does not exceed 12V and current of [25 or 30 A] depending on CSA or UL (we certify to both). As an aside, the engineer was new to ITE, having previously been in the 'hazardous locations' segment of the Engineering Services department. Kyle - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hello Rich, EN 50116:1996 'Routine electrical safety testing in production' is meant to be used in conjunction with document CCA-201 'Factory inspection procedures-CCA Harmonized requirements'. CCA stands for 'Cenelec Certification Agreement'. The document deals with typical factory inspection procedures and tests which a manufacturer is expected to provide to ensure that all certified products are identical within accepted manufacturing tolerances to the sample against which the Certificate was granted. The grounding test (Sect. 15.1) only requires the grounding path resistance to be below 0.1 Ohm (without the line cord), a test current of 1.5 times the current carrying capability of all circuits with hazardous voltages, but not above 25 A. The time duration is not specified, but shall be long enough, to receive a meaningful evidence about the tested parts and the protective earth. 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: D3114/7103-91, D-70548 Stuttgart, Germany Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com on 26.08.99 02:03:38 Please respond to Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com To: harr...@dscltd.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org (bcc: Volker Gasse/Germany/IBM) Subject: Re: Grounding Bond Test Hi Kevin: Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not dealing with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive the requirements for meeting the LVD in Europe. If it is indeed as you say, then where does it put those of us who have in house safety testing and self certify. I'm not sure that EN 50116 is a EU-adopted standard. If true, its use is at the discretion of the certification house. Or the manufacturer. The implication of your question is that ALL products bearing the CE (for safety) mark must be tested at 25 amps for 1 minute (or the lesser current). In either case, the 1-minute is onerous -- even prohibitive -- for high-volume production (i.e., where production approaches or exceeds 1/minute). We have a number of CB Certifications by non-Euro certification houses. None of these certification houses impose EN 50116. We DON'T perform a 1-minute test, nor do we perform a high-current test. Perhaps another of our subscribers can comment on the status of EN 50116 with respect to the EU. Best regards, Rich - 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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Grounding Bond Test
The original post said : EN 50116 for ITE specifies the earthing terminal or earthing contact may not exceed 0.1 ohms when 1.5 times the current capacity of hazardous circuits is applied, but not more than 25 A (ac or dc) for 60 seconds. My copy of EN50116 specifies the time as being for the time required to obtain a meaningful reading. I don't think this has been changed. As far as the test required for CSA - look in your CSA Test Report on your product under Factory Tests. For UL, in the Standardized Appendix Pages for IT Equipment (NWGQ), (See Subject 1950 and 1459 letter from UL dated October 26, 1998) you will see that the Production Line Grounding Continuity Test only requires any suitable continuity indicating device such as an ohmmeter, a battery and buzzer combination, or the like, with no mention of a specific current or time. Regards, 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. - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components
Dear Mohajer and all If you are using type K thermocouplers you will have to turn off power to the component before measuring the temp. Since they are sensitive to magnetic fields. Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen i-data, Denmark Kamran Mohajer kmoha...@cisco.com on 99-08-24 23:50:26 Please respond to Kamran Mohajer kmoha...@cisco.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Kim Boll Jensen/INT) Subject: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components Hello EMC-PSTCers, I wonder if anyone knows of the method of measuring temperature limits on magnetic components. I happen to get involved in this and found that my results are different than the vendors result by as much as 10-15 degrees on measuring on a same magnetic component. Even applying the thermocouple to different location on a coil seems to give you different results. Is there a method that I should be following to measure temperature with thermocouples methods, not change of resistance, on magnetic parts such as transformers, coils, etc.? Thanks, *** Kamran Mohajer DSL Compliance Lead Cisco Systems, Inc. Phone(408)-525-6121 Fax(408)527-0495 kmoha...@cisco.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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Status of IRAM ITE cerification?
Friedemann, Yes, CSA has an agreement for testing to IRAM requirements, and for looking after the whole certification process. My latest information indicates that the person to contact is: Mr. Gregoire Daniszewski CSA International Tel: (416) 747-4331 Fax: (416) 401-6501 e-mail: danis...@csa.ca Regards, Egon At 05:46 PM 25/08/1999 , you wrote: Dear audience, On this site I noted a while ago info from Ed.Price about an agreement between CSA and Argentina's IRAM to acknowledge each others certifications. Mandatory IRAM certification for ITE appeared immanent by Sept. '99. Somehow I am not able to retrieve an up-date on the requirements from IRAM's web site. ( web site : http://iram.com.ar/certificacion.htm ) Can anyone point me in the right direction or share his or her related knowledge with the group? Thank you Fred Adt ViewSonic Corporation. __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca var...@csa.ca __ - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Bond Test
The obvious question I would have is... why couldn't you test at a higher current for longer time meeting both requirements? For example 30A for two minutes. I know the document indicates a maximum current, but does this make sense? Works for me. I can't imagine any agency refusing to accept a 30A test for 2 min, versus a 25A test for 1 min. Just one small caution: the pass/fail requirements are similar, but not the same. The 25A test (IEC) sets an impedance limit of 0.1 ohms; the 30A test (CSA) sets a voltage drop limit of 4V (ie. 0.133 ohms). So it is possible to pass the CSA test and fail the IEC test. Not very probable, though. Personally, I don't get too excited about whether you want to test at 25A or 30A, as long as the earthing path is of sound construction. The difference is trivial. That is, if the intended circuit is a 15A branch circuit. Consider however a machine that operates from, say, a 100A circuit. In that case, I ask myself: What is the bloody point? I mean, if the device is designed to operate at 100A, it seems kind of silly to allow a ground path that can only handle 25A! In this regard, I think that the CSA standard is a little bit better though out. The required test is at twice the branch circuit protection, for as long as it takes the breaker to open. Seems much more sensible to me. By the way, if you take a peek at IEC 60950, 3rd Edition, you will see that IEC is finally leaning towards this rationale. By the way, CSA 0.4 is required not only in Canada, but also in the US. Since both countries have adopted the same binational CSA950/UL1950 standard, and since CSA 0.4 is specifically required by this standard, this has become an official requirement for the US. This is an unequivocal requirement, so I have no doubt that all US safety agencies are diligently performing the CSA tests. Egon :-) __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca var...@csa.ca __ - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components
I too, have noticed a variation in temperature, especially when measuring a very hot component with forced air cooling. I usually try to get the highest possible temperature reading by : 1. Use very small thermocouple wire, such as AWG 30. Larger wire sizes can conduct heat away from the tip. 2. Bury the tip of the thermocouple as deep into the winding as possible. If the component comes from a vendor, already varnished, use a tool to try to separate a gap in the center of the winding layers. Then, push the tip of the thermocouple into the gap as far as you can. use epoxy to hold it in and to help couple it thermally to the winding. Use a thermocouple bridge that is isolated from everything else and be aware that the thermocouple wires might be hot. I have seen a switching power supply transformer thermocouple be so noisy that it would not work with an electronic thermocouple bridge without running the wires through ferrite beads. 3. I usually also measure and record the core temperature. The core temp and winding temp do not have to be the same. To measure core temp, again seek the hottest spot which would be deep, away from air and connected with epoxy. 4. If the component is large and has a few ohms of resistance, you can allow the temp to stabilize, quickly make several resistance measurements of the winding and then extrapolate back to the maximum resistance and use the copper law to determine temperature. 5. If you do all this and worry that the readings are inconsistant, only measure it one time! (Joking) Kamran Mohajer wrote: Hello EMC-PSTCers, I wonder if anyone knows of the method of measuring temperature limits on magnetic components. I happen to get involved in this and found that my results are different than the vendors result by as much as 10-15 degrees on measuring on a same magnetic component. Even applying the thermocouple to different location on a coil seems to give you different results. Is there a method that I should be following to measure temperature with thermocouples methods, not change of resistance, on magnetic parts such as transformers, coils, etc.? Thanks, *** Kamran Mohajer DSL Compliance Lead Cisco Systems, Inc. Phone(408)-525-6121 Fax(408)527-0495 kmoha...@cisco.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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
FW: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz
We use Hewlett Packard and Rohde Schwarz pre-amplifiers for CISPR xx class B measurements above 700 MHz, which is when the noise floor starts to bite at the 6dB clearance criterion. We do commercial measurements at mandated test distances only. A 1 m test distance is specified for MIL testing only. A zoomed in measurement from 3m to 1m to beat the noise floor is not recommended as the antenna and EUT dimensions become critical. Hope this helps Regards Arun Kaore EMC Engineer ADI Limited Test Evaluation Centre Forrester Road, St Marys NSW 2760 P O Box: 315, St Marys NSW 1790 Tel: 61 2 9673 8375 Fax: 61 2 9673 8321 Email: kao...@sg.adi-limited.com.au mailto:kao...@sg.adi-limited.com.au -Original Message- From: John Cronin [mailto:croni...@hotmail.com] mailto:[mailto:croni...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 1999 7:50 To: emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz I am hoping to purchase a 1 to 5 Ghz amplifier to be used in conjunction with a spectrum analyzer to measure emissions at 3m to FCC requirements. With a 1 MHz bandwidth into a HP microwave analyzer we can only currently measure at 1m. Can we get away with measurements at 1m? Can anyone recommend a low cost microwave amplifier that is suitable for the task? Thanks in anticipation of your response. John Cronin __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com http://www.hotmail.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org mailto:majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com , jim_bac...@monarch.com mailto:jim_bac...@monarch.com , ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com , or roger.volgst...@compaq.com mailto: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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Kevin: Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not dealing with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive the requirements for meeting the LVD in Europe. If it is indeed as you say, then where does it put those of us who have in house safety testing and self certify. I'm not sure that EN 50116 is a EU-adopted standard. If true, its use is at the discretion of the certification house. Or the manufacturer. The implication of your question is that ALL products bearing the CE (for safety) mark must be tested at 25 amps for 1 minute (or the lesser current). In either case, the 1-minute is onerous -- even prohibitive -- for high-volume production (i.e., where production approaches or exceeds 1/minute). We have a number of CB Certifications by non-Euro certification houses. None of these certification houses impose EN 50116. We DON'T perform a 1-minute test, nor do we perform a high-current test. Perhaps another of our subscribers can comment on the status of EN 50116 with respect to the EU. Best regards, Rich - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Status of IRAM ITE cerification?
Dear audience, On this site I noted a while ago info from Ed.Price about an agreement between CSA and Argentina's IRAM to acknowledge each others certifications. Mandatory IRAM certification for ITE appeared immanent by Sept. '99. Somehow I am not able to retrieve an up-date on the requirements from IRAM's web site. ( web site : http://iram.com.ar/certificacion.htm ) Can anyone point me in the right direction or share his or her related knowledge with the group? Thank you Fred Adt ViewSonic Corporation. - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Rich, Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not dealing with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive the requirements for meeting the LVD in Europe. If it is indeed as you say, then where does it put those of us who have in house safety testing and self certify. Best 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 -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 4:37 PM To: carmen.fili...@leitch.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; fra...@csa.ca Subject: Re: Grounding Bond Test Hi Carmen: You ask how to resolve the difference between two, different production-line (routine) test standards. If your product is certified by CSA, then you test to the 30-ampere value. If your product is certified by a CB Certificate and Test Report, and the issuing body invokes EN 50116, then you test to the 25-ampere value. If your product is certified by UL, then you test to any current of your choosing. So, the answer to your question is: Whatever your certification house says. In essence, the requirement is proprietary to the certification house. The certification house can invoke any production-line test it feels is necessary. CSA uses 30 amps, 2 minutes. A certification house that invokes EN 50116 uses 25 amps, 1 minute as a maximum test. UL does not require a high-current test. The CSA 30-amp requirement derives from the fact that a CSA circuit-breaker rated 15 amperes (the most common 120-volt circuit in Canada) is not required to trip before 2 minutes at a current of twice rating, 30 amperes. So, the equipment grounding circuit must withstand 30-amperes for 2 minutes. The CENELEC 25-ampere requirement history is not at all clear. It has been in both European standards and UL standards as a type test for many, many years. It only appeared as a routine test when EN 50115 was published a few years ago. By the way, neither high-current test (as a production-line test) will identify continuity problems any better than a low-current test. The presumption is that the high-current test will identify a manufacturing defect in the grounding circuit, while a low-current test will not. In actuality, the grounding circuit, in order to pass the type test, had to be properly designed to handle the high current, no matter whether 25 amps or 30 amps. So, for the production-line, we need to be assured, by test, that the high-current circuit has been assembled correctly and with no defects. The high-current test WILL NOT identify loose screws if the conductors are making contact! The high- current test WILL NOT identify cut strands of wire if there are 3 or more strands in the circuit! (Feel free to duplicate these tests or any other grounding circuit defects you can imagine; the circuit will pass the high-current test!) The high-current test does not identify continuity problems any better than a low-current test. I did point this out to the EN 50116 committee when they asked for comments before it was published. Interesting that the committee ignored the data and required the test anyway! I guess the lesson is: don't confuse a technical committee with technical facts. Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 858 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 858 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com - ps: In high-volume production, both the 1-minute and the 2-minute tests are unacceptable to the manufacturer. It seems that most certification houses will waive the long-term test in these cases! This seems to admit that the high-current test is not particularly valuable. - 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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: RE: Concrete as an insulator??? -- and now FCC/FAA
Just to get Mike off the hook. I actually asked the question and it was handed to me by a fellow engineer who happens to be a pilot. The answer has been consistently the same and has even convinced my friend to quit doing it. But you have just given me a new thought here. Considering how much I love having to carry my cell phone I may go flying this afternoon, they'll turn it off you say! . hmmm Gary -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com [SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 11:50 AM To: Mike Hopkins; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Re:RE: Concrete as an insulator??? -- and now FCC/FAA Mike, I do not know if it is in the FCC rules or not, but your cell phone service provider may not take lightly such actions. Cell phones make use of line of site and low power to be a cell. Once you are up in the air, your phone can easily try to connect to every cell site in the state (and beyond). That means that you will tie up a large number of cell sites and possible cause interference to other users of the cell system. You may find your service provider turning off your cell service as a result. I am sure that some of the people who work for the manufactures of cell phones, who are on this list, can give a better idea as to how many cell sites you can tie up in the airplane. Being a ham radio operator I have seen ham's use repeaters, while in airplanes, it can and does get in the way of emergency communications. Just my two cents Jim Jim Bacher, Senior Engineer Paxar - Monarch email:jim_bac...@monarch.com voice:1-937-865-2020 fax:1-937-865-2048 Reply Separator Subject:RE: Concrete as an insulator??? -- and now FCC/FAA Author: Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com Date: 08/24/99 5:25 PM If I'm not mistaken, there IS an FAA regulation prohibiting the use of cell phones in airplanes -- I have the regs at home and will look it up. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: miksher...@aol.com [SMTP:miksher...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:13 AM To: gmcintu...@packetengines.com; ed.pr...@cubic.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Concrete as an insulator??? In a message dated 8/23/1999 5:05:26 PM Central Daylight Time, gmcintu...@packetengines.com writes: Does anybody know why the FCC - not the FAA has regulations against using a cell phone in a private airplane. It is a little more obvious for a commercial airplane that use the fuselage as a return path from various equipment bays but private plans aren't wire that way - I don't think. There was a comment made that it interferes with the Cell system in some manner, any clues? Stated reason I've always heard, and which makes sense to me: one triggers multiple cells once one is airborne, which messes up a system that is designed to hand off a call cell to cell, based on signal strength and an assumption that the phone is on the ground. Mike Sherman FSI International - 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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components
Hi Kamran, I use both change of resistance and a thermocouple as a check. I would expect the thermocouple to read a little below the resistance method. Some standards require the change of resistance method (not the thermocouple method) to be used for compliance assessment of winding temps. Regards Barry Esmore AUS-TICK Phone: + 61 3 9886 1345 Fax: + 61 3 9884 7272 Email: bar...@melbpc.org.au - Original Message - From: Kamran Mohajer kmoha...@cisco.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 7:50 AM Subject: Temperature Measuring of Magnetic Components Hello EMC-PSTCers, I wonder if anyone knows of the method of measuring temperature limits on magnetic components. I happen to get involved in this and found that my results are different than the vendors result by as much as 10-15 degrees on measuring on a same magnetic component. Even applying the thermocouple to different location on a coil seems to give you different results. Is there a method that I should be following to measure temperature with thermocouples methods, not change of resistance, on magnetic parts such as transformers, coils, etc.? Thanks, *** Kamran Mohajer DSL Compliance Lead Cisco Systems, Inc. Phone(408)-525-6121 Fax(408)527-0495 kmoha...@cisco.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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Rick: The obvious question I would have is... why couldn't you test at a higher current for longer time meeting both requirements? For example 30A for two minutes. I know the document indicates a maximum current, but does this make sense? The original question appeared to me to ask why there are two different test currents. Of course, if you test at 30 amps for 2 minutes and pass, then you have also passed 25 amps for 1 minute. But, keep in mind that some certification houses MAY not agree with this premise. EN 50116 specifies a maximum current so that the test itself does not damage the circuit. If 25 amps is okay, and 30 amps is better, then why not 50 or 100 amps? If the current is high enough, then the circuit will indeed be damaged by the test. The requirement is that the grounding circuit, which handles the fault current return to the source, must be equally robust as the supply circuit which provides the current from the source (breaker) to the load. In practice, the supply circuit and the grounding circuit, both designed for 15 amps continuous, will easily handle twice that for a short period without overheating -- the wire may get warm, but it won't overheat! Hmm. Why don't we test the supply (primary) circuit for 30-amp fault current? It would be seem as bad for the supply circuit insulation to fail as it would for the grounding circuit to open! Well... answering my own question, the supply circuit would fail to the grounded metal, and the grounding circuit provides the protection. Best regards, Rich - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Grounding Bond Test
Cameron, The grounding continuity test required by CSA 0.4 is normally intended only for the initial prototype evaluation, to ensure that the basic design is within acceptable parameters. It is not usually intended as a production line test. There may be some exceptions, where non-standard earthing methods are employed, in which case some safety agencies may require a severe production line test. But this is not the norm. Regards, Egon At 11:52 AM 25/08/1999 , you wrote: Hello all, I want to clarify some of my thoughts regarding the ground bond specification for production line. EN 50116 for ITE specifies the earthing terminal or earthing contact may not exceed 0.1 ohms when 1.5 times the current capacity of hazardous circuits is applied, but not more than 25 A (ac or dc) for 60 seconds. The CSA standard C22.2 No. 0.4-M1982 Bonding and grounding of Electrical Equipment specifies for cord-connected equipment twice the rating of the attachment plug capacity, but not less than 30 A, 60 Hz current for 2 minutes. I am wondering which of these standards is applicable for routine test in production field. I think that EN 50116 is, but I am a little bit embarrassed by the CSA requirements of 30A and want to know your ideas on basis of a longer experience than mine. I appreciate any response to this e-mail. Thank you. Best regards, Carmen Filimon Safety Test Eng., Leitch Technology Int'l, Toronto __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca var...@csa.ca __ - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz
John: So you need another 10dB of gain between 1 5 GHz. I have used Miteq low-noise preamps in the past, but I bought octave-band models and I paid a lot extra for absolute lowest noise figure with about 35dB of gain. I suggest you call Miteq (get the noise figure of your spectrum analyzer first) and see what combinations they recommend. You might need only a 1dB noise figure, with about 20dB of gain, which may mean they have one unit that can span the frequency range. Site at: http://www.miteq.com :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: John Cronin [SMTP:croni...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 2:50 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz I am hoping to purchase a 1 to 5 Ghz amplifier to be used in conjunction with a spectrum analyzer to measure emissions at 3m to FCC requirements. With a 1 MHz bandwidth into a HP microwave analyzer we can only currently measure at 1m. Can we get away with measurements at 1m? Can anyone recommend a low cost microwave amplifier that is suitable for the task? Thanks in anticipation of your response. John Cronin __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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, jim_bac...@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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz
My experience with the HP spectrum anaylyzers is that it has about 35dB NF. You can calculate this from observation *and* from their data sheets. So if you want the analyzer to not contribute, you need a lot of gain in front. I'd recommend two stage amplifiers. Plus, you really have to make certain that tones outside where you're looking don't get into the amplifier and do weird things to the tones you are looking at. - Robert - -Original Message- From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com To: 'John Cronin' croni...@hotmail.com; emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 5:41 PM Subject: RE: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz John: So you need another 10dB of gain between 1 5 GHz. I have used Miteq low-noise preamps in the past, but I bought octave-band models and I paid a lot extra for absolute lowest noise figure with about 35dB of gain. I suggest you call Miteq (get the noise figure of your spectrum analyzer first) and see what combinations they recommend. You might need only a 1dB noise figure, with about 20dB of gain, which may mean they have one unit that can span the frequency range. Site at: http://www.miteq.com :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 (Voice) 619-505-1502 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: John Cronin [SMTP:croni...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 2:50 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Amplifier for measurements above 1GHz I am hoping to purchase a 1 to 5 Ghz amplifier to be used in conjunction with a spectrum analyzer to measure emissions at 3m to FCC requirements. With a 1 MHz bandwidth into a HP microwave analyzer we can only currently measure at 1m. Can we get away with measurements at 1m? Can anyone recommend a low cost microwave amplifier that is suitable for the task? Thanks in anticipation of your response. John Cronin - 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, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
