RE: EMC education courses
Jeff, I recently took the UMR EMC Principles Lab and 40 Hr. Video course, and highly recommend it. While the Video course was (is - I am still finishing it up) great, the lab course was definitely worth the week stay in Rolla. (Bring a book of crosswords - there is not a whole lot to do in Rolla!) The hands on Lab course was very well put together, I got allot out of it. Dr. Van Doren and Todd Hubing are excellent instructors, and the expertise of the graduate students who helped with the experiment and presentations was very impressive. I have taken many EMC related classes and seminars, and the UMR course was by far the best. If you do make it to Rolla for the lab course, be sure to tour their nuclear reactor! Just my $.02 Sincerely, Randy Flinders Chairman Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society (714) 513-8012 voice (714) 513-8265 fax r.flind...@ieee.org Note: The opinions expressed herein represent my personal views and in no way represent the position or opinions of the IEEE, The EMC Society, or my employer. -- From: Bailey, Jeff Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:21 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject:EMC education courses Greetings all, I am looking into some further training to help me in my career in EMC and would like your input or help if you can offer any. I don't want to waste time or money taking any courses that do not live up to their claims so I am hoping that some of you out there have done some training and can offer me feedback as to how valuable the courses you took really were. I looking more into the technical type courses to help me troubleshoot and offer re-design input to bring non-compliant products into compliance, mainly in the area of PWB's. Please help! :-) One course I have found that looks pretty decent is the EMC Principles Video Course plus the 40 lab session offered by the University of Missouri Rolla. Can anyone comment on this course from experience? (or any other course taken, good or bad I'd be interested in your views) Thank you all for you feedback! Sincerely, Jeff Bailey EMC Technologist SST - A Division of Woodhead Canada Ltd. Phone: (519) 725 5136 ext. 363 Fax: (519) 725 1515 Email: jbai...@sstech.on.ca Web: www.sstech.on.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). - 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: Cell Phone Hazards?
It might be a little useful to look at another contentious issue. Are cigarettes hazardous or not? Certainly, studies point in both directions. And both sides of the issue tout their own experts. The manufacturers are aghast that sticking burning leaves into your mouth could possible hinder your heath, and any studies to the contrary are just plain inconclusive. Those opposed to smoking have studies that they claim clearly show a direct link. (And then of course you California banning outdoor smoking in places where you can see the air). The problem is, as the note below suggests, science and statistics, are often used for economic and political gain rather than for knowledge and understanding. Add to that legitimate scientific disagreement and uncertainty and you end up with reasons for the current debate pro and con hear. One sometimes has to take any report with a small grain of salt, and act upon you best belief. I don't smoke but it certainly doesn't seem real helpful to me, so I tend to believe those studies some of you those of you who do smoke may prefer to believe the others. I hate cell phones guess which study I lean towards. Gary -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:12 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Interestingly enough, today on one of the independent radio networks, a commentator interviewed numerous persons associated with the investigation of radiation on the human body from Cell phones. One professor from the University of Washington (Seattle) claims to have evidence that radiation in rats has been proven to alter chromosomes. Another claims that no one in the US would test Cell Phones for power output and report on them by brand name. The phones were taken to Europe for testing. Yet another claims that research money was granted to study the issue and then withheld once the evidence started to point towards this destructive chromosome problem. Another man whose wife spent 150 hrs a month on the cell phone believes that her fatal brain tumor was a direct cause of the phone. He claims that the tumor (CAT scan) when held near the antenna was a halo of the antenna itself. He went on to say that the US government had evidence for the risk of radiation published in Mil Hdbk 239. This document was subsequently withdrawn and the replacement document no longer addresses that risk. Who knows... Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. - 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: Cell Phone Hazards?
Speaking of Microwaves, you may have read an account of a person, on Christmas eve, keeping warm in front of a Microwave horn on the Darwin Awards. If you would like to read this good, (albeit fictional) story go to the following site and search on microwave. You can locate the story under Urban Legends (1988). Rick http://official.darwinawards.com/ http://official.darwinawards.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: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
As I stated before, the RTTE directive is fully in force from the 8th of April 2000. The TTE/SES directive (98/13/EG) is withdrawn at the same moment, so there is NO overlap (Articl. 20). In some specific cases (e.g. voice-telephony, Articl. 18.3) member states can request for a 30 months delay on a national basis, but I haven't seen something in that direction up to now. So let's stick to the basics of the RTTE directive: - There is a transition regime which allows manufacturers to continue with the older approvals, set BEFORE the 8th of April 2000 (under TTE/SES procedures and marking OR under national regimes), but NOT longer than 1 year. After the 8th of April 2001 even these older products shall enter the EU market according to the new rules of the RTTE directive. - However, when it relates to NEW products market access (not second hand), the RTTE is FULLY in force from the 8th of April 2000. So there is no choice. - When it concerns radio (transmitter apparatus), to be used with NON-harmonised frequencies (country-specific) , there should be a warning signal on the equipment, so that the USER is aware (The special sign, 0 with a diagonal line, see Annex VII, (5)). The user manual should describe clearly in which countries it is allowed to use. This warning signal shall be stated on the package as well. After the 8th of April 2001 ALL PRODUCTS entering the EU market must satisfy the RTTE procedures AND marking. - How to deal with the RTTE? The RTTE directive put a high pressure now on the EN Standardisation bodies to generate new Harmonised Standards, based upon the Essential requirements. (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI). For most products this Harmonised Standards will come too late. To cope with the situation, it is allowed for telecom equipment to use the present CTR's - as far as the equipment falls under its scope, as a presumption of conformity to the essential RTTE requirements. Generally speaking the new requirements are less stringent, so it is technically justified to use the older Standards. However, a warning should be given for safety matters. The RTTE directive has a new approach towards safety. It includes also the requirements of directive 73/23/EEG, WITHOUT the supply restrictions, so battery operated equipment is included now (Artcl.3.1a). That means that ALL risks arising from the use shall be covered as well, e.g. acoustical shock, and EMF (!) etc. With regard to EMF we have seen the impact already with the mandate to the EU Standardisation bodies to define new requirements, first for GSM and other mobile equipment (before April 2000 !) So, after the 8th of April, manufacturers can better choose the Technical Construction File (TCF) approach as described under Annex IV, and ask an RTTE Notified Body (see Annex IV and V) for an Opinion. (A written statement about your TCF). This gives no guarantee in liability issues, but in case that it goes wrong, you can show in a fair way your careful and prudent approach. Best regards, Theo Hildering, Senior Consultant, KTL-Arnhem, The Netherlands Web-site: www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Leslie Bai [mailto:leslie_...@yahoo.com] Sent: 10 December 1999 02:20 To: H.T. Hildering; j...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject:RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000? There is a transition regime applies. Before April 8, 2000, we knew what we should do Between April 8, 2000 and April 7, 2001, the transition regime applies and manufacturers can place on the market and put into service equipment which Case 1. complies with Directive 99/5/EC Case 2. complies with Directive 98/13/EC (for equipment within its scope) Case 3. complies with national regulations (for radio equipment, which don't fall within teh scope of Directive 98/13/EC). In Case 1 and Case 2, equipment can freeely move according to the provisions of the Directives. In Case 3, Articles 28 and 30 apply. As of April 8, 2001, ONLY Directive 99/5/EC applies. Rgds, Leslie --- H.T. Hildering h.t.hilder...@ktl.com wrote: The situation is simple, The European Commission has stated that the RTTE directive will come effectively in force on the 8th of April 2000 for all EU countries. Therefore all member countries are obliged to transpose it into their national regulation before that date. All member countries shall start to use the RTTE directive at the 8th of April. Best regards Theo Hildering -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: 08 December 1999 22:13 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000? Listmembers: I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with. I'm developing a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000.
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
Same as Charles, I have also seen near field measurements at a couple of centimeters from the phone antenna, with fields up to about 700 V/m. The measurements were taken on a GSM phone, with small EMCO isotropic field probe (the one based on Kanda's design, with resistive dipoles about 7 mm long). Neven Pischl - Original Message - From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com; 'Pettit, Ghery' ghery.pet...@intel.com; mkel...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? If you solve the radar eqn for the field intensity at 1 cm from the antenna, using Ghery's Ptmax = 600 mW, you get 600 V/m. This is a completely erronoeus calculation however, because it relies on far field gain and this is very near field. If you assume the antenna is a 50 Ohm load, the 600 mW eak power is 5.5 Volts at the antenna. if the antenna is a quarter wave stub at 850 MHz, the potential gradient near the stub will be (potential divided by stub length) near 70 V/m. -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: 'Pettit, Ghery' ghery.pet...@intel.com, 'mkel...@es.com' mkel...@es.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: Thu, Dec 9, 1999, 4:34 PM Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets
RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
Message text written by Roger Magnuson As you know, the current Directive took much too long to implement in certain countries (no names...) and I guess this is the reason for this unusal approach. Roger, the approach is not unusual under the terms of the Treaty of Maastricht which no longer requires that the member states must transpose the Directive before it is implemented. That was one of the victories of that Treaty (some will not see it that way). The only thing unusual is that the RTTE Directive is implemented, POST MAASTRICHT, all the other ones so far were PRE MAASTRICHT. This will be the norm in the future, in particular for the new EMC Directive. Ciao, Vic
RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
There is a transition regime applies. Before April 8, 2000, we knew what we should do Between April 8, 2000 and April 7, 2001, the transition regime applies and manufacturers can place on the market and put into service equipment which Case 1. complies with Directive 99/5/EC Case 2. complies with Directive 98/13/EC (for equipment within its scope) Case 3. complies with national regulations (for radio equipment, which don't fall within teh scope of Directive 98/13/EC). In Case 1 and Case 2, equipment can freeely move according to the provisions of the Directives. In Case 3, Articles 28 and 30 apply. As of April 8, 2001, ONLY Directive 99/5/EC applies. Rgds, Leslie --- H.T. Hildering h.t.hilder...@ktl.com wrote: The situation is simple, The European Commission has stated that the RTTE directive will come effectively in force on the 8th of April 2000 for all EU countries. Therefore all member countries are obliged to transpose it into their national regulation before that date. All member countries shall start to use the RTTE directive at the 8th of April. Best regards Theo Hildering -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: 08 December 1999 22:13 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000? Listmembers: I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with. I'm developing a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000. The exact date is not certain, but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE directive. If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required for the brief period until April 2000. I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member state has transposed it into national law. If so, this suggests that the RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state has transposed it into national law. In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of April 8, 2000. In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of April 8. I do not know what the other member states are planning to do. So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if the product ships prior to April 8, 2000? Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. - 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). __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.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).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
WOW If one could interpolate this for 10mm. What was the old European limit for field strength? -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:33 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Ralph: A few months ago, I did an RF ambient survey on the San Francisco BART stations. I found that the strongest fields (between 300 KHz and 18 GHz) inside a typical station came from cell phones, PCS phones and public service transceivers carried by system personnel and the public. At a two meter distance, these sources create a 5 to 10 V/M field strength. Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ) 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: Ralph Cameron [SMTP:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:04 PM To: Edward Fitzgerald; 'Robert Macy' Cc: mkel...@es.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:Re: Cell Phone Hazards? Edward: There was a medical assessment donw in a paper entitled, Mdeical Equipment Interference: Risk and Minimization, by Bernard Segal. This was published in Scientific Progress, under Wireless Phones and Health, pages 283-295, (Kluwer Academic Publishers , Boston) What the article does is make the very studies of internal reflections in the hospital environment .e.g hallways with and without obstructions and certain types of material walls and inside rooms to show where the radiation from cell phones is concentrated. From this, planning for isolating certain hospital areas has been designed so tht cell phone radiation minimizes the impact on radiosensitive equipment. In my view, at no time has there been a consideration that designers of sensitive equipment play a role in the issue. What is perceived as interference could eaually be argued that it is lack of immunity. From studies done in Canada in 1983, the ambient radiation in large cities such as Toronto and Montreal was deemed to be about 1v/m. Some hospital equipment malfunctioned when exposed to one tenth of that amount. The other concept that seems to prevail is that that only certain popular communication bands such as CB ( 27Mhz), public service ( 150- 170Mhz ) and 450-470Mhz) could cause disturbance to such devices. In fact, reference to allocation charts will show many interfering sources so that in designing for freedom from such undersireable effects a swept frequncy approach will uncover anomalies that can and do occur. Such effects become more pronounced as the physical device size or elements approach resonance in any given frequncy range. The point I'm trying to make is safety can be compromised unless both the emitter and receiving device are designed with this in mind. This is an opinion based on suppressing many devices after they have entered the market. Current devices bearing the CE mark have almost total immunity to current users of the spectrum. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultatnt and Suppression of Consumer elelctronic equipment (After Sale) - Original Message - From: Edward Fitzgerald edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com To: 'Robert Macy' m...@california.com Cc: mkel...@es.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:49 AM Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open environment. One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he prepared, but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included manufacturing, test lab, RD, purchasing and stores) one evening showed a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking RD and the manufacturing floor. There were hiVoltage power lines within 500 meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete construction had some effect on the concentration levels. Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the building. On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via 2.5mm jack are even worse than using the mobile next to your head. Their claim being that the two core audio cable is induced with radiation from the phone and carried up the length of the
