Re: Russian Certification of Products
Chris, Just remember that with the exception of Western European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the world (without being rude) have not really have a solid rule for anything. These countries rules and regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange) without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the real life and we live in it. Thanks Kevin --- Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com wrote: Our sales people in Russia have started the process of Certifying our equipment to sell in Russia. The two agencies that they are working with are Gosstandart and the Ministry of Communication. According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all of our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification, EMC Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the products of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture, vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our calibration equipment and methods. We are also being asked to pay for a trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each. The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer). Note that all of the actions being performed for this are inspections of existing documentation, not actual testing. So in the end, they will decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation, testing... I have never experienced this before. It appears to be a great deal of expense for not much substance. Is this typical? Has anybody else out there certified products with these agencies? By the way, we typically classify our product as light industrial test and measurement equipment and already have solid testing and documentation to to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety). Does this give us any kind of out? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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 __ 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
RE: Russian Certification of Products
Chris, The way I understood it a couple years ago import and exploitation of foreign equipment in Russia is determined by the Russian Government Order 612. The Order (Law) of goods imported into Russia went into effect July 1, 1993. The requirements of this Order are associated with safety/quality/certification. Without the proper Russian certification you can experience long delays at the borders (could be 30 days or more). I was working with the State Research Center of the Russian Federation D.I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIM) in St. Petersburg. The required certification will be listed into their State Register and the certification will come from the Gosstandard of Russia for ease of entry. In my opinion, what they are telling you is correct per Order 612 but copies of your test report should reduce overall cost, as I remember their quote to me was very similar to yours. I decided not pursue this approach and take my chances since many parts of Russia are happy with a Declaration of Conformity indicating the international standards tested to. I guess it depends on the amount of business you plan on doing in Russia and which locale you are entering your product. Regards, Mark Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:54 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Russian Certification of Products Our sales people in Russia have started the process of Certifying our equipment to sell in Russia. The two agencies that they are working with are Gosstandart and the Ministry of Communication. According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all of our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification, EMC Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the products of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture, vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our calibration equipment and methods. We are also being asked to pay for a trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each. The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer). Note that all of the actions being performed for this are inspections of existing documentation, not actual testing. So in the end, they will decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation, testing... I have never experienced this before. It appears to be a great deal of expense for not much substance. Is this typical? Has anybody else out there certified products with these agencies? By the way, we typically classify our product as light industrial test and measurement equipment and already have solid testing and documentation to to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety). Does this give us any kind of out? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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: EMC and product safety split?
The following is posted per John's request below. Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston -- Forwarded by Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne on 03/15/2000 05:23 PM --- John Freudenberg 03/15/2000 12:36 PM To: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne cc: Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? (Document link not converted) Paul, Please post my comments to the PSTC listserver. I vote for splitting EMC PSTC and promoting an IEEE Product Safety Society. I am a member and past-president of the Northeast Product Safety Society (non-IEEE) chapter of the PSTC. The success of the Northeast Product Safety Society is based on the specialized focus of product safety engineers sharing information in a forum dedicated to product safety. NPSS has organized a product safety workshop and a product safety trade show that has activated and motivated more local NPSS members than all the other IEEE PSTC chapters in the USA combined. For more information visit http://www.nepss.org NPSS enjoys a great relationship with the New England Chapter of the the IEEE EMC Society holding a joint meetng every Sept for the last five years. Up to approx. 25% of each organization are members of both organizations, however, the majority of each organization seems to prefer a dedicated forum and both forums are always open to everyone. After 12 years of independent success I don't know if NPSS members would join a IEEE Product Safety Society, but it is fact/history that a majority of the local product safety engineers were never interested in joining the IEEE EMC Society. --- 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: Russian Certification of Products
Pretty much falls in line with what we pay for certification of our Network Access Products. The first time we went through this the costs were itemized and they had a $10K figure for the trip to the US. When we balked they said the trip could be waived but a closer examination of the submitted documents would be needed and that would raise the cost. As you can guess the new cost was exactly $10K more. These costs are open to negotiation so it's up to your folks in Russia to develop a relationship and be tough negotiators. David Clement Motorola Inc. Internet Networking Group 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:54 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Russian Certification of Products Our sales people in Russia have started the process of Certifying our equipment to sell in Russia. The two agencies that they are working with are Gosstandart and the Ministry of Communication. According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all of our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification, EMC Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the products of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture, vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our calibration equipment and methods. We are also being asked to pay for a trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each. The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer). Note that all of the actions being performed for this are inspections of existing documentation, not actual testing. So in the end, they will decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation, testing... I have never experienced this before. It appears to be a great deal of expense for not much substance. Is this typical? Has anybody else out there certified products with these agencies? By the way, we typically classify our product as light industrial test and measurement equipment and already have solid testing and documentation to to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety). Does this give us any kind of out? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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
Russian Certification of Products
Our sales people in Russia have started the process of Certifying our equipment to sell in Russia. The two agencies that they are working with are Gosstandart and the Ministry of Communication. According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all of our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification, EMC Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the products of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture, vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our calibration equipment and methods. We are also being asked to pay for a trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each. The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer). Note that all of the actions being performed for this are inspections of existing documentation, not actual testing. So in the end, they will decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation, testing... I have never experienced this before. It appears to be a great deal of expense for not much substance. Is this typical? Has anybody else out there certified products with these agencies? By the way, we typically classify our product as light industrial test and measurement equipment and already have solid testing and documentation to to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety). Does this give us any kind of out? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.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
RE: ESD wrist strap
Our field service group uses an ESD field service kit. This is provided with the standard ESD wrist strap grounding cord terminated with the standard banana plug. We also provide them with a large gator clip which can plug into the banana plug. We have also incorporated onto our device enclosures a small metal banana jack, labeled it ESD Grounding and advice our service staff to connect their ESD wrist strap/cord into this jack when ever performing field service repair work (ESD related). Metal to metal contact is assured between the banana jack and the frame. The service person is advised to also assure that the device is plugged into the A/C wall outlet during service repair. (provided they are not repairing the A/C power circuit/components!) Even if the device is not connected to A/C safety ground, ESD charges will be equalized between the repair technician, parts and device under rapier thus minimizing voltage differentials. I hope this sheds a little light on your question! -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:31 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESD wrist strap Hi Group, I have been asked by the design group if there is an industry standard in the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective wrist strap (banana plug, snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation on equipment containing static sensitive assembly. We are presently using banana plug type. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp. Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4054 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca Web: http://www.marconi.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: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement
As Robert mentioned, this subject has been discussed in the last few years. A couple of areas not touched upon by recent replies has to do with the type of antenna and mutual coupling factors. A well designed antenna will be balanced, i.e., it will be geometry independent. Looking at the factors for our 3110b, they look very nearly the same for horizontal and vertical polarization as well as at 3 meters and 10 meters. This suggests we should save the money for this model antenna and have 1 factor verified (10 meter horizontal) instead of having 4 factors verified. A broadband antenna may not have mutual coupling at 3 meters, but a tuned dipole will. Of course there is usually not enough space in a chamber to use tuned dipoles. We have had better luck on the OATS with dipoles than with broadband antennas -- more accurate and more repeatable, but longer execution time. An interesting point if you use tuned dipoles at your OATS, it has been shown by a study (by NIST?) that for all tuned dipoles of the FCC reference variety (EMCO 3121C?) that the variation from the factors in the standard (ANSI C63.5) were on the order of +/- .5 dB (for a universe of ~50 antennas?). One could make an argument to use the factors in the standard instead of using the factors provided by a cal lab. The dipoles provide you with an accurate OATS NSA. Then its time to correlate the results by dipole to results by broadband antenna, then go on to the chamber. Is it worth it? Depends on the answers you are getting and how much time you have. Just my $.02 worth, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: Robert Bonsen[SMTP:rbon...@orionscientific.com] Reply To: Robert Bonsen Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 1:47 PM To: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it; pierre.se...@wanadoo.fr; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement This is a discussion which starts up at least once every year. There are some issues with measuring NSA which are not very well understood including antenna factors. First of all, how you test and which factors to use should not be a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, the standards do not completely specify the requirements on the antenna factors which enhances confusion and introduces room for data manipulation. Having said that, there are some simple guidelines which are based on physics, literature and practical experience. 1. There is a difference between measuring EUTs and performing site attenuation measurements. NSA measurements are solely used for verifying the performance of the site. It uses a simple antenna substitution technique, in which the site under test is verified against the performance of the site on which the antenna factors are calibrated. Hence, the better the cal site on which the antennas are calibrated resembles a perfect OATS (i.e. an OATS with an infinitely large ground plane), the better quality the NSA measurement will be. As far as measurement method goes, a dual antenna factor calibration suffices if the same antennas will be used in the NSA measurement, there is no accuracy advantage when using a three-antenna method in this case. 2. Measurement distance. There are substantial difference in the antenna factors (and site attenuation) values at various range distances. In order to perform a correct NSA measurement, use the same range distance for the AF calibration as for the NSA measurement. The same goes for the EUT measurements, always use the same range distance. 3. Geometry. Although some OATSes and a few semi-anechoic chambers will pass NSA with using horizontal antenna factors only, this is not a correct measurement method. Since we're comparing the site-under-test to the AF measurement OATS, any change in the setup which results in a change in the physics of the AF or NSA measurement will introduce an artificial systematic error into the measurement. Both literature and experience has shown that AF measured at different geometries, with different polarizations and/or different source antenna heights), produce different antenna factors. Variations of up to 3 dB and sometimes more are to be expected for the low frequency regions. These variations will result in added errors in any site attenuation measurement in which the correct corresponding antenna factor is not used. In a lot of cases, this will bring a perfectly ok chamber or OATS out due to the artificial measurement error. 4. Accuracy. Antenna factors provided by the manufacturer or measured by a cal lab are typically not of sufficient accuracy (with a few exceptions). Accuracy in the AF measurement is extremely important since the NSA measurement does not provide for a lot of uncertainty margin for the AF. Typically, AFs are measured with a 2 dB uncertainty at best, even when higher accuracies are claimed. Cable layout, padding, equipment, etc. are extremely important.
Re: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement
I agree with the guidelines stated. Just wanted to point out a problem I had with VCCI on the last submission for registration of our oats. The initial submission used both horizontal and vertical AF for site attenuation measurements; however, VCCI would only accept horizontal AF for both measurements. We did a second vertical measurement and re-submitted with no problems. - Original Message - From: Robert Bonsen rbon...@orionscientific.com To: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it; pierre.se...@wanadoo.fr; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement This is a discussion which starts up at least once every year. There are some issues with measuring NSA which are not very well understood including antenna factors. First of all, how you test and which factors to use should not be a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, the standards do not completely specify the requirements on the antenna factors which enhances confusion and introduces room for data manipulation. Having said that, there are some simple guidelines which are based on physics, literature and practical experience. 1. There is a difference between measuring EUTs and performing site attenuation measurements. NSA measurements are solely used for verifying the performance of the site. It uses a simple antenna substitution technique, in which the site under test is verified against the performance of the site on which the antenna factors are calibrated. Hence, the better the cal site on which the antennas are calibrated resembles a perfect OATS (i.e. an OATS with an infinitely large ground plane), the better quality the NSA measurement will be. As far as measurement method goes, a dual antenna factor calibration suffices if the same antennas will be used in the NSA measurement, there is no accuracy advantage when using a three-antenna method in this case. 2. Measurement distance. There are substantial difference in the antenna factors (and site attenuation) values at various range distances. In order to perform a correct NSA measurement, use the same range distance for the AF calibration as for the NSA measurement. The same goes for the EUT measurements, always use the same range distance. 3. Geometry. Although some OATSes and a few semi-anechoic chambers will pass NSA with using horizontal antenna factors only, this is not a correct measurement method. Since we're comparing the site-under-test to the AF measurement OATS, any change in the setup which results in a change in the physics of the AF or NSA measurement will introduce an artificial systematic error into the measurement. Both literature and experience has shown that AF measured at different geometries, with different polarizations and/or different source antenna heights), produce different antenna factors. Variations of up to 3 dB and sometimes more are to be expected for the low frequency regions. These variations will result in added errors in any site attenuation measurement in which the correct corresponding antenna factor is not used. In a lot of cases, this will bring a perfectly ok chamber or OATS out due to the artificial measurement error. 4. Accuracy. Antenna factors provided by the manufacturer or measured by a cal lab are typically not of sufficient accuracy (with a few exceptions). Accuracy in the AF measurement is extremely important since the NSA measurement does not provide for a lot of uncertainty margin for the AF. Typically, AFs are measured with a 2 dB uncertainty at best, even when higher accuracies are claimed. Cable layout, padding, equipment, etc. are extremely important. Also, AFs are typically only measured at one height at one polarization, which is not sufficient for accurate chamber cals. I recently was asked to calibrate a chamber using factors which were claimed to be better than +/- 1dB, but the frequency steps were so large that a small bump in the AF was completely missed, resulting in a more than +/-2dB uncertainty. Had the lab paid attention to setup and the peculiarities of this antenna, the AF measurement would have been fine, and we would have saved considerable time and money. Since most labs have a substantial margin for antenna factor error (up to 3 dB) in their uncertainty budget for EUT measurements, accuracy and geometry does not become much of an issue. However, in NSA measurements we're looking at substantially smaller margins and all of the aforementioned issues become important. On a final note, free-space factors are not an alternative. Simple physics dictates the presence of the ground plane (which is not present in free-space measured AF) adds a variable to the equation which in turn may add systematic errors to your measurement. And this has been demonstrated in literature. Free-space factors are for free-space measurement facilities (fully anechoic chambers). Using free-space factors
RE: ESD wrist strap
Daniel, Just about every switch (class 4 and 5) I've ever seen has had a banana plug available. There is usually an opportunity to connect to the safety ground post, if you happen to have an alligator clip on your strap instead of the banana jack. Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:31 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESD wrist strap Hi Group, I have been asked by the design group if there is an industry standard in the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective wrist strap (banana plug, snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation on equipment containing static sensitive assembly. We are presently using banana plug type. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp. Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4054 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca Web: http://www.marconi.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: EMC and product safety split?
Gary, The question was Is there any possibility of getting the EMC and product safety postings partitioned to assist in cutting surplus mail traffic? I was just offering a potential solution to the surplus mail traffic. I apologize to you and the group for coming across the wrong way, there are no dumb questions and yes I do encourage all questions related to EMC, Safety and Regulation. Again, please accept my apology. I have a tendency to be very direct, due to the hard lines I draw on compliance issues relating to my company (or so I've been told). I guess it's a character flaw of mine. Mark -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:46 AM To: 'Mark Schmidt'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? Mike, I gotta stick up for the question and the discussion. This forum is here to help us perform our various functions. Any question about how to possibly improve that process seems to me to be a completely legitimate question. I happen to be in the camp that would not like to see it split and haven't really felt the need to respond to this point, but that doesn't lessen the appreciation for the question. I think the number of other responses would seem to back that up. Secondly, I don't think that you intended to put a damper on asking questions, but you first line implies that this was a dumb question and shouldn't have been asked. I suspect that the people who most benefit most from these discussions may be the same ones who hate to ask a question that might be dumb in front of such an august many august body, and I think it would be a shame to discourage them from doing so. (Maybe because I so often ask exactly those questions or start so many fires). If the question or discussion is germane to the various job responsibilities of our members I believe it benefits us all either because it reinforces something we may already know or it gives us new insight into a problem. Sorry if I seem a little territorial here but I really don't want to see anyone back away from a legitimate question because they are afraid of simply asking it. Gary -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EMC and product safety split? One way to cut down on mail traffic would be not having to read this type of discussion thread. I know the reason I subscribed was based on content relating to both EMC and Safety. This forum has been very helpful for establishing quality engineering practices to enhance design, based on the limits and requirements of regulatory standardization at a global level. If some of the information is not relevant to you, I am certain that it would helpful to your colleagues since you share a common vision at the corporate level. Information sharing is a great asset in producing great product. Share the wealth, this is what this forum is all about anyway. From where I sit all information is welcome. Mark --- 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
[SI-LIST] : Job Opening at Cisco in San Jose, CA - EMC Design Engineer
Were looking for a senior EMC design engineer who can provide design support for low-cost, high-volume business unit. Requires BSEE or equivalent plus 5 years experience. Experience in designing and testing telecom and/or networking equipment to international EMC standards required. Good communication skills essential. Must be able to work effectively with development project teams providing pro-active EMC design support at the PCB and system level. Understanding, analyzing, and communicating cost-effective EMC design techniques with emphasis on the PCB layout is essential. Must be able to troubleshoot, preferably using bench top methods. Thorough knowledge of EN55022, FCC part 15, EN55024, and associated IEC1000 series immunity standards is required. Able to provide clear direction to EMC test engineers in performing system configuration and qualification testing. If you are interested, please contact me at npis...@cisco.com (408) 527 7874 Or you can contact Tom Lindeland (hiring manager) tlind...@cisco.com (408) 526 4976 Neven Pischl To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
RE: ESD wrist strap
Dan, Bellcore's (now known as Telcordia) GR-1089 (part of NEBS) can give you direction. In the section on ESD Testing (sorry that I can't quote the section number, I don't presently have the document here in my office), there is a notation regarding provision of connection for ESD straps (and marking). They describe this as an 'out' for one of the more intensive ESD tests (remove accessible printed circuit boards from the system, discharge energy at various points around the edge of the board, and place back in and the system should be functional). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com [mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 12:31 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESD wrist strap Hi Group, I have been asked by the design group if there is an industry standard in the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective wrist strap (banana plug, snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation on equipment containing static sensitive assembly. We are presently using banana plug type. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp. Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4054 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca Web: http://www.marconi.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
Re: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement
This is a discussion which starts up at least once every year. There are some issues with measuring NSA which are not very well understood including antenna factors. First of all, how you test and which factors to use should not be a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, the standards do not completely specify the requirements on the antenna factors which enhances confusion and introduces room for data manipulation. Having said that, there are some simple guidelines which are based on physics, literature and practical experience. 1. There is a difference between measuring EUTs and performing site attenuation measurements. NSA measurements are solely used for verifying the performance of the site. It uses a simple antenna substitution technique, in which the site under test is verified against the performance of the site on which the antenna factors are calibrated. Hence, the better the cal site on which the antennas are calibrated resembles a perfect OATS (i.e. an OATS with an infinitely large ground plane), the better quality the NSA measurement will be. As far as measurement method goes, a dual antenna factor calibration suffices if the same antennas will be used in the NSA measurement, there is no accuracy advantage when using a three-antenna method in this case. 2. Measurement distance. There are substantial difference in the antenna factors (and site attenuation) values at various range distances. In order to perform a correct NSA measurement, use the same range distance for the AF calibration as for the NSA measurement. The same goes for the EUT measurements, always use the same range distance. 3. Geometry. Although some OATSes and a few semi-anechoic chambers will pass NSA with using horizontal antenna factors only, this is not a correct measurement method. Since we're comparing the site-under-test to the AF measurement OATS, any change in the setup which results in a change in the physics of the AF or NSA measurement will introduce an artificial systematic error into the measurement. Both literature and experience has shown that AF measured at different geometries, with different polarizations and/or different source antenna heights), produce different antenna factors. Variations of up to 3 dB and sometimes more are to be expected for the low frequency regions. These variations will result in added errors in any site attenuation measurement in which the correct corresponding antenna factor is not used. In a lot of cases, this will bring a perfectly ok chamber or OATS out due to the artificial measurement error. 4. Accuracy. Antenna factors provided by the manufacturer or measured by a cal lab are typically not of sufficient accuracy (with a few exceptions). Accuracy in the AF measurement is extremely important since the NSA measurement does not provide for a lot of uncertainty margin for the AF. Typically, AFs are measured with a 2 dB uncertainty at best, even when higher accuracies are claimed. Cable layout, padding, equipment, etc. are extremely important. Also, AFs are typically only measured at one height at one polarization, which is not sufficient for accurate chamber cals. I recently was asked to calibrate a chamber using factors which were claimed to be better than +/- 1dB, but the frequency steps were so large that a small bump in the AF was completely missed, resulting in a more than +/-2dB uncertainty. Had the lab paid attention to setup and the peculiarities of this antenna, the AF measurement would have been fine, and we would have saved considerable time and money. Since most labs have a substantial margin for antenna factor error (up to 3 dB) in their uncertainty budget for EUT measurements, accuracy and geometry does not become much of an issue. However, in NSA measurements we're looking at substantially smaller margins and all of the aforementioned issues become important. On a final note, free-space factors are not an alternative. Simple physics dictates the presence of the ground plane (which is not present in free-space measured AF) adds a variable to the equation which in turn may add systematic errors to your measurement. And this has been demonstrated in literature. Free-space factors are for free-space measurement facilities (fully anechoic chambers). Using free-space factors (or single geometry factors) can only be allowed if the additional uncertainty is included in the error budget of the NSA measurements. And this is not the case with the current standards (ANSI C63.4-1992, CISPR22). Hope this helps. For a little more detail, check my web site. Regards, -Robert Robert Bonsen Principal Consultant Orion Scientific email: rbon...@orionscientific.com URL: http://www.orionscientific.com phone: (512) 347 7393; FAX: (512) 328 9240 --- 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:
RE: EMC Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval
Dave, Sorry about the last message, that web page doesn't have a enough info. Try this one to Taiwan's Bureau of Standards, Metrology, and Inspection (BSMI). It includes the necessary info. http://www.moeabciq.gov.tw/english/e_n_hpg.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: david_inst...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:david_inst...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:34 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval Hi all, After all the recent talk on splitting the lists here's one for both! We are a manufacturer of test equipment for the disk drive industry, and are currently looking at supplying test equipment to Taiwan. Has anyone had any experience with exporting to Taiwan? and if so do you have any information on the EMC and safety requirements? I believe that certain types of equipment require both Safety and EMC approval. Our equipment would comprise of our test cards assembled in an enclosure with a single card PC and mains power supply. This is not a consumer type product and would only be used in a factory. Would this type of equipment require BCIQ approval. -- Regards Dave Instone. Compliance Engineer Test Systems, MP24/22 Xyratex, Langstone Rd., Havant, Hampshire, P09 1SA, UK. Tel: +44 (0)23-92-496862 (direct line) Fax: +44 (0)23-92-496014 http://www.xyratex.com Tel: +44 (0)23-92-486363 --- 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 Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval
Dave, Here's a link to the BCIQ to at least get you started: http://www.moeabciq.gov.tw/english/introduc/e_07.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: david_inst...@uk.xyratex.com [mailto:david_inst...@uk.xyratex.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 11:34 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval Hi all, After all the recent talk on splitting the lists here's one for both! We are a manufacturer of test equipment for the disk drive industry, and are currently looking at supplying test equipment to Taiwan. Has anyone had any experience with exporting to Taiwan? and if so do you have any information on the EMC and safety requirements? I believe that certain types of equipment require both Safety and EMC approval. Our equipment would comprise of our test cards assembled in an enclosure with a single card PC and mains power supply. This is not a consumer type product and would only be used in a factory. Would this type of equipment require BCIQ approval. -- Regards Dave Instone. Compliance Engineer Test Systems, MP24/22 Xyratex, Langstone Rd., Havant, Hampshire, P09 1SA, UK. Tel: +44 (0)23-92-496862 (direct line) Fax: +44 (0)23-92-496014 http://www.xyratex.com Tel: +44 (0)23-92-486363 --- 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
Signal Integrity/EMC Software
Software add-ons exist for PCB layout packages that predict signal integrity (e.g. ringing) and rf emission sources in digital circuits. My company is considering this software for use with clock speeds in the order of 30-60 MHz. I am interesting in hearing from those who may have experience with these prediction packages at these frequencies. Are they useful? Considering the price and effort, are the worth it? Do you have any particular brand recommendations? 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: Banana Split
I support the general comment that more specificity in the subject line would help in sorting emails. -Original Message- From: Lacey,Scott [mailto:sla...@foxboro.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Banana Split I apologize for the rather flippant subject line above, but., in many ways the collection of postings from this forum is like a banana split. The different flavors blend and complement each other. Many of us have multiple responsibilities, and some of those who currently don't may be tasked with additional chores in the future as their corporate employers undergo a lean transformation. There is a lot of valuable information in these postings. I have found some gems that were not always directly related to the subject line. Scott Lacey Test Engineer (EMC, Safety, Product Verification) The Foxboro Company 38 Neponset Avenue Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 508-549-3534 sla...@foxboro.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
ESD wrist strap
Hi Group, I have been asked by the design group if there is an industry standard in the telecom business (North America) for the connection of ESD protective wrist strap (banana plug, snap type, ...) used for maintenance operation on equipment containing static sensitive assembly. We are presently using banana plug type. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily that of my employer's. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp. Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4054 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@na.marconicomms.ca Web: http://www.marconi.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
RE: EMC and product safety split?
Gentleman, I think it would not be beneficial to split the two. They should be kept together. I myself am responsible for regulatory on both sides and I find the organization of material as presented not to be a problem. It has been an easy matter to review the messages and determine those that are applicaple for my needs and delete those that are not. Bob Chaplis Genrad. -Original Message- From: John Radomski [SMTP:john_radom...@inter-tel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:56 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? Keep them together. John Radomski Compliance Engineer Inter-Tel Integrated Systems --- 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: CBS Declares Winner!
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:02:52 -0500, geor...@lexmark.com wrote: CBS has used their well honed voting models to analyze the early election returns. With less than 1% of the votes counted, and the Far East results not yet in, Dan Rather has declared a non-split forum the clear winner by a wide margin. But George - the polls aren't closed yet in the, umm, hmm, email-impoverished areas. If they see your message, they may not file their comments! --- 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
Spanish analog interface
Can anyone inform me who, or what agency tests analog telephone interfaces to conform for connection to the Spanish Telephone Co. thanks, bruce benzie bben...@rma.edu --- 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?
Mike, I gotta stick up for the question and the discussion. This forum is here to help us perform our various functions. Any question about how to possibly improve that process seems to me to be a completely legitimate question. I happen to be in the camp that would not like to see it split and haven't really felt the need to respond to this point, but that doesn't lessen the appreciation for the question. I think the number of other responses would seem to back that up. Secondly, I don't think that you intended to put a damper on asking questions, but you first line implies that this was a dumb question and shouldn't have been asked. I suspect that the people who most benefit most from these discussions may be the same ones who hate to ask a question that might be dumb in front of such an august many august body, and I think it would be a shame to discourage them from doing so. (Maybe because I so often ask exactly those questions or start so many fires). If the question or discussion is germane to the various job responsibilities of our members I believe it benefits us all either because it reinforces something we may already know or it gives us new insight into a problem. Sorry if I seem a little territorial here but I really don't want to see anyone back away from a legitimate question because they are afraid of simply asking it. Gary -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EMC and product safety split? One way to cut down on mail traffic would be not having to read this type of discussion thread. I know the reason I subscribed was based on content relating to both EMC and Safety. This forum has been very helpful for establishing quality engineering practices to enhance design, based on the limits and requirements of regulatory standardization at a global level. If some of the information is not relevant to you, I am certain that it would helpful to your colleagues since you share a common vision at the corporate level. Information sharing is a great asset in producing great product. Share the wealth, this is what this forum is all about anyway. From where I sit all information is welcome. Mark --- 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 will offer a deal. No more humerous postings, if there are no more EMC and product safety split? postings. Neither has to do with EMC or safety. -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/15/2000 10:32 AM --- mmatejic%foxboro@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/15/2000 09:59:04 AM Please respond to mmatejic%foxboro@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? I don't think we should split EMC and Safety distribution lists. We could refrain from posting humorous and similar messages unrelated to EMC and Safety. Mirko --- 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: Antenna factors to be used for NSA measurement
Hi Pierre, did anyone reply to your post ? I would be a bit surprised in that case, given the high and broad level of EMC experience among us. I am pretty much interested in how your NSA and antenna calibration measurements are going and what results are you getting. This subject is widely covered and discussed in the EMC literature and my understanding is that there are quite a number of different opinions on how to combine or match NSA with the most appropriate antenna factors. I presently work in a 3m/10m OATS, but I also have worked in 3/10m SARs. First one question: did you actually perform the four different NSA measurements that you describe in your email ? You say : Depending the method used, the NSA is OK or NOT. So I guess you did try all of them. If this is the case, which one(s) got the good NSA and which one(s) didn't ?? By good NSA (the one that is OK in your words) I mean one that is within +/- 4dB all over the 30-1000 MHz range as specified by ANSI C63.4 and CISPR22. Now I give you my personal opinion, based both on my direct experience and on other people's experience, taken from the EMC literature. I personally used either choice 1 or 2. CHOICE 1: the manufacturer's antenna factors IF they are individually calibrated for the serial numbers of the antennas that you purchased and IF they are determined following one of ANSI C63.5 methods. This can work for about 1 year after purchase of the antennas. You should recalibrate your antennas after one year of frequent use. CHOICE 2: antenna factors determined with the 3 Antenna Method or Standard Site Method. The site to be used for antenna calibration should be an OATS different from the site that you want to qualify and later used for your emissions tests, be it an OATS or SAR. The reason is that the site imperfections of the Standard Site (the site that you use for antenna calibration) are embedded in the calculated AFs of the antennas and would cancel out when you calculate the NSA of your site (the 3m SAR). A good reference can be the following article from the 1995 IEEE EMC Symposium Record (page 327): W.M.Elliott, J.M.Roman, R.Robles: Three-Site Study of Variations Introduced by Standard Site Imperfections Using the ANSI 63.5 - 1988 Standard Site Method for Antenna Calibration. If you don't know how to get it, I may fax you a copy. Just let me know. I pick up this formula from the reference and refer it to your case : NSA = ThNSA + da - db where NSA = VD - VS - AF1 - AF2 ThNSA = theoretical NSA (ref. ANSI C63.4 and CISPR22) da = SAR deviation from ThNSA db = Standard Site deviation from ThNSA AF1, AF2 = antenna factors of transmitting / receiving antennas If you use the 3 antenna method in your SAR, da = db and the site error would cancel out giving you an apparent perfect result (NSA = ThNSA) for your SAR, even if the site is not perfect. I would not recommend choice 3 (two antenna method) in favor of choice 2 (three antenna method) that basically follows the same path but is more accurate. As for choice 4, it's not clear to me if you performed the measurements in the SAR or in a OATS. The first case would be wrong because of the above shown formulas (you would not see your SAR's imperfections). In any case it looks to me similar to choice 3 and so less accurate than the 3 antenna method. If you perform both Vertical and Horizontal measurements, that would improve your accuracy, giving you separate Vertical and Horizontal AFs. But, again, I would stick with the classical three-antenna method just adding the Vertical polarization. The ThNSA is used in the reference standards (ANSI and CISPR) to calibrate your site (SAR or OATS) against the reference theoretical site (infinite ground plane). One final point: the ANSI standard C63.5 latest edition is 1998. I heard that free space antenna factors are considered for SARs (I still don't have a copy of it). My opinion is that it's better to calibrate your antennas over a reflecting ground plane (OATS) if you are going to use the antennas over a ground plane (OATS or SAR), because the ground plane affects antenna factors. The good side of free space antenna factors is that they average out the AF variations with antenna height (1-4 m scan of receiving antenna), but - on the other end - you lose the non-negligible ground plane coupling effects. So I think it's better to use free space AFs in a Fully Anechoic Room (FAR), rather than in SARs or OATS. My opinion is that - given the many variables involved - we should strive for the most reasonable compromise between measurement accuracy and ease of reproducibility of measurement procedures among all test laboratories, and that (as we all know) is far from easy ! Hope this helps. Let me know !! Paolo Roncone Compuprint s.p.a. - Italy Pierre SELVA (NCE) pierre.se...@wanadoo.fr on 09/03/2000 10.00.27 Please respond to Pierre SELVA (NCE) pierre.se...@wanadoo.fr
RE: EMC and product safety split?
I don't think we should split EMC and Safety distribution lists. We could refrain from posting humorous and similar messages unrelated to EMC and Safety. Mirko --- 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?
Keep them together. John Radomski Compliance Engineer Inter-Tel Integrated Systems --- 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[2]: EMC and product safety split?
I do not think they should be split. Many Compliance / Approval Engineers in the industry today are not solely responsible for either Safety, EMC or Telecomm approvals but are responsible for all 3 (or is it just me!). In any case Safety and EMC issues in certain areas do overlap whether we like it or not. So why have the split in the group? Regards Tony Reynolds Compliance Engineering Pitney Bowes Ltd. Harlow, Essex, UK. __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? Author: Richard A. Schumacher schum...@valencia.rsn.hp.com at smtpgwy List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:14/03/00 14:57 I vote for splitting them. EMC and safety are different subjects. regards, Richard Schumacher Hewlett Packard Company --- 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[2]: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards
AND PREFERABLY IN ENGLISH!! Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and Author: Scott Douglas s_doug...@ecrm.com at smtpgwy List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:14/03/00 11:13 Richard, Can you or someone else please put this in layperson's terms? Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:46 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and thei r l ink to the RTT Importance: Low FYI. Richard Woods -Original Message- From: isoeta...@cenelec.be mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be [ mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be ] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:20 PM To: NC_all@cenelec.be mailto: Cc: PD_all@cenelec.be; mailto: stan.st...@dial.pipex.com; mailto:stan.st...@dial.pipex.com; keith_sti...@bsi.org.uk; mailto:keith_sti...@bsi.org.uk; br...@lasermet.com; mailto:br...@lasermet.com; dke@vde.com; mailto:dke@vde.com; bsi.ma...@t-online.de; mailto:bsi.ma...@t-online.de; j...@gimalarme.fr; mailto:j...@gimalarme.fr; reib...@thmulti.com; mailto:reib...@thmulti.com; wim.ho...@nni.nl; mailto:wim.ho...@nni.nl; juha.rist...@mnt.nokia.com; mailto:juha.rist...@mnt.nokia.com; egau...@nt.hirschmann.de; mailto:egau...@nt.hirschmann.de; u...@ute.asso.fr; mailto:u...@ute.asso.fr; michaelhke...@cs.com; mailto:michaelhke...@cs.com; direct...@cenelec.be; mailto:direct...@cenelec.be; corpor...@cenelec.be mailto:corpor...@cenelec.be Subject: Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and their link to the RTTE Directive This message is addressed to all National Committees with cc to all Permanent Delegates, the Chairmen and Secretaries of CLC/TC 74, TC 76, TC 79, TC 92, TC 209 and the Reporting Secretariat of IEC/TC 103. Dear Madam, dear Sir, On 2000-03-02 an informal EC/CENELEC/ETSI meeting was held concerning the RTTE Directive (RTTED) and its relation to the LVD and the EMC Directive (EMCD). The outcome of this meeting was considered as document BT(Bxl/SG)1087 (attached) by 103 BT which led to the following decisions: D103/181 BT noted the outcome of the EC/CENELEC/ETSI information meeting of 2000-03-02, concerning the RTTE Directive and its relation to the LVD and the EMC Directive. D103/182 BT invited CS to arrange a procedure in writing (with deadline 2000-03-31) on the suitability of the identified standards from TC 74, TC 76, TC 92, TC 209 and SR 103 as harmonised standards under the RTTE Directive (for products falling outside the LVD scope) in view of subsequent information towards the Commission. You will read that, as there are no specific requirements for the RTTED, additional to the LVD, this means that the LVD standards will be taken over by the RTTED (by means of a reference in the OJEC). There are however two issues linked to the RTTED and this in the voltage range 0 V to 50 V AC/75 V DC (outside the LVD scope) i.e.: the use of the existing LVD standards in this range as harmonised standard under the RTTED the possible preparation (following a future mandate) of some specific harmonised standards (e.g. for alarm systems) for the RTTE Directive This Central Secretariat enquiry, in accordance with D103/182, deals with the first type of standards. From the report on the EC/CENELEC/ETSI meeting and the subsequent 103 BT decisions, you will understand that it is of utmost importance for CENELEC to send a confirmation to the EC that identified standards, listed under the LVD can also be used under the RTTED, including for the lower voltage range. Together with ETSI and after consultation with the Chairmen/Secretaries of the relevant CENELEC technical bodies, we have identified following standards which would fall into this context: EN 60950 Safety of information technology equipment, including electrical business equipment EN 60065 Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus: Safety requirements EN 60825 Safety of laser products Part 1: Equipment classification, requirements and user's guide Part 2: Safety of optical fibre communications systems EN 41003 Particular safety requirements for equipment to be connected to telecommunications networks EN 60215 Safety requirements for radio transmitting equipment EN 50083-1 Cabled distribution systems for television and sound signals. Part 1: Safety requirements Unless advice to the
RE: EMC and product safety split?
One way to cut down on mail traffic would be not having to read this type of discussion thread. I know the reason I subscribed was based on content relating to both EMC and Safety. This forum has been very helpful for establishing quality engineering practices to enhance design, based on the limits and requirements of regulatory standardization at a global level. If some of the information is not relevant to you, I am certain that it would helpful to your colleagues since you share a common vision at the corporate level. Information sharing is a great asset in producing great product. Share the wealth, this is what this forum is all about anyway. From where I sit all information is welcome. Mark --- 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
IECEx Scheme
FYI Richard Woods -- From: Ludlam, Nicholas [SMTP:nicholas.lud...@fmglobal.com] mailto:[SMTP:nicholas.lud...@fmglobal.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:43 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IECEx Scheme Please find attached a letter from the U.S. National Committee of the IEC. The USNC is seeking comments on the Proposal for U.S. Participation in the IEC Scheme for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx Scheme). If you have any comments please address them directly to the USNC. Regards Nick Ludlam ansi -ex.doc Mr. John P. Collins, Jr. Secretary, USNC/IECEE NEMA 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847 Rosslyn, VA 22209 Phone: (703) 841-3200 Fax: (703) 841-3344 E-Mail: joh_coll...@nema.org mailto:joh_coll...@nema.org U.S. National Committee of the IEC Proposal for U.S. Participation in the IEC Scheme for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx Scheme) The U.S. National Committee of the IECEE submits for public comment a proposal for U.S. participation in the IECEx Scheme, which is one of several conformity assessment programs under the scope of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The primary objective of the IECEx Scheme is to facilitate international trade of Ex equipment by eliminating requirements for duplication of testing and certification, while preserving an appropriate level of safety. Currently there are 19 participating countries and 7 additional countries for which assessments for joining the program are active. Among the participating nations are Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia and China. The IECEx Scheme is a voluntary scheme. The intent of the scheme is to provide an internationally accepted means of providing product compliance with an IEC Standard. IEC Standards covering electrical equipment for use in explosive atmospheres are prepared by IEC TC 31. A certificate of conformity may be obtained from any certification body accepted by IECEx. The certificate will declare the equipment design conforms to the relevant IEC Standards, and that the product is manufactured under a quality management plan assessed by an accepted certification body. Manufacturers holding certificates of conformity may affix the IECEx Mark of Conformity to compliant equipment. The benefits of joining the IECEx Scheme include: reduced testing and certification costs to manufacturers, reduced time to market, product information in an international database, ability to influence the rules and procedures of the scheme and access to technical references for assessments currently in preparation. An application for a country to participate in the IECEx Scheme is made on a standard-by-standard basis. Certification Bodies and Testing Laboratories wishing to be accepted into the scheme must reside within the participating country. Certification Bodies and Testing Laboratories are accepted after satisfactory assessment of their competence by an assessment team. There are two categories of participation possible within the scheme: full participation--in situations where the corresponding national standard is identical to the IEC Standard and where the IECEx Certificate of Conformity is given equal treatment as the country's national certification. The second category of participation is known as transitional participation. Participation at this level provides for mutual acceptance of assessment and test reports between participating countries for the purpose of issuing national certification similar to the procedures of the IECEE CB Scheme. There is a ten-year transition period associated with this category of membership during which members can select their own transition period and specific standards within the Scheme. If after the selected transition period has expired, national differences still exist, a member country may withdraw from the scheme or apply for an additional extension. If the U.S. decides to participate, it will have to participate within the transitional category, since current U.S. National Standards in this product sector are not identical to those of the IEC. Initial reaction to this concept, based on review by industry members of the Enclosures Section of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, indicates that U.S. participation in the IECEx Scheme would have strong support among manufacturers and testing and certification organizations. Public comment is invited regarding the feasibility of having the U.S. participate in the IECEx Scheme. U.S. explosive atmosphere equipment manufacturers and testing and certification organizations are strongly encouraged to provide comments on the acceptability of U.S. participation in the IECEx Scheme. Further background information may be found on the IECEx Scheme website at www.iecex.com http://www.iecex.com . Comments regarding potential U.S. participation in this Scheme should be forwarded to: Mr. John P.
IECEx Scheme
Please find attached a letter from the U.S. National Committee of the IEC. The USNC is seeking comments on the Proposal for U.S. Participation in the IEC Scheme for Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx Scheme). If you have any comments please address them directly to the USNC. Regards Nick Ludlam ansi -ex.doc Description: MS-Word document
ANNOUNCE - FAQ: Sources of EMC Safety Compliance Information, 47th Issue
FAQ: Sources of EMC Safety Compliance Information This is to let you know that I have just posted in two parts the 47th issue of the above FAQ to the newsgroup for regulatory/compliance matters and EMC and safety specifications and testing, sci.engr.electrical.compliance (s.e.e.c). The message IDs are: Part 1: 2315.1159.35960...@lyons.demon.co.uk Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:59:23 + (GMT) Part 2: 2315.1201.35961...@lyons.demon.co.uk Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:01:48 + (GMT) Courtesy of Martin Rowe, the FAQ is archived at the following URL: http://world.std.com/~techbook/compliance_faq.html and the latest version should appear there in the next few days. The textfiles may be accessed at: Part 1: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk/seecfaq1.txt Part 2: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk/seecfaq2.txt Hope you find the FAQ useful: suggestions for additions or corrections are welcomed. -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org Maintainer of the sci.engr.electrical.compliance (s.e.e.c) FAQ = Claude Lyons Limited Brook Road Waltham Cross Herts EN8 7LR England Voltage and Power Control - Precise Electrical Instrumentation Tel: +44 1992 768 888 Fax: +44 1992 788 000 email: i...@claudelyons.co.uk URL: http://www.claudelyons.co.uk =
RE: Re[2]: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards
Hi Folks I am sure that Richard Woods will respond to the requests for clarification, but my reading of it is this: a) The Commission wants a clear definition from CENELEC of the existing LVD standards that can be also be considered to ensure compliance with the safety requirements of the RTTE Directive, especially for equipment which operates at below 50Vac/75Vdc. That list is given in the email (and the BT attachment) and it will be submitted unless any of the national or CENELEC TC's object by 31 March 2000. b) No separate list of separate safety standards will be included in the (presumably soon to be issued) OJ list of RTTE Directive standards. There will simply be some form of cross-reference in the latter to the acceptable standards listed for the LVD. c) Other issues may come up in future (e.g. alarm systems connected to telecomms circuits and thus subject to the RTTE Directive, and for which separate EN's already exist) but these will be dealt separately as required. d) EMC standards issues will also be dealt with separately. Anyone else like to have a shot at it? John Allen Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell UK -- From: Tony Reynolds[SMTP:reyno...@pb.com] Sent: 15 March 2000 13:30 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re[2]: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards AND PREFERABLY IN ENGLISH!! Tony Reynolds Pitney Bowes Ltd __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and Author: Scott Douglas s_doug...@ecrm.com at smtpgwy List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:14/03/00 11:13 Richard, Can you or someone else please put this in layperson's terms? Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:46 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CENELEC Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and thei r l ink to the RTT Importance: Low FYI. Richard Woods -Original Message- From: isoeta...@cenelec.be mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be [ mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be mailto:isoeta...@cenelec.be ] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:20 PM To: NC_all@cenelec.be mailto: Cc: PD_all@cenelec.be; mailto: stan.st...@dial.pipex.com; mailto:stan.st...@dial.pipex.com; keith_sti...@bsi.org.uk; mailto:keith_sti...@bsi.org.uk; br...@lasermet.com; mailto:br...@lasermet.com; dke@vde.com; mailto:dke@vde.com; bsi.ma...@t-online.de; mailto:bsi.ma...@t-online.de; j...@gimalarme.fr; mailto:j...@gimalarme.fr; reib...@thmulti.com; mailto:reib...@thmulti.com; wim.ho...@nni.nl; mailto:wim.ho...@nni.nl; juha.rist...@mnt.nokia.com; mailto:juha.rist...@mnt.nokia.com; egau...@nt.hirschmann.de; mailto:egau...@nt.hirschmann.de; u...@ute.asso.fr; mailto:u...@ute.asso.fr; michaelhke...@cs.com; mailto:michaelhke...@cs.com; direct...@cenelec.be; mailto:direct...@cenelec.be; corpor...@cenelec.be mailto:corpor...@cenelec.be Subject: Central Secretariat enquiry on LVD standards and their link to the RTTE Directive This message is addressed to all National Committees with cc to all Permanent Delegates, the Chairmen and Secretaries of CLC/TC 74, TC 76, TC 79, TC 92, TC 209 and the Reporting Secretariat of IEC/TC 103. Dear Madam, dear Sir, On 2000-03-02 an informal EC/CENELEC/ETSI meeting was held concerning the RTTE Directive (RTTED) and its relation to the LVD and the EMC Directive (EMCD). The outcome of this meeting was considered as document BT(Bxl/SG)1087 (attached) by 103 BT which led to the following decisions: D103/181 BT noted the outcome of the EC/CENELEC/ETSI information meeting of 2000-03-02, concerning the RTTE Directive and its relation to the LVD and the EMC Directive. D103/182 BT invited CS to arrange a procedure in writing (with deadline 2000-03-31) on the suitability of the identified standards from TC 74, TC 76, TC 92, TC 209 and SR 103 as harmonised standards under the RTTE Directive (for products falling outside the LVD scope) in view of subsequent information towards the Commission. You will read that, as there are no specific requirements for the RTTED, additional to the LVD, this means that the LVD standards will be taken over by the RTTED (by means of a reference in the OJEC). There are however two issues linked to the RTTED and this in the voltage range 0 V to 50 V AC/75 V DC (outside the LVD scope) i.e.: the use of the existing LVD standards in this range as harmonised standard under the RTTED the possible preparation (following a future mandate) of some specific harmonised standards (e.g. for alarm systems) for the RTTE Directive This Central Secretariat enquiry, in accordance with D103/182, deals with the first type of standards. From the report on the EC/CENELEC/ETSI
EMC and product safety split?
We go for No Split. Usually the subject (EMC / Safety) is defined in the subject field in a precise/comprehensible way. Easy to cut without open it . Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com I fully agree! Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org www.eso.org
RE: EMC and product safety split?
We go for No Split. Usually the subject (EMC / Safety) is defined in the subject field in a precise/comprehensible way. Easy to cut without open it . Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com -Original Message- From: John Allen [SMTP:john.al...@rdel.co.uk] Sent: 15. mars 2000 10:07 To:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split? My vote is My Vote is definitely against a split - like many others I have a wide regulatory/standards brief to cover and - for example - EMC safety are not totally different subjects as you generally cannot CE Mark a product for one without the other. John Allen Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell, 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 --- 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 email has been swept by MAILSweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- 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?
My vote is My Vote is definitely against a split - like many others I have a wide regulatory/standards brief to cover and - for example - EMC safety are not totally different subjects as you generally cannot CE Mark a product for one without the other. John Allen Racal Defence Electronics Ltd Bracknell, 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 --- 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: Worldwide Compliance Alert
The great majority of the headers I have seen on this list have been good indicators of the post content. In a perfect world, a coded header organization system would be nice. But, we have to remember that in the real world, a significant number of drivers are challenged simply to determine which traffic light governs their lane. Apologies, cause I know that those in this group are all much smarter than average. grin 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: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 11:16 AM To: 'Robert Johnson'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Worldwide Compliance Alert Actually, my subject should have said RE: EMC and product safety split. When this started, I vowed that I would not get involved. I also vowed that I wouldn't eat any of the cake on the table by the engineering lab. Now both vows are broken. After I recovered from the sugar high from the cake, I decided to throw in my opinion.If the subject of this message were RE: EMC and product safety split, would you have deleted it? I would. (I apologize in advance for the sarcasm.) The question of whether we should split the EMC and safety issues was asked because people were having a hard time sorting through emails. I also recognize that this task takes me some time. However, so far, my experience has been that the information that I find is worth the emails that I have to wade through. In today's world, not too many sources are as information rich as this forum is. This forum is already saving myself and my company money. I don't have to buy standards that don't apply to me, because I can ask the people in this forum whether they apply or not. I can also get this information without the bias of a marketing spin being put on it. Pure, unadulterated, un-spun, fat-free information, a rare and precious commodity. In my job description, EMC and safety are both included. The preponderance of responses that I have seen agree with my viewpoint that the user-group is OK for now. I can understand the feelings of those who would like a split. I wouldn't discourage them from persuing this. Heck, if I ever get sick of deleting messages, I'll join you. However, most of the messages that I have been deleting lately have RE: EMC and product safety split in the subject line. The irony here is that I know enough to delete these messages just by reading the subject line. In a way, this sort of proves that the system is working. I beleive that Rich Nute has correctly and non-discrimininantly outlined that those who want to change the system need to get three volunteers and work with the IEEE to set up another mail group. I beleive that the burden of proof now falls upon them. I do not want to make them look like outsiders, because they are not. We need to continually ask ourselves if the mail group could be improved.We also need to be open to everybody's opinion. Along with Rich, I thank the people that brought this subject up because it made me realize what I like about the group. 1. Typically, people only send emails when they have a legitimate question or a job opening. 2. Typically, the email deals with EMC and/or product safety. 3. Typically, people use a descriptive subject line when sending a message which allows me to sort quickly. 4. Typically, when I have had a question, the people responding have an insight which I have not yet been exposed to. 5. Did I mention it's free! 6. I have learned quite a bit just from reading other people's questions and answers. 7. I can get answers to questions without calling a test lab or paying a consultant's fee. 8. We all benefit by being exposed to each other's experiences. I think that it is good email practice to have a descriptive subject line on any email that you send. (Sorry about the misleading subject on this one.) That way, people can trash it or read it more quickly. It has been my experience that people are already doing this (for the most part) without using any acronyms or keywords. I apologize for being long winded on the subject and I don't want to clog the system any more. I think that we who like the system the way it is can respond by our silence. Let me suggest that from this point forward, anyone who does not send an email on this subject is agreeing to leave the user group the way it is. This leaves the channel open for those who disagree. I think that their viewpoint should always be welcomed. I just don't see
RE: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse?
Lauren, The EN 60947-* specifies the tests for Circuit Breakers, Control Switches, Terminal Blocks, ... The test series assumes that only one unprepared conductor will be attached to a terminal unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise. When the manufacturer specifies otherwise, the tests become quite time consuming. Although I can't comment on the relevance of the test series to actual installation conditions, I can tell you that I have seen tests with multiple conductors fail on multiple occasions. Anyway, connecting more than one conductor (when not specifically allowed) is using a component outside of it's approved (certified) specifications. If you want to quote a specific requirement from the 204, look in Chapter 14, Wiring Practices. Matt -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Crane, Lauren Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse? Safety minded folk, I am stumped finding chapter and verse on the following common sense ideas (i.e. in what part of which standard are the following issues addressed). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find! Any corrections would be appreciated. I generally work in the realm of the NEC (NFPA 70), NFPA 79, EN 60204 and EN 61010-1 (aka UL3121). If you know of a related section in one of these I would appreciate the direction. 1. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the manufacturer's documentation, it is only appropriate to apply one wire to one terminal on a commercial electrical device such as a contactor or circuit breaker. 2. For screw-terminal terminal strips, there should be no more than two ring or spade lugs, this includes jumper straps between barriers. Lauren E. Crane * Eaton Corporation, SEO * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 --- 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: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse?
I usually reference EN60204, section 14.1.1 when the subject (idea#1 in your email) comes up. The connection of two or more conductors to one terminal is permitted only in those cases where the terminal is designed for that purpose... The second idea you brought up, I am not aware of that being in the standards, however it is in some industry/customer requirements we have to deal with. For example, see Appendix A, item 2.1.9.4 in the SEMATECH Application Guide for SEMI S2-93. Mark Werlwas Product Safety Engineer Lam Research 4650 Cushing Parkway Fremont, California 94538 -Original Message- From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lcr...@bev.etn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 12:07 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Number of connections per terminal - chapter and verse? Safety minded folk, I am stumped finding chapter and verse on the following common sense ideas (i.e. in what part of which standard are the following issues addressed). Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest to find! Any corrections would be appreciated. I generally work in the realm of the NEC (NFPA 70), NFPA 79, EN 60204 and EN 61010-1 (aka UL3121). If you know of a related section in one of these I would appreciate the direction. 1. Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the manufacturer's documentation, it is only appropriate to apply one wire to one terminal on a commercial electrical device such as a contactor or circuit breaker. 2. For screw-terminal terminal strips, there should be no more than two ring or spade lugs, this includes jumper straps between barriers. Lauren E. Crane * Eaton Corporation, SEO * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 --- 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
