RE: EMC and product safety split?
Hello All, I feel that I need to add my comments, just in case this thing becomes a voting matter by makeup of response. I do not want to see a forum split. I know it can be frustrating at times having to go through the numerous emails, but I have learned to filter out what I believe is not useful from what I believe is useful. It is well worth it as I have found it very useful just following the issues or reading the comments and questions from colleagues from around the world and at home (here in the USA). It is also very enlightening to have a perspective on what the regulatory, emc, safety perception is in other parts of the world. Furthermore, at my company I happen to be responsible for telecom, emc, safety, NEBS, FDA. (need I go on?). As one responsible for all the regulatory issues (existing and yet to come) at my company, I benefit greatly from the convenience of emc and safety issues at a single location. I am sure others do too. Note that there is also the TREG forum (which I subscribe to). I say two forums is enough. On another thought, I get to know people from the forum (safety, telco, emc), if not in person, at least by name. Some of these names, it is as if I know these people in person. Occasionally, I get to meet forum members at seminars, conventions, etc. at locations all over the world and we talk like old friends. I say, lets not tamper with a good thing. Keep the forum as it is. Best regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 12:15 PM To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split? Regarding a possible EMC and product safety split... I want to thank each of your for your contributions to this topic. As with our technical discussions, your comments are of high quality and are highly worthwhile and thought-provoking. Each of your technical contributions make this forum what it is. The forum is not moderated, and the technical discussions are what they are because of the individual contributions. My personalthanks to you for your contributions. This forum was founded for the purpose of discussions regarding product safety. Because the PSTC is a part of the IEEE EMC Society, a condition for the listserver operation was that it include EMC discussions. More recently, we seem to discuss all sorts of regulatory issues, not just safety and EMC. Clearly, our subscribers have a need to bring these topics to a worldwide forum. You have presented valid pros and cons for separate safety and EMC lists. From a practical point of view, we would need at least three people (volunteers) to set up and operate an EMC- only list as well as authorization from the EMC Society. We would need one volunteer to take on the leadership function, and two volunteers to take on the day-to-day administrative functions. Personally, I think we have a good, effective operation today. Splitting the operation will reduce the range of discussion, especially in the overlapping safety-EMC areas and in the non- safety and non-EMC regulatory areas. So, until someone steps up with answers to these service problems and can also manage a new EMC listserver, our listserver will continue as it is. Thank you for bringing up this discussion and for your views on the listserver. This discussion has helped those of us who operate the listserver to better understand our subscribers needs and helps us in keeping a useful service to you. Best regards, Richard Nute PSTC listserver administrator --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: IEC 65
IEC65 has a heating under normal conditions test. If the manufacturer's instructions do not state something on the lines of Ensure adequate ventilation. This product should not be used in an enclosed space such as a cabinet etc., the product is tested in a wooden test box. The maximum allowable temperature rise of the enclosure is 65K for heatsinks and certain small areas. Please let me know if you need further details. Regards Chris Colgan EMC Safety TAG McLaren Audio Ltd mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 13 March 2000 16:01 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IEC 65 Does IEC 65 take into consideration that the equipment may be installed in wood furniture (e.g., a home audio system) and therefore contains provisions and tests for that application? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org = Authorised on 03/13/00 at 17:30:22; code 37f48bf34BA3FDCC. ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EMC and product safety split?
Ditto, robertm...@aol.com -Original Message- From: Davis, Mike mike_da...@adc.com To: 'cdup...@cs.com' cdup...@cs.com; rl...@tectrol.com rl...@tectrol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:38 AM Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? I concur with the comments from K. Richardson, Chris Dupres, Kaz Gawrzyjal, and Tania. Let's keep EMC-PSTC As Is for now. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: S-Mark for industrial equipment
KISCO has recently changed their name to KOSHA. http://www.kosha.or.kr/english/english.htm --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: ADM Proposed Subject Leaders
Hi Scott, You presume that the contributors will take the time to remember to do that (especially the ones that leave the subject line blank). Would you expect the listserver to bounce back any messages that do not have on of these prefixes? For these reasons, I feel that this type of a suggestion will never work. To all, For the listsever's split suggestion, it may be impossible to completely sever these areas of interest. For instance, I have seen some threads to start off as, say, EMC oriented and the discussion to wind its way around through safety, regulatory and/or other issues, all the while maintaining the original message's subject line. And, what of the queries that pose multi-discipline questions? I'm not certain, but would these scenarios need further forum splitting or restrictions? And, how far does this splitting or restriction go? I, for one, do have to sort through many emails each day (more on Monday mornings). It takes a little time to read them and discard the ones I have no interest in, which is an investment I choose to make. And maybe that's the point of the original query. But anyway, even with a more focued forum, I am quite sure that weeding through emails will still be needed. BTW, it does pay (1)to broaden one's horizons, no matter how focused we prefer to be, and (2)to keep an open mind. Pardon the philisophical moment, but I have learned more with this open forum than I could have ever learned trodding down the road alone. This forum and its administrators have done a marvelous service for all of us that are willing to contribute to these multi-discipline discussions. And, hats off to the contributors who are top-notch professionals who take the time to post their opinions, clarifications, assistance and thought-provoking queries. Let's keep these open discussions coming. With this being said and being a multi-disciplined compliance type, I must give a rousing YES to keep this EMC-PSTC forum intact. After all, keeping this an open forum is better for me and better for my employer. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Scott Douglas To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org s_douglas@eccc: rm.com Subject: ADM Proposed Subject Leaders Sent by: owner-emc-pst c...@ieee.org 03/13/00 06:33 AM Please respond to Scott Douglas Hi All, Good discussion about splitting the list. Me, I like it the way it is as I wear all the hats. One good idea I saw was about adding a symbol in the subject line of the message to allow for easy filtering. Here is my proposed list of header symbols. Please feel free to use and/or add to the list. ADM - administrative, listserver information LAS - laser issues SAF - product safety issues, any product EMC - product emissions immunity, any product. TEL - subjects related to Telecom, modems, etc, but not TREG items Here is a list of proposed modifiers to the above: ITE - information technology equipment specific LAB - laboratory and test equipment specific MACH - machinery, heavy or industrial equipment specific REG - regulations and standards specific Examples of the use: ADM - should we split the list?
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I would like the list to stay as is. Even though I deal with medical equipment I find the discussions related to ITE also interesting and sometimes applicable to medical. I'm sure that for some of you your employer is of a small caliber like mine as compared to the big guns, so you wear many hats like myself. I deal with safety, EMC, regulatory, quality and so on. The broader the forum the better it is for me. This forum has been invaluable in my everyday functions. Lets keep it the way it is! I'm still in awe at the broad knowledge base that resides within this group - lets keep the open discussions going! Thx -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 7:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? I would NOT like to see a split as well. == --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
IEC 65
Does IEC 65 take into consideration that the equipment may be installed in wood furniture (e.g., a home audio system) and therefore contains provisions and tests for that application? Richard Woods --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE:List Split - ADM Proposed Subject Leaders
I too prefer keeping the list as is. From my point of view, we all have to deal with, at the very least, both EMC Product Safety (various standards of course) regardless of the products. And I agree too, that having header symbols can be of benefit should someone wish to sort the messages. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:33 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: ADM Proposed Subject Leaders Hi All, Good discussion about splitting the list. Me, I like it the way it is as I wear all the hats. One good idea I saw was about adding a symbol in the subject line of the message to allow for easy filtering. Here is my proposed list of header symbols. Please feel free to use and/or add to the list. ADM - administrative, listserver information LAS - laser issues SAF - product safety issues, any product EMC - product emissions immunity, any product. TEL - subjects related to Telecom, modems, etc, but not TREG items Here is a list of proposed modifiers to the above: ITE - information technology equipment specific LAB - laboratory and test equipment specific MACH - machinery, heavy or industrial equipment specific REG - regulations and standards specific Examples of the use: ADM - should we split the list? LAS - laser pointers being abused SAF - What is IEC 65? EMC, ITE - Anyone using EN55024 yet? TEL, REG - Question about Cl. 6.2 You get the idea. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Power cord derating
Guess I should point out that this is field wireable stuff used by the utilities- particularly the phone company. Not an appliance or ITE equipment with its own power cord. I'm mostly trying to make certain I have can connect the proper sized ground wire. Thanks Gary -Original Message- From: peperkin...@cs.com [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 4:45 PM To: PSNet Subject:Power cord derating PSNet, The US NEC is quite clear that no one appliance can use the entire branch circuit capacity unless it is a dedicated circuit. This is what drives the derating of the allowable current available to any appliance. It is expected that another appliance will be connected into one of the outlets on that circuit. This requirement is embedded into various safety standards, but the root requirement is the NEC. There is an exception allowed: A dedicated circuit may be supplied for a particular appliance and, in that case, the appliance may use the entire capacity of the circuit. A dedicated circuit is one that is specifically run from the breaker box to a specific location and only has one outlet available there. This is generally avoided in that one must hire an electrician to install the dedicated circuit in order to put the equipment into service; and most customers don't want to spend the money for the electrician. Note that you may UL/NRTL List equipment for such use, but you will be required to specifically note the installation restrictions in the installation manual; and you may be required to put a special tag on the power cord with the same information. If the installation is inspected, the inspector will specifically check for the dedicated circuit before passing the installation. Avoiding inspection is more problematic in these times when companies are working harder to have turn-key installations provided by a contractor - who installs the equipment at the same time the construction is being finished which draws the inspectors attention to all this equipment which also must meet the code requirements (read: be Listed). If the installation is not inspected, you should be so lucky, the customer will probably have nuisance tripping of the breaker from any other significant equipment installed on that circuit - which will lead to customer dissatisfaction with you equipment since it isn't reliable and always working when expected. I have such a circuit in my garage specifically for the freezer; not so much as the freezer needs the entire 15A available from that circuit, but that I don't want some other appliance throwing the breaker and causing the freezer to defrost whereby we would loose the entire store of frozen goods. (That happened to us once before in another house - the circuit blew the first day of a 3 week vacation, according to the neighbor who saw that the full-time light we had left burning was out. Anyway, we had moldy meat in the unit and berry juice running out over the carpet in front of the freezer. We lost most of half a frozen cow plus a year's crop of berries, and had to throw the rug out plus my wife spent most of a month getting the rotten meat smell out of the unit so we could put it back into service. So much for the war stories.) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I concur with the comments from K. Richardson, Chris Dupres, Kaz Gawrzyjal, and Tania. I also have no problems with receiving the EMC-PSTC (ElectroMagnetic Compatbility - Product Safety Technical Committee) discussion topics because I am responsible to both EMC and Safety. One time I had returned to the office, after being away for several days, and found over 200 messages. What did I do? I filtered what I needed from what I wanted to scrap. Then I quickly read through what I needed and either archived or deleted discussions. Done. The EMC-PSTC has been a convenient tool for getting a feel of issues from the real world of EMC and Safety from one location by a single subscription. And for those of you who also have EMC-Safety responsibilities or interests, either solely or combined, you to will benefit from convenient EMC-PSTC forums contents from a single location. The following may not be a very good analogy but, this split reminds me of reading the newspaper. Could you imagine subscribing to the DAILY CHRONICLE. Which would you prefer? A subscription to a newspaper with a National, Local, Sports, Business, Entertainment, and Classified sections, etc, or, a newspaper that only contains one section, and any other sections of interest you would get from a multitude of other newspapers? Let's keep EMC-PSTC As Is for now. -Original Message- From: cdup...@cs.com [mailto:cdup...@cs.com] Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 3:19 AM To: rl...@tectrol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split? Hi Rob. You wrote: Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings partitioned ~ to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic? The name of the List is EMC-PSTC, (ElectroMagnetic Compatbility - Product Safety Technical Committee) i.e. it' covers all the material required for getting equipment documented for compliance to current legislation, in my case European rules. For that reason I find the mix both very useful and convenient. I already have far too many folders, and if the messages were seperated into two subjects I would still need to merge them into one 'Compliance' folder. I've been on this list for four or five years now, and look on it as a learned source of all things 'Compliance', rather than the actual minutae of Safety and EMC protection. The list is as much to do with the bureacracy of Compliance, the UL, NEC, BS, DIN, standards, rules, regulations, laws etc., as much as with the actual Engineering of compliant performance, filters, materials, fuses and so on. I don't need to be told how to screen, filter, fuse, cover, insulate. Those are basic Engineering matters. I do, however, need to know what I should concentrate on, what limits to work to, when I should do it, and what paperwork I will need. I would find the splitting up of the list would deviate from the original purpose of the list, and become less informative and useful. Indeed it's the width of the list that makes it much more valuable. I delete an awful lot of EMC-PSTC mail, it takes just seconds to ascetain whether to keep or chuck, but I still get gems in both Safety and EMC matters and I do check everything that comes from the list. Just my twopence worth... Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: derating of conductors.
Yeah, I could get the new copy but then I would have to walk all the way over to the other desk. Thanks -Original Message- From: Kealey, Doug [mailto:doug.kea...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:53 AM To: 'Gary McInturff'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'phill...@itronix.com' Subject:RE: derating of conductors. Gary's reference to NEC 250-95 is from the 1996 code. It has been re-numbered 250-122 in the 1999 code. Doug -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:37 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'phill...@itronix.com' Subject: derating of conductors. Ran across a new wrinkle on this issue. The NEC in section page70-162 and table 310-17 does describe derating of ampacity capacity for conductors with temperature That is for normally current carrying conductors. - hot and neutral. How about for grounding and bonding conductors? I see section 250-95 basically says that the ground wire shall be the same size as the feed wires. It also says that if the feed wires are adjusted in diameter for voltage drop the equipment ground conductors shall be adjusted proportionally - but no reference (here at least) for temperature. I am wondering if the fact that the ground wire is not intended to be a normal current path but rather a short term 'emergency cutoff mechanism', if you will. As such it won't have current flowing along it long enough to be adversely affected by a higher than 30 degree ambient and therefore required to be derated for ambient. Make sense to anybody. Gary PS I also have a question for a non-member. He is wondering if anyone has a source for shielded power supply cords? I am also thinking that Europe hates those things because many countries many not have a grounded outlet, or that outlet is so far from earth ground that there is a significant impedance along that path. You can respond directly to phill...@itronix.com mailto:phill...@itronix.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: derating of conductors.
Gary's reference to NEC 250-95 is from the 1996 code. It has been re-numbered 250-122 in the 1999 code. Doug -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:37 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; 'phill...@itronix.com' Subject: derating of conductors. Ran across a new wrinkle on this issue. The NEC in section page70-162 and table 310-17 does describe derating of ampacity capacity for conductors with temperature That is for normally current carrying conductors. - hot and neutral. How about for grounding and bonding conductors? I see section 250-95 basically says that the ground wire shall be the same size as the feed wires. It also says that if the feed wires are adjusted in diameter for voltage drop the equipment ground conductors shall be adjusted proportionally - but no reference (here at least) for temperature. I am wondering if the fact that the ground wire is not intended to be a normal current path but rather a short term 'emergency cutoff mechanism', if you will. As such it won't have current flowing along it long enough to be adversely affected by a higher than 30 degree ambient and therefore required to be derated for ambient. Make sense to anybody. Gary PS I also have a question for a non-member. He is wondering if anyone has a source for shielded power supply cords? I am also thinking that Europe hates those things because many countries many not have a grounded outlet, or that outlet is so far from earth ground that there is a significant impedance along that path. You can respond directly to phill...@itronix.com mailto:phill...@itronix.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: broad band EM noise
Here in San Diego, our HV problem is just the opposite; that is, the noise is low during the long period of dry weather, then, when we get a foggy night, the moisture collects in the dusty coating on the insulators. I believe that the overhead distribution lines in residential areas are about 12KV (not the final distribution leg, which is two wires, each 120 V above ground and 240 V line-to-line). On a quiet and foggy night, you can hear a sound like frying bacon coming from the pole tops. The local power company has a crew which cleans the insulators with a blast of distilled water from a truck-mounted nozzle. The power company is more concerned about lost power and fire hazard than RF noise, but the result is lowered RF noise. Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:24 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: broad band EM noise The broadband interference from corona and any other high-voltage related sources indicates the problem of power transmission. Those who detected and reported it deserve a reward from the power company for helping them reduce the cost. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- From: wo...@sensormatic.com, on 3/10/00 8:14 AM: Corona on high voltage insulators is a known source of broadband interference. Poor connections can also be a problem. A good wash down of the insulators may temporarily cure or reduce the corona problem. We were able to locate bad connections near our OATS using a directional antenna near the power lines. A persistent complaint to the power company may give the desired results. Richard Woods For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Negative logic IO
Dan, In a previous incarnation (before I sold my soul to EMC) I did product design (redesign after the compliance department tore it apart) for industrial control systems. I recall being shown a clause in 60204-1, Electrical Safety for Machines, that prohibited switching the grounded side of a control system (there were a number of other clauses about the hoops you need to jump through if you don't ground one side of your control system). I am not currently involved with safety requirements so I can't quote directly from the standard (but there must one or two or our faithful contributors who can help me out); but I believe it went something like 'when switching control devices one side of the device shall be connected to the protective bonding circuit'. I believe the reason for this (and for the other requirements if you have a floating control system) is to prevent an inadvertent ground in the control wiring from initiating a control action. I have seen 'negative logic' allowed as a deviation when the logic and control device are all on a single circuit board (there are no wired connections to get grounded, and an inadvertent short to +V is as likely as an inadvertent short to ground), and also for cases where you would rather have the control function occur than have it disabled by a fault. I hope this helps, I hope some of our dedicated safety members will jump in and shed some light. Paul McCoy Dan Kinney (A) wrote: All, I have been told negative logic Input/Output devices are not allowed in Europe. I have found the following in EN61131-2:1994 (IEC 1131-2) Page 28, Para 3.3, note 1 Current souring inputs and current sinking outputs which may be required for certain applications are not covered in this standard. Special care should be exercised in their uses. This says current sinking outputs are permitted. Can anyone point to anything that prohibits them? Dan Kinney Horner APG --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: S-Mark for industrial equipment
The S-Mark is administered within Korea. I believe the organization is called KISCO. The S-mark only has meaning within Korea. I believe the administrative organization declares, somehow, what types of equipment must bear the S-mark and may go without. I believe the S-mark requires verification by a body appointed or recognized by the administrative organization. I work with a semiconductor industry called SEMI. SEMI has been working to determine the impact of S-mark on our members. The following are some questions that were compiled for KISCO and a first pass at answers by a TUV office in Korea. Some of the reference apply to SEMI standards (eg. S2) and meetings. 1. What is KISCO's procedure for assessing equipment against the S-Mark? Brief procedure distributed. 2. Are there any other testing laboratories or third parties authorized to issue the S-Mark? No other organizations 3. Can manufacturer self-certify the S-Mark? Not possible. 4. What is KISCO's confidentiality policy? ???, like third party?, governmental organization directly under the Ministry of Labor, It has same functions as OHSA in US and HSE in England. KISCO changes the name from beginning of next year to KOHSA. 5. Is S-mark compliance-based or risk-based? both 6. What standard(s) are used in the evaluation of the equipment? S-mark standards based on EHSR of CE Marking + Quality System such as ISO 9000 and/or Factory Inspection. 7. Would KISCO accept 'certificate of compliance' from a European competent/notified body as proof of compliance to CE marking? No, but when mutual agreement is made like us, it is easy to get S-mark. 8. Does KISCO recognize SEMI S2 as an equivalent means of demonstrating compliance with S-Mark? Until now No, but it has to be discussed in the meeting. 9. How are differences of interpretation between the manufacturer and KISCO engineer resolved? KISCO is a big organization, but the department dealing with S-mark has only about 15 engineers, mechanical and electrical. They have limited man power and cannot cover numerous machines. So they tend to accept the manufacturer's idea. 10. Does the S-Mark certification involve an on-site assessment of the system? If so, where would this be conducted? At the manufacturer's site. 11. What documentation is required by KISCO? Technical Construction File same as CE-Marking 12. How long would the assessment take and how much would the assessment cost? Time depends on the complexity of machine, and the cost is cheap relatively. But for foreign manufacturers, it will be recalculated. 13. Would there be any tests (e.g., dielectric, temperature, grounding continuity, etc.) performed on the equipment? Yes, e.g. earth continuity, insulation resistance, dielectric, impulse noise, burst noise, acoustic noise. 14. What is KISCO's position on components and assemblies that do not have their own safety certifications? How would they go about evaluating these components and assemblies for suitability of use? They want to expand the area, but I think it is not so easy because we in Korea have several other testing house specialized in components and assemblies. 15. Are documents to KISCO required to be in Korean? They have their own form sheets written in Korean, but they said for TCF English is okay except user's manual. ( At least user's manual shall be written in Korean). 16. If SEMI S2 is used as part of the S-Mark certification, would KISCO accept low risk level non-compliances? At the beginning, they said NO, but they seem to change due to the meeting, It has to be discussed at the meeting. 17. For which type of equipment is the S mark required by law? S-mark is voluntary but, for the manufacturers producing dangerous machinery such as press, crane, hoist, etc. which are legally requiring type approval from them, It exempt from the type approval. 18. Is S-Mark approved by the World Trade Organization (WTO)? Obviously not. They made it for themselves. After economic crisis, so-called IMF, government started to reduce financial support to all governmental organizations and pushed them to survive by themselves. And moreover, because of CE-Marking in European market, they had to do something for the machinery manufacturers. These two motives made S-Mark in fact. 19. Are the IEC standards part of S-Mark? No, but 70 percents are equivalent. 20. What are the governmental organizations that certify laboratories for S-Mark? Nowhere. They made it by themselves. 21. Are foreign laboratories allowed to be certified for S-Mark? As I explained
ADM Proposed Subject Leaders
Hi All, Good discussion about splitting the list. Me, I like it the way it is as I wear all the hats. One good idea I saw was about adding a symbol in the subject line of the message to allow for easy filtering. Here is my proposed list of header symbols. Please feel free to use and/or add to the list. ADM - administrative, listserver information LAS - laser issues SAF - product safety issues, any product EMC - product emissions immunity, any product. TEL - subjects related to Telecom, modems, etc, but not TREG items Here is a list of proposed modifiers to the above: ITE - information technology equipment specific LAB - laboratory and test equipment specific MACH - machinery, heavy or industrial equipment specific REG - regulations and standards specific Examples of the use: ADM - should we split the list? LAS - laser pointers being abused SAF - What is IEC 65? EMC, ITE - Anyone using EN55024 yet? TEL, REG - Question about Cl. 6.2 You get the idea. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I would NOT like to see a split as well. == --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: House alarm certification
Paul, The objective of the CE mark is to enable the free movement of goods throughout Europe and for them to be placed on the market. The UPEA is not preventing this from being done. The UPEA is exercising its right as a user/consumer to contractually insist that a requirement that is possibly extra to the various pieces of EC legislation be met. If the requirement is detrimental to the various EC directives i.e. it makes a particular requirement easier to meet then you maybe have a reason to follow this up. However, provided this is not being used as a reason to prevent the equipment being placed on the market then you have no legal complaint. There are various organisations that already do this as the EC Directives, particularly EMC, do not cover the environment in which the equipment is to be used. Regards Ray Garner Consultant Datel-Ferranti Group RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Short-circuit Protection
Richard, My omissions follow: Now that I have the standards in hand, the requirements actually appear to be related to equipment requiring dedicated circuits. See Clause 2.7 for EN60950 and Clause 2.7 and the NAE of UL1950/CSA950. Best Regards, Jody Leber jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 -Original Message- From: Jody Leber [SMTP:jle...@ustech-lab.com] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:06 PM To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Short-circuit Protection Richard, I believe the concern is for products that are shipped with a junction box not a power supply cord. For example, we approved a Kiosk that was provided with a junction box and no power cord. The installer (electrician) was required to size the breaker and mains wiring. Best Regards, Jody Leber jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Short-circuit Protection According to Clause 1.7.11 of the 60950 clones, for equipment that is permanently wired and relies upon the building installation for short-circuit protection, . . . the equipment installation instructions shall so state and shall also specify the requirements for short-circuit protection or over-current protection, where necessary, for both. All certified beakers have a specified breaking capacity and the building wiring is sized for that protection. I understand that the compliant equipment's internal wiring, and where allowed, permanently connected power cord will withstand the short-circuit currents allowed by the certified external breakers. So, it is unclear to me that any additional specifications, including a current rating, are required other than stating that the protection is required. What statements are you making in your instructions to comply with this requirement? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EMC and product safety split?
Hi Michael, I am also interested in EMC design issues, as an EMC Engineer following my company's products (printers) from crib to grave. Can you address me to the EMC design or SI forum that, I understand, you are in ? Thanks a lot in advance. P.S. One comment over the EMC-safety split: I agree with many in this forum that it's good as it is now, even if I work on EMC only. That's because (1) it's always good to get a wider perspective, plus (2) the two topics - as already mentioned - can overlap and (3) because of the last point in some cases I may be interested in keeping some posts with a safety subject. Paolo Roncone Compuprint s.p.a. Italy Michael Vrbanac vrban...@swbell.net on 12/03/2000 05.50.08 Please respond to Michael Vrbanac vrban...@swbell.net To: Robert Legg rl...@tectrol.com, IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: (bcc: Paolo Roncone/IT/BULL) Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split? All, After reading several responses on this, I'll throw my two cents in Since my main interests are in high performance physical system design and integration, EMC and signal integrity design (among others) are foremost in my interests, so design issues are of primary importance to me and regulatory details of secondary importance. So the following opinion is offered under these considerations. I have valued the forum as it is and how it has progressed in the several years I have been on it. The regulatory content has been excellent. I have, in the recent past however, noted the lower incidence of posts dealing with specific design issues. This is not a bad thing but being also a member of the SI-Forum, I have noticed most of the technical EMC design posts migrating over there in the last year or two. While it is granted that some EMC design issues can resolved by attention to signal integrity, it is wondered why it is felt that they must post EMC questions on a signaling forum. Is it because this forum is now dealing with primarily regulatory details rather than design details or migrating that way? I really don't have an answer for that but it bears some thought and may be the underlying basis for the question that Robert has posed to us. In an attempt to answer to his question, I wonder if it lies in what we want the forum to address and what we decide to emphasize. If we can't address it all here, perhaps another forum is in order. The only downside for me to that is that I don't need another forum to inundate me with email. This one and the other I mentioned is quite enough as it is. So that's my thought for the day enjoy! Michael E. Vrbanac --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: CCTV CAMERA to LVD
The scope of IEC65 changed somewhat as it progressed from the 5th edition to the 6th edition. The 5th covered mains operated household equipment whereas the 6th edition covers audio, video and similar equipment. Mentioned in the list of examples of equipment within the scope of IEC65 are video cameras and video monitors. I think, though, that IEC65 is intended to cover entertainment/educational type video equipment and not permanently installed CCTV surveillance video equipment. My feeling is that IEC950 would be a more suitable standard to work to. Chris Colgan EMC Safety TAG McLaren Audio Ltd mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: James Linehan [SMTP:jline...@cisco.com] Sent: 10 March 2000 19:35 To: Kevin Newland; Peter Merguerian; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CCTV CAMERA to LVD I would agree. Although I don't have IEC 65 in front of me, something tells me the scope specifically calls out CCTV devices. Can someone with IEC 65 check the scope and confirm? At 08:02 AM 3/10/00 -0800, Kevin Newland wrote: Peter, I am afraid I disagree with Richard. The CCTV comes under the scope of IEC65 and not 950. Thanks Kevin --- Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il wrote: Hello Group, Can EN 60 950 be used to evaluate a CCTV camera to the LVD? Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org = Authorised on 03/13/00 at 09:20:59; code 37f48bf3C0363754. ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
50 Ohm Termination
Hi All, This month's technical tidbit article on www.dsmith.org is an easier way to construct a 50 Ohm termination good to 1 GHz or higher. Unlike my previous method, it is not necessary to try to solder surfact mount resistors to the rim of a BNC barrel adapter. The termination is useful by itself or as part of a high frequency probe. Next month's article will be Paperclips and the Speed of Light. It will be posted right after the first of the month. Doug -- --- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org --- --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
House alarm certification
I like your opinion on the requirements for House protection alarm systems. Typical intrusion alarm systems are installed by professional people, have a noisy external horn with flash lite and may send alarm signals to a monitor agency who take care of the alarm for you on a predefined and stipulated protocol basis. Fire and intrusion insurance companies add specific certification and requirements on the hardware used in the system whitch are different from CE requirements (in belgium : Union Professionel des Assurance = UPEA dictate those rules to the insurance companies). Are in your oppinion those insurance contract stipulations in agreement with the free circulation of goods in europe and EC rules and certification allowances ? Paul Rampelbergh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Short-circuit Protection
Richard, I believe the concern is for products that are shipped with a junction box not a power supply cord. For example, we approved a Kiosk that was provided with a junction box and no power cord. The installer (electrician) was required to size the breaker and mains wiring. Best Regards, Jody Leber jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Short-circuit Protection According to Clause 1.7.11 of the 60950 clones, for equipment that is permanently wired and relies upon the building installation for short-circuit protection, . . . the equipment installation instructions shall so state and shall also specify the requirements for short-circuit protection or over-current protection, where necessary, for both. All certified beakers have a specified breaking capacity and the building wiring is sized for that protection. I understand that the compliant equipment's internal wiring, and where allowed, permanently connected power cord will withstand the short-circuit currents allowed by the certified external breakers. So, it is unclear to me that any additional specifications, including a current rating, are required other than stating that the protection is required. What statements are you making in your instructions to comply with this requirement? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: EMC and product safety split?
I think it is great the way it is. I am interested and involved with all regulatory issues. Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net - Original Message - From: Rich Nute ri...@sdd.hp.com To: Product Safety Technical Committee emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:15 PM Subject: Re: EMC and product safety split? Regarding a possible EMC and product safety split... I want to thank each of your for your contributions to this topic. As with our technical discussions, your comments are of high quality and are highly worthwhile and thought-provoking. Each of your technical contributions make this forum what it is. The forum is not moderated, and the technical discussions are what they are because of the individual contributions. My personalthanks to you for your contributions. This forum was founded for the purpose of discussions regarding product safety. Because the PSTC is a part of the IEEE EMC Society, a condition for the listserver operation was that it include EMC discussions. More recently, we seem to discuss all sorts of regulatory issues, not just safety and EMC. Clearly, our subscribers have a need to bring these topics to a worldwide forum. You have presented valid pros and cons for separate safety and EMC lists. From a practical point of view, we would need at least three people (volunteers) to set up and operate an EMC- only list as well as authorization from the EMC Society. We would need one volunteer to take on the leadership function, and two volunteers to take on the day-to-day administrative functions. Personally, I think we have a good, effective operation today. Splitting the operation will reduce the range of discussion, especially in the overlapping safety-EMC areas and in the non- safety and non-EMC regulatory areas. So, until someone steps up with answers to these service problems and can also manage a new EMC listserver, our listserver will continue as it is. Thank you for bringing up this discussion and for your views on the listserver. This discussion has helped those of us who operate the listserver to better understand our subscribers needs and helps us in keeping a useful service to you. Best regards, Richard Nute PSTC listserver administrator --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
