new HDSL2 standard?
Has anyone heard of the new ANSI T1E1.418 standard for HDSL2? We have seen a draft standard T1E1.4/99-006R3 for HDSL2, but a vendor claims that .418 is now the spec. of choice. (Our particular interest is in the Globespan chipset.) Thanks Dirk __ 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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Careful, George! I agree with your term Emerging standards.However, you must not have been familiar with IEC standards until very recently. IEC standards, during the iron curtain time, used to be published in three languages on the title page: French, English, and Russian.Then, you had a choice whether you purchased the French/English version, or the English/Russian version, etc. In fact, I noted that when the Soviet block began to disintegrate, did the Russian titles disappear. Could have been a coincidence, or not. I just don't know.What I am saying here is that, as far as the IEC organization is concerned, Russian (in whatever political format) participation was the rule, not the exception. I also don't agree with your historical assessment that under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, ... In fact, the Soviet block countries had a lot of dealings with the Western world, some of which we did not appreciate or want.But these are political issues.And, by the way, I am not and have never been a Soviet apologist; however, it does bother me when history is not portrayed correctly. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 6:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --- rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com To: grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change
ETS 300 386
On page 18 of ETS 300 386:June 1997 in section 8.1 Test Configuration, the end of the 7th paragraph states RF input/output ports shall be correctly terminated. Does this mean that you can correctly terminate an RF output using a dummy load? If someone is familiar with this standard, I would appreciate your insight. --- 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
Low EMI Inductors
Hi group. I have an engineer that used the National Semiconductor LM 2675 'Simple Switcher' Power Converter in his design. An inductor is required on the output. The inductor that he used is extremely noisy. National recommended a Schott Corp. inductor for lower emissions, but it is a 'non-stocked' part with really long lead times. Does anyone know of manufacturer who has an 'off-the-shelf' low EMI inductor? We are using 150uH, 1.2 A (min). Any leads would be appreciated. (I do know that ferrite 'stick' core inductors tend to be EMI generators - so I don't want those). THanks. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
OATS Ambient Cancellaion - Thank you all
Thanks to all of you who responded. I agree with Brent - Lets keep the list EMC Safety.. -Original Message- From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com [mailto:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Laotian power cords, Thanks! Thanks to all the folks that answered my question. I'm glad the group is not being split. It's a great resource just as it is! --- 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: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
Hi Peter, You might check the Machinery Handbook. This gives information on AWG wire sizes. You can also check the following web site. There is a table that references AWG/Metric conductors. Of course, no guarantee on accuracy of information ;-) http://www.alphawire.com/index_4.html Good luck. Kelly At 08:41 AM 3/22/00 -0800, Rich Nute wrote: Hi Peter: For the novice designer, does anyone have a Table which references North American and European sizes/cross-sectional area of cords/cables/wires? Of course, these Tables depend on the type of insulations and temperature rating of the cord/cable? At one time, the IEC published a document which compared the technical requirements and specifications of IEC- standard power cordage with North American-standard cordage. Howard Reymers of UL did most of the work. Unfortunately, I have not located my copy, and I could not locate the document on the IEC web site. I would guess that the UL power cord folks would be able to find a copy for you. Best regards, Rich --- 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 Kelly Tsudama Cisco Systems ktsud...@cisco.com 408-527-0216 408-525-9150 fax 408-322-9024 pager --- 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: Indicator Color and Safety
Robert, I disagree with your premise but I believe your conclusion is correct. Equipment can have a switch that does not comply as the primary disconnect as long as it has an acceptable disconnect means such as an appliance coupler. In that case, the switch provides a user function but not a safety function within the meaning of the standard. Any color indicator may be used as long as it is clear that the indicator is not related to safety. For example, a red activity indicator on a disk drive is acceptable. However, a red indicator on a power on/off switch may be a problem even if the switch is not the primary disconnect. Richard Woods -- From: Robert Legg [SMTP:rl...@tectrol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 12:34 PM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum Subject: Indicator Color and Safety The on/off power switch for a module or system must surely be considered to be 'safety related', and therefore subject to the provisions of IEC73. What do you do if a customer specifies an integral red neon indicator in the switch and certification to 60950? R.Legg Tectrol Inc. rl...@tectrol.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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
This issue isn't change - its the gyrations, expense and increased overhead incurred by manufacturing companies that is the concern here. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --- rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com To: grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: 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 --- 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
Indicator Color and Safety
The on/off power switch for a module or system must surely be considered to be 'safety related', and therefore subject to the provisions of IEC73. What do you do if a customer specifies an integral red neon indicator in the switch and certification to 60950? R.Legg Tectrol Inc. rl...@tectrol.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
Fwd:RE: FCC to regulate xDSL???
Forwarded for greg_slingerl...@mitel.com... Jim Reply Separator Subject:RE: FCC to regulate xDSL??? Author: greg_slingerl...@mitel.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/22/00 10:09 AM From: Greg Slingerland@MITEL on 03/22/2000 10:09 AM As an informative sidebar to this discussion thread, if anyone is considering making a waiver request to the FCC or more specifically a waiver request for ADSL equipment, please be aware that a TIA subcommittee TR41.11 has recently added a section to it's Part 68 Application Guide specifically on this topic. This information could help you greatly as well as make the process go a little smoother within the FCC. The section discusses everything from what technical data should be supplied to address ADSL concerns to a data format preferred by the FCC. Some of the companies who have made successful requests for an ADSL waiver have contributed to this section as well as information from some carriers. This document (445K, 116 pages) is available for free download (no registration required) from the following locations: http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/sfg/tr-41 http://www.acil.org/HotNews.htm ...just in case you were interested. Greg Slingerland Mitel Corporation Chair, TR41.11 greg_slingerl...@mitel.com David Patton pat...@patton-assoc.com on 03/21/2000 05:13:31 PM Please respond to David Patton pat...@patton-assoc.com To: 'Bandele Adepoju' badep...@jetstream.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, t...@world.std.com cc:(bcc: Greg Slingerland/Kan/Mitel) Subject: RE: FCC to regulate xDSL??? Bandele: FCC only regulates ADSL because so far it is what has been submitted to FCC, three flavors of ADSL from Nortel, Paradyne and Alcatel. T1E1.4 is working on a spectrum compatibility standard which will define the crosstalk criteria for legacy, existing and new technologies so that they can coexist without interference. Once this standard is published, TR41.9 is going to adopt some of the network harm type requirements in a possible petition for inclusion into Part 68 to the FCC. This work is to start around the June time frame this year with cooperation between TR41.9 members and T1E1.4 members, but since T1E1.4 is still responding to comments from the last ballot, they cannot say anything for sure. Even T1E1 is reluctant to discuss what will be suggested for inclusion in Part 68 because they are trying to avoid policy traps. I hope this helps. Best Regards David L. Patton Patton Associates 82 Wildwood Drive Prescott, Arizona 86305-5093 USA Tel: +01.520.771.2900 Fax: +01.520.771.2990 E Mail: pat...@patton-assoc.com Web: http://www.patton-assoc.com Telecommunications Consulting, Design, and Type Approvals for Europe, North America, Latin America, Pacific Rim --- 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: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
Hi Peter: For the novice designer, does anyone have a Table which references North American and European sizes/cross-sectional area of cords/cables/wires? Of course, these Tables depend on the type of insulations and temperature rating of the cord/cable? At one time, the IEC published a document which compared the technical requirements and specifications of IEC- standard power cordage with North American-standard cordage. Howard Reymers of UL did most of the work. Unfortunately, I have not located my copy, and I could not locate the document on the IEC web site. I would guess that the UL power cord folks would be able to find a copy for you. Best regards, Rich --- 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: Sharp edges
To the group, After monitoring the discussion for a while, I thought that I would share my experiences. As a person who bears scars from encounters with sharp edges inside equipment, I can state with certainty that outside CORNERS are by far the worst offenders. Knocking off these corners at 45 degrees will eliminate a large percentage of cut hazards, especially on small brackets. Most of the remaining problems with edges will be caused by burrs from manufacturing problems. Properly adjusted and sharpened punches and dies will not leave large burrs. A punched piece of metal will have smooth edges on one side and a sharper edge on the other. This is a normal result of the process. The sharper edge is usually only capable of causing superficial scratches on skin. Metal alloys that tend to develop larger burrs are generally put through a surface sanding process after being punched. A good sheet metal vendor can help a great deal. As for testing edge sharpness, women's stockings (and pantyhose) are often ruined by snags. Some brands are more susceptible than others. A piece of this material stretched over cardboard, with thin foam or felt padding between, would make a good tester. Scott Lacey --- 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: Laotian power cords?
We have never identified a US style plug with a 220V rating. Rather than ship a US style cord (120V rated) with a 230V product, we made the installer procure it locally. I realize that may not be an option in all cases, but wanted to pose the question as to what other do about this. Perhaps there is a source for 230V rated US plugs??? Thanks, Barry Marks -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Allan, James Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:08 PM To: 'brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Laotian power cords? My company appears to agree with you about the US style being used in Laos. When in doubt check the Panel Components Corp web site http://www.panelcomponents.com/guide.htm Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.com -Original Message- From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com [SMTP:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 11:44 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Laotian power cords? It appears Laos uses U.S. style power cords. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks, Brent DeWitt Datex-Ohmeda Louisville, CO --- 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: FCC to regulate xDSL???
From: Greg Slingerland@MITEL on 03/22/2000 10:09 AM As an informative sidebar to this discussion thread, if anyone is considering making a waiver request to the FCC or more specifically a waiver request for ADSL equipment, please be aware that a TIA subcommittee TR41.11 has recently added a section to it's Part 68 Application Guide specifically on this topic. This information could help you greatly as well as make the process go a little smoother within the FCC. The section discusses everything from what technical data should be supplied to address ADSL concerns to a data format preferred by the FCC. Some of the companies who have made successful requests for an ADSL waiver have contributed to this section as well as information from some carriers. This document (445K, 116 pages) is available for free download (no registration required) from the following locations: http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/sfg/tr-41 http://www.acil.org/HotNews.htm ...just in case you were interested. Greg Slingerland Mitel Corporation Chair, TR41.11 greg_slingerl...@mitel.com David Patton pat...@patton-assoc.com on 03/21/2000 05:13:31 PM Please respond to David Patton pat...@patton-assoc.com To: 'Bandele Adepoju' badep...@jetstream.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, t...@world.std.com cc:(bcc: Greg Slingerland/Kan/Mitel) Subject: RE: FCC to regulate xDSL??? Bandele: FCC only regulates ADSL because so far it is what has been submitted to FCC, three flavors of ADSL from Nortel, Paradyne and Alcatel. T1E1.4 is working on a spectrum compatibility standard which will define the crosstalk criteria for legacy, existing and new technologies so that they can coexist without interference. Once this standard is published, TR41.9 is going to adopt some of the network harm type requirements in a possible petition for inclusion into Part 68 to the FCC. This work is to start around the June time frame this year with cooperation between TR41.9 members and T1E1.4 members, but since T1E1.4 is still responding to comments from the last ballot, they cannot say anything for sure. Even T1E1 is reluctant to discuss what will be suggested for inclusion in Part 68 because they are trying to avoid policy traps. I hope this helps. Best Regards David L. Patton Patton Associates 82 Wildwood Drive Prescott, Arizona 86305-5093 USA Tel: +01.520.771.2900 Fax: +01.520.771.2990 E Mail: pat...@patton-assoc.com Web: http://www.patton-assoc.com Telecommunications Consulting, Design, and Type Approvals for Europe, North America, Latin America, Pacific Rim
RE: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
Tech data at Alpha on-line catalogue: http://www.alphawire.com/index_2.html I'll email you a pdf. Chris -Original Message- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 10:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires Dear Group, For the novice designer, does anyone have a Table which references North American and European sizes/cross-sectional area of cords/cables/wires? Of course, these Tables depend on the type of insulations and temperature rating of the cord/cable? Thanks in Advance Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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
Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --- rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com To: grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: 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 --- 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: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
For those who reside close to New England area - you may want to attend the IEEE EMC Chapter meeting on that subject. The meeting will be held on April 12, at the EMC Corp. facility in Hopkinton. The details are below. Boris Shusterman EMC Corp. (508) 435-1000 ext. 77517 shusterman_bo...@emc.com 7PM, Wednesday,April 12 Cassper The Virtual Chamber EMI Ambient Cancellation Source Localization System, Kevin P.Baldwin,Business Development Manager EMC Test Systems, L.P. The presentation will include a description and demonstration of the system.The system effectively brings an open area test site into the laboratory or ontoThe production floor,measures EMI and determines compliance at any location.This meeting of the IEEE EMC Chapter will be held on Wednesday,April 12 2000 at 7PM at EMC Corporation, 42 South Street,Hopkinton Corporate Auditorium in the Training Center Building. Directions: From Rte. 495 North or South take exit 21b to South St. At first traffic light make left turn (Note: This is on South direction side of Rte.495) EMC Corporation is at second driveway on right.Refreshments will be available for all those attending.For further information contact John Clarke at (508) 362-7195 -- The company is CASSPER www.cassper.com. The system is sold through EMC Test Systems www.emctest.com. Several members of this list have seen the system. They say the demos are impressive. But, those who saw the demo remain skeptical. /\ | Martin Rowe | / \ | Senior Technical Editor | /\ /\ | Test Measurement World | / \/ \/\ | voice 617-558-4426 |/\ /\ / \/ | fax 617-928-4426 | \/ \/ | e-mail m.r...@ieee.org | \ / | http://www.tmworld.com |\/ -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 01:48 PM Hello - A little while ago there was some discussion of a company designing an ambient cancelation device. Question: Does anyone remember the 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: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
The Alpha Wire and Cable company has a number of references available on their Web site. http://www.alphawire.com/index_4.html You can find Metric to AWG conversion tables as well as the maximum current based on wire size and insulation. Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion Corporation teck...@apcc.com The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC's official position on any matter. Please respond to pmerguer...@itl.co.il (Peter Merguerian) To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il (Peter Merguerian) on 03/22/2000 04:45 AM Subject: Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires Dear Group, For the novice designer, does anyone have a Table which references North American and European sizes/cross-sectional area of cords/cables/wires? Of course, these Tables depend on the type of insulations and temperature rating of the cord/cable? Thanks in Advance Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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: ENV 50141 vs EN 61000-4-6
A standard was needed to support the EMC Directive and the IEC document was not available, so CENELEC created ENV 50141. For all intents and purposes, the tests are identical. ENV50141 has been withdrawn or will be withdrawn in favor of EN61000-4-6. Richard Woods -- From: Dan Kinney (A) [SMTP:dan.kin...@heapg.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ENV 50141 vs EN 61000-4-6 EMC Group, I am testing some ISM equipment to EN 50082-2 Heavy Industrial Immunity standards. For conducted RF immunity, it cites ENV 50141. My understanding is that an ENV a prestandard meaning the final standard has not yet been approved. We have EN 61000-4-6, which an approved conducted immunity standard. Is there any differences between ENV 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 and why isn't EN 61000-4-6 cited instead of ENV 50141. Sincerely, Daniel C. Kinney Lead Qualification Engineer Horner APG, LLC Advanced Products Group 640 N. Sherman Drive Indianapolis, IN 46201 Phone: (317) 916-4274 ext. 462 FAX:(317) 916-4287 Email: dan.kin...@heapg.com Website: http://www.heapg.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 Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval
Before taking any action to comply with BCIQ/BSMI requirements I recommend that you check with your export/import regulator and/or a sales office/distributor in Taiwan; have them check with Taiwan customs to determine if your product is categorized as needing the approval or not. It happened that our products were exempt, saving us a lot of what would have been redundant testing and a massive engineering change order. Eric Lifsey National Instruments Please respond to Iris ir...@baclcorp.com To: David Instone david_inst...@uk.xyratex.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, Graham Durrant graham_durr...@uk.xyratex.com cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: Re: EMC Safety: requirements for BCIQ approval Graham, Yes, the middle of this year all computer accessories supplied as new products or as field spares, must have BSMI ( former BCIQ ) approval You could obtain information on this requirement in www.bsmi.gov.tw Best regards. Iris Shui Account Executive Bay Area Compliance Lab 230 Commercial Street #2 Sunnyvale, Ca94086 Tel: 408-732 9162 Fax: 408-732 9164 email: ir...@baclcorp.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, NEBS NRTL's
Bandele, even without equipment, lab cost of various NEBS tests in ONE cycle can reach $100k easily. Add to that your time (if you outsource all of your tests). Now, since you are a part of an organization that is building gear costing $250k+, you know that there will ALWAYS be something wrong, so you can count on duplicating some tests (EMC is a very good example). Costs 10 years ago were probably lower, since some NEBS sections (or their importance) were not high on any list. It's only with the competition that there is more enforcement to have a fully NEBS compliant gear. Regards, Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05 21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1 Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393) E-mail: nsh...@nortelnetworks.com mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com or n...@ieee.org mailto:n...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:58 PM To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Then, Tania, I would say that if the price is equipment dependant, don't blame the labs. They are only performing the tests asked of them. Our equipment, by itself is well over $25,000.00 (they cost at least a quarter of a 'mil). I don't think that if we went back 10 years the price we pay now for testing would be much lower, when adding the costs of equipment. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Doug'; ; 'Bandele Adepoju' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Bandele, Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your are burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you are burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is not just what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also equipment going up in smoke. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS NRTL's Doug, telling your customers that your product was UL approved when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was safety approved to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the
RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES
I am not familiar with any standard or other test method for rough edges and corners. However, to establish compliance with EN 60950 , I use a slice of emballage foam (the touch one) (not the polystyrene, but the more elastic one, not so white but slightly transparent) used to pack EMC test instruments (you get it: lots of these available here) I decided to cut these into 5x5x10 (cm) slices and put some drafting tape (tesa) on top and side . We then apply the device on 45 degree angle with the corner / side to be tested and apply 50 Newton. At the same time we slide the sample along the side (not on corners) in one fast move for 10 cm. This test should leave no permanent traces (but greasy) on the tesa tape, nor protrude into it. I managed to simulate the cutting effect of paper using this home brew device (though at lower forces and repeated more often) Most alum plates that have not been rounded are protruding the draft tape, but as soon as the corner is rounded the tape folds a little bit but does not protrude. Of course, the foam is not characterized, nor is the drafting tape. I have found that this device is most often more resistant then skin. I think that is because that tape is flatter then skin, and no hard surface is below the tape (as bone in a finger). The next time I want to use a thin 4-5 mm slice and put wood under it to make it more rigid. If anyone here wants to duplicate my efforts, having access to several tapes and foams, we might manage to create a suitable device in this group. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) Ce-test, qualified testing == Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ == -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Pittenger Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:57 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES Richard: I used to work at UL very close to the engineer who designed the sharp edge tester in the early 1970's. In my experience with him, and since leaving UL, the sharp edge tester is only to be used for a referee determination of whether or not a given edge is too sharp. That is, whenever there's a dispute. In the vast majority of situations, a simple test of running your finger across the edge is sufficient to make the determination. I'm not familiar with the radius method but I would think that it would be hard to measure unless it was awfully blunt and, therefore, no question about being a sharp edge. Hope that this information is helpful. Regards, Richard Pittenger Agency Approval Engineer PMI Food Equipment Group Troy, Ohio wo...@sensormatic.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org 03/21/00 11:26 AM Please respond to WOODS To:emc-p...@ieee.org cc: Subject:RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES For those of you who perform a risk assessment on enclosures, what objective criteria do you apply to ensure that cutting hazards due to burrs and sharp edges are minimized to an acceptable level? So far I have heard of two methods: a specified minimum radius and a physical test of running tape over edges (the UL test). Richard Woods -- From: Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 10:10 AM To: 'pmerguer...@itl.co.il' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES When we perform a risk assessment on the design of one of our equipment enclosures, we also consider any possible hazards within the enclosure. Any harm or injury to the patient, operator or bystander (this is where I include service personnel)is not allowed, unless it can be duly justified (we strive to design out all potential risks). In some cases we utilize third party service personnel on a worldwide basis. I would not want any undue negative feedback related to personnel injury (or personal liability claims). Yes - I would consider internal hazards as well as external. I hope this clears things a little! -Original Message- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 8:46 AM To: Dick Grobner Subject: Re: FW: SHARP EDGES/SURFACES Dick, My question was related to SEMI standards and not IEC 601-1. Brian Harlowe gave a very good answer regarding the SEMI requirements. Now back to 950/601/1010 standards, is the requirement stricly for outer surfaces (where operator is likely to touch) or also for places such as
Sizes for Power, Control and Signal Cords/Cables/Wires
Dear Group, For the novice designer, does anyone have a Table which references North American and European sizes/cross-sectional area of cords/cables/wires? Of course, these Tables depend on the type of insulations and temperature rating of the cord/cable? Thanks in Advance Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re:Steel Ball For Impact Test
Hi, Some years ago I got one from a firm making ballbearing (SKF) they sell the ball's seperately. Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen i-data international Denmark jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher) on 21-03-2000 13:29:50 Please respond to jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher) To: Jasmine TAN sb...@ctl.creative.com, emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Kim Boll Jensen/INT) Subject: Re:Steel Ball For Impact Test forwarded for Jasmine TAN.Jim Reply Separator Subject:Steel Ball For Impact Test Author: Jasmine TAN sb...@ctl.creative.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/21/00 6:53 PM Hi, Does anyone has any recommended source on Steel ball for Impact testing as listed in UL60950. Thanks for your recommendation. Regards, Jas --- 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, NEBS NRTL's
Bandele Adepoju wrote: snipped material You should have told your customers that your product was safety approved to a UL standard. Bandele, That is exactly what I did of course. Regards, Doug --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
.Re: House alarm certification
Hi, I do not contest the right of insurance companies to ask for additional particularities they think required insurance wise. The belgium law define that you have an alarm system ONLY and ONLY when you have an EXTERNAL SOURCE of noise and/or flashing light (an internal noise source is also prohibited when it can be heard on the outside of the house. Sound level is undefined). The origin of the law is to prevent false alarms and disturbances caused by it due to unreliable systems. This is past time since EMC and immunity approvals. On the other side, if i install a what i call a SILENT alarm system who calls only my cell phone, its not considered by law an alarm system. That seems quite normal to me otherwise i would even not be allowed to have an automatic light going on in presence of a person on my front door. Now where the UPEA act and in my opinion is faulty is that they impose that a system can only be relayable when it satisfy THEY'RE REQUIREMENTS including they're para-EMC specifications. That's false, systems are ok when satisfying EMC requirements. That they claim that they can only admit reduction in insurance cost when some other conditions are met is they're free choice. But UPEA is indirectly also preventing free circulation of goods. The reason why i comply is the fact that they're pressure goes behind the scoop of insurance considerations. They re-specify immunity and other EC requirements. Is that allowed? Due to the above and as a consequence the manufacturers and they're representatives prevent the free distribution and circulation of goods when you do not comply as a purchaser with UPEA. This forms some kind discrimination and auto protection against competition and free circulation of goods from other countries, they're systems are not good... Can everybody adapt, reduce and impose hiss type of EMC requirements in hiss specification given the impression that official requirements do not preveal? Is it allowed to publish some kind of EMC requirements beside the official ounce? Paul Rampelbergh On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:17:32 -0500, you wrote: The objective of the CE mark is to enable the free movement of goods throughout Europe and for them to be placed on the market. The UPEA is not preventing this from being done. The UPEA is exercising its right as a user/consumer to “contractually” insist that a requirement that is possibly extra to the various pieces of EC legislation be met. If the requirement is detrimental to the various EC directives i.e. it makes a particular requirement easier to meet then you maybe have a reason to follow this up. However, provided this is not being used as a reason to prevent the equipment being placed on the market then you have no legal complaint. There are various organisations that already do this as the EC Directives, particularly EMC, do not cover the environment in which the equipment is to be used. Regards Ray Garner Consultant Datel-Ferranti Group --- 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: ERP and EIRP calculators
There is a decent one on the internet at: www.vwlowen.demon.co.uk/java/eirpie.htm Bandele Adepoju Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:49 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: ERP and EIRP calculators Hi all, I am looking for an ERP/EIRP calculator program. I get the raw data in dBuV/m from an OATS. Thx, Ron Chernus, Denso --- 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:GFCI equivalent in Japan
Tony, You raised a very good discussion. I have also seen a few Japanese customer specifications (and even some European customer specifications)with 30 mA GFCI, usually with a 0.1 second trip time. Based on my research, the 30 mA GFCI, 0.1 second is based on JIS C 8371 Residual Current Operated Circuit Breaker. Now, whether or not 30 mA GFCI would be considered to be suitable for personnel protection depends a lot on who you speak with? If you ask the compliance safety engineers in the U.S., they'd say Nope, 30 mA GFCIs are not for personnel protection, at least not per UL 943, which defines shock hazard as A shock hazard is considered to exist at a part of a ground-fault circuit-interrupter if: A) There would be current of 6 mA or more in a resistance of 500 ohms connected between the part in question and the grounded supply conductor, and B) The device would not operate to open the circuit to the 500-ohm resistor within the time allowed in paragraph 23.1.. For the Japanese (and even some Europeans), 30 mA, 0.1 sec. Residual Current Devices may very well be considered suitable for personnel protection because the trip current and trip time fall within Zone 2 of IEC 479-1, Usually no harmful physiological effects. Being trained under the U.S. philosophy, I probably will not admit publicly that 30 mA GFCIs is adequate for personnel protection; although it is comforting to know that if someone should expose themselves to a line to ground condition, that the 30 mA, 0.1 sec. GFCI should technically trip before any harmful physiological effect results, at least per IEC 479-1. Disclaimer: Electric shock is a very tricky science, it is not only dependent upon current and exposure time, but body impedance, frequency, location of body exposure, etc. Tin --- 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: EN45001 and Re: CB SCHEME
What are test reports according to EN45001? The EN45001 is the European standard for General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Test reports according to this standard are usually issued after an audit or assessment of the laboratory. Does EN45001 have relation to CB Scheme? Laboratory assessments within the CB-scheme have been based on the ISO/IEC Guide 25 (General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories) in the past, but will be done acc. to the newer version ISO/IEC 17025 (General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories) which was published 1999-12-15, in the future. The requirements of the EN and the ISO/IEC are similar but not equivalent. Kind Regards, /Randolf Keller TUV Rheinland Japan Ltd., Yokohama Laboratories Randolf Keller, Manager e-mail: r...@jpn.tuv.com Tel: +81-45-592-1371 Fax: +81-45-592-1374 jakamura@naka.m elco.co.jp To: emc-pstc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@Subject: EN45001 and Re: CB SCHEME ieee.org 21.03.00 21:39 Please respond to jakamura Dear All, --- Mr. Michael and Mr. Alspaugh Thank you very much for your replies to my CB Scheme question. --- NEW QUESTION: What are test reports according to EN45001? Does EN45001 have relation to CB Scheme? Thank you in advance, Jun Nakamura --- 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: FCC to regulate xDSL???
Bandele, I think the issue is that most ADSL deployments are done through the PSTN whereas SDSL is primarily a leased line service (which will at some point probably get it's own set of regulations). If you recall, the FCC left ISDN unregulated for some time also. -Barr Bandele Adepoju wrote: I would like to thank all who have responded so far to my email. There seems, at last, to be some dialogue on this subject. What puzzles me, however, is the absence of reference to xDSL technology such as SDSL. All responses seem to concentrate on ADSL technology. Does this mean that the FCC ruling only concerns ADSL technology or is the lack of reference to the other technologies an indication that there is still a question of how the ruling affects them? Thank you, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: martin garwood [mailto:mgarw...@babtps.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:07 PM To: 'Bandele Adepoju';emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com; David Patton Subject: re: FCC to regulate ADSL On February 28, 2000, the Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Alcatel USA's petition for waiver of the signal power limitations contained in Section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission Rules. This order followed on the heels of earlier petitions by Paradyne Corporation (order released March 29, 1999) and Nortel (order released July 30, 1999). During the comment period in the Alcatel proceedings, comments were filed recommending that the Commision consider a streamlining of the waiver petition process, based on compliance with established criteria found to be acceptable by the Commission in earlier proceedings. The Commission responded in the order that the ADSL petition process should be streamlined, in the same manner as is currently provided for stutter dial tone waiver petitions. Parties seeking waiver of 68.308(e)(1) can now utilize this streamlined procedure when filing Part 68 applications for ADSL modems, provided that they comply with well established industry standards such as ANSI T1.413. BABT Product Service provides technical assistance and services for manufacturers of ADSL equipment seeking FCC certification. We assist in the preparation of complete Part 68 Registration packages including: waiver petition; relevant Part 68 testing and data, in addition to supporting test data to show compliance with signal power requirements against standards such as ANSI T1.413; and all other supporting Part 68 application documentation. Best Regards, Martin Garwood, CEO BABT Product Service USA Santa Clara CA Ph: 408 919 3759 Fax: 408 919 0585 http://www.babtps.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
Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: 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 --- 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: ERP and EIRP calculators
EIRP=D^^2*E^^2/30 ERP=EIRP/1.64 The maximum effective radiated power of the TUTT integrating CMM 8600 modem module is calculated using the following equations where E is measured maximum electric field strength, D is the distance of 3 meters between the EUT and measurement antenna. At 3/21/00, 03:49 PM -0800, ron_cher...@densolabs.com wrote: Hi all, I am looking for an ERP/EIRP calculator program. I get the raw data in dBuV/m from an OATS. Thx, Ron Chernus, Denso --- 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: ENV 50141 vs EN 61000-4-6
I think ENV 50141 was the only approved standard (of this type) available in March 1995 (when EN 50082-2:1995 was published). EN 50082-2 is being replaced by EN 61000-6-2:1999 (DOP 2000-1-1, DOW 2002-4-1). Although I don't have a copy, I assume it references the newer EN61000-4-6 test standard. I don't know about the differences between ENV 50141 and EN 61000-4-6. On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:43:28 -0500, dan.kin...@heapg.com wrote: I am testing some ISM equipment to EN 50082-2 Heavy Industrial Immunity standards. For conducted RF immunity, it cites ENV 50141. My understanding is that an ENV a prestandard meaning the final standard has not yet been approved. We have EN 61000-4-6, which an approved conducted immunity standard. Is there any differences between ENV 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 and why isn't EN 61000-4-6 cited instead of ENV 50141. snip --- 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: Fire Hazards
(c) Copyright 2000, Richard Nute Hi Richard: You posted an interesting approach to fire. For me, it triggered a number of comments that I hope you will find useful. Objective: I suggest that the objective of the design in respect of fire is: No fire shall spread from the equipment to the local environment. This objective shall be accomplished by means of both a principle safeguard and a supplmental safeguard. The principle safeguard is that of controlling fault-condition power dissipation such that temperatures and rate of energy transfer do not exceed that necessary to ignite and sustain ignition of nearby materials. The supplemental safeguard is that of containing a fire resulting from sustained ignition of any internal material and from any consequent internal fire spread. Testing: A fire is the result of an abnormal (or fault) condition. A priori. Electrical overheating is the result of excessive power density dissipation. Only those faults that result in significant overheating need be considered. For low-voltage circuits, faults resulting in maximum continuous current (not short-circuit) in a low-value resistance (~1 ohm) can produce sufficient heat energy for ignition (I*I*R). Most common materials found in electronic equipment must be heated to about 350 C or more for spontaneous ignition to occur. While blocking of ventilation openings results in high internal temperatures, it is unlikely that such temperatures will approach material ignition temperatures. However, high internal temperatures may trigger a failure that can result in ignition. Few standards have component temperature limits for abnormal conditions. Cheesecloth is a good test for spread of fire from the equipment. Markings and instructions: If installation clearances make the difference between fire and no fire, then safety requires installation exactly as prescribed the manufacturer. For me, this leaves no margin. I would insist that there be no fire with a worst-case installation with zero clearances and zero ventilation. Fire is a poorly-understood safety issue for electronic products. The standards don't do as good a job as they do with electric shock. We've done a poor job at fire forensics analysis, so we don't have a thorough under- standing of root causes. Best regards, Rich --- 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: EN standard for pacemaker immunity
Interesting that this would come up. I just read an article in Medical Device Diagnostic Industry magazine that discusses the fields generated by anti-theft systems. You can see it at http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/00/01/016.html On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:45:12 + (GMT), tim.hay...@gecm.com wrote: snip I have a friend with a pacemaker / defibrillator. He was told that this new device would give him a better quality of life than the old type. (No - I will not mention makes) However, the antitheft devices at the shop doors (here in the UK) cause him to be defibrillated! He has not been able to go shopping at the local center since his heart attack two years ago. The makers of the device say that it meets all the standards. His surgeon will change it to a different make but requires payment for the operation and the device. Nobody will tell him that any new device will be able to withstand the fields generated by the antitheft systems. B.T.W. The antitheft systems meet their requirements. snip --- 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: EN45001 and Re: CB SCHEME
Hi George, FYI, EN45001 relates to laboratory qualilty systems and EN45014 (latest version I have is 1993) relates to the DofC. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com georgea@lexma rk.com To: jakam...@naka.melco.co.jp Sent by: cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org owner-emc-pstSubject: Re: EN45001 and Re: CB SCHEME c...@ieee.org 03/21/00 01:10 PM Please respond to georgea Nakamura-san, If my memory serves, EN45001 is a European Norm (EN) for a Declaration of Conformity. I believe it existed prior to the CB Scheme. However, it is one of several acceptable means to declare conformity to the applicable EU Directives. George Alspaugh jakamura%naka.melco.co...@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 07:39:56 AM Please respond to jakamura%naka.melco.co...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: EN45001 and Re: CB SCHEME Dear All, --- Mr. Michael and Mr. Alspaugh Thank you very much for your replies to my CB Scheme question. --- NEW QUESTION: What are test reports according to EN45001? Does EN45001 have relation to CB Scheme? Thank you in advance, Jun Nakamura --- 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
ERP and EIRP calculators
Hi all, I am looking for an ERP/EIRP calculator program. I get the raw data in dBuV/m from an OATS. Thx, Ron Chernus, Denso --- 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: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
Jerry and the group, I've had the demo as well (two actually...one at my office and one at an OATS). It's an exciting product in theory and in some cases it performs amazingly well. In other cases it's very finicky and would require multiple ambient antennae and/or adjustment of those antennae in order to give the receiver the differential it needs to perform the DSP. If the CASSPER system jumps the one hurdle of excessively strong ambient signals, then it can't handle multipath problems at some other frequency (or vice-versa or, once again, the possible answer is to tediously finesse the positions of the antennae). My questions to you and the group are: 1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction? 2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it? 3. Was it worth the asking price? Mike Murphy Compliance Engineer Alesis Studio Electronics --- 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
FW: IEC 825 and Light Emitting diodes.
-Original Message-
From: James, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1:26 PM
To: 'tim.hay...@gecm.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: IEC 825 and Light Emitting diodes.
at
http://www.semiconductor.agilent.com/led_lamps/app_index.html
Application Brief I-009
Application Brief I-015
http://www.semiconductor.agilent.com/fiber/fiberapps.html
Application Note 1109
begin 600 an1109.pdf
M)5!$1BTQ+C(-)+CS],-C(@,!O8FH-/#P-+TQE;F=T:`X,3DS#2]:6QT
M97(@+T9L871E15C;V1E#3X^#7-TF5A;0T*2(FD5TMSX[@1_@7Z#SC:*1M#
MD`0?JK!ZW%2,YF9K5JKEGO@28A3L4J94-=Y?OU_CP8=D;PXI'ZP]U?
MOQL!_`GV+]7`?N,7[\SP?.0G9@(V%?VZV\!JU8?_O4HV+9?:;9*LFX2%B2
M[;]*LKG=+UZ7`4\SG`?7R*Q4S,8^(,PD#GF6)LZ?UJL/_Y10OMZLPL``
MP3^G((FY3-AZOPHPN^$(R0`0^E*U+?%J?5E=?'CZRAU?%'HN-EZOU[]#
M:F:E!NPVX@'PK#\2[GZ]KN*AU60RZ;=BW=E!,7?1E0CRZ]_6GR\(K1J
M0XGSB0/,\)S]:D9NK8ZEB3:A.!N^2PB/B-/1`+(P:!_5B^J*FMUM=:V:
M@:U5N6O:NMUJU9,T0!8\=(#!_W3E.)^NV1S[3YU6FYX]77VZ#8+LAJZN_[8R
M5,Z*IF+X)20N[8H7Q9Z5:MBIT\.@L\ZM$S].-2%;MBP4TSO#T4YL';#.E5
MGVK=T6S53T#^Z'U+8#*IK#(JB]EP/M2KAEHL`2:W;?[OY[,#U=.Z;;
MR0M9*_%#3OM=+EC156IBM5ZNQN8V@.C;K9;J7;2I9B#*,J=2++A4KZP*B
M-\X7CM?ZS#)CHCO4F)5@_P%%5[%-VS'UJKQP^YFS3^0!W;.J+8][F'YC
MP7BV3FU49QSPHGO]7OC7]ULNJ)3E=2U@/[8MNH09L*RIMX'$7UI#'%-:K
MBR@R$T*VU2^PMB667!E8F3=3$AXPJ3T!4?)_^?QJXK-1@`!5_#^GZ,
MPA2$-#W#]\_AB(OMP[-J#*IK+$VRR(7GP?80'IV?]1\+N(%GY5MAX0:
M/@B4WJ8!E',@]AOM1NHX[X'#ND!ONY'-IG1%?D;R,_:YKC]O=G$%R]M'
MH@A?BA[T7K#ZI!F-Z,GBJH]#-DK6SRKE:5O3LX5L26`).^\;^,5:!R`Z
M2[=_NKYAS\!%77?H:BKML3DMT)P'63J#UKF_K5^.L28MFJ'[H?V+$9=,V^
M%AU*!K4#XQ+.UI-5%J?-#85[8OFN,'9L;,I/*;^3A\H)+ISI4*90)WT=28
MTP?;Z*Z`LLY:,_EL%M\U7T4$9EA-_#KJW\#HINWOX`DEW)0)KB^K!]8N%
M.5\T\@[_RI3QOPHVV-=H=A@_5M_:(J4WH/ZU7,`S.3_2[%0=A'%`(VJ_
MDCF7H2?/1Y,0MJL+YD9:$B0\C*FM^XDT,XU\^-%VJ?L%YF683GK8L5]4?SE
MT1IO_*HCVKT*M*L4AO=*HUINS'%#RO-Q.\]XN7DG%*V?=5A@%=M`E/'#
MERZ/U:,69878JGF?!L3'UZI1KS?L[M@/F'ZN+$-Z9ZEB6=[0=.HR%YDUJ'M
ME9[:2E9)VS/$$:52:5J.V,]O]]V5$M4,$I)7IVTG5-.:;LC[28,%5XA4
M\;K=FI[KTNF5`0CA[J*!`7,I*0H95[H[U*;'(IEG?-DVE788R1MM9@1
M?6M1+('5,6J`V)8N6NI=RA3G]J42A;=Q+]\4F?4)3\.)J^#LJVD`%::
MIF!IMST#UOC9_P#\B!@^[WM6^02C##(5]U8ZG8`E8@8$I?D%FBU%W8U(=
MO[T4G2ZHM$U38=#VUR,@)PP!2%'7U[[`OUW\H-^\4H3U@_A*?;)CG
M=XR\,._V75S_)ZK)6Y-;WFAYWD_I6,@6#%NBF;XT,J2$M\R3B['Y*04)S
MAO(R3PQL*IW]L1[T`1;C=],VMZ7N2%!W$3(KJ3Y2L9?R]K8\[N4@M[.Y8
M=ZQQAQ35Q;.J35[8`CG#8_Q31MDW9;?S*A?F7JOT,K-?99FI*F=J:+9ZW
M8(R8U[02/6.?_X!\E`3K0BZX0VG9/`Z.F1Q:T-M\%PF/DHS%LV7S/
M+:XGJEKV7OPP46)4G1=54UEM_#XF+-C'[*;'L#L=AD94NOR4-%RR:-
MY/,R]GQY5F5_1G:\W5,+K--F.LCZ\RW7LPE:F:M/[%K'=8-U#.]MO9
MTFAU3VL^U/TD;R^Q1J\7Y;[\VFM9QJP3C0^AN\7O:H0YO.E4Q4(5ZU.2@
MJBM.,,ILK'^]NFRPMR\WJ]FJ]!DK5-]NB_IC5MT[/+4GL8%O,/45R=R)JTT
M[%300K)'T0VNC(B)]K5Q.4/:Z\/U^?;IO6M+.5K'[9GUK/MS/,M-DOF
MQIWDMO8XAK?`U?6G#,K_^CI6=G3\VS_$?WZ,@-_LE$Y'=T][8)?+'07,
M/WJC4%[.E9\/0^N6WA_].RC)BUX:;VQ#L]P-U@^['K@:W_6SLWPG_/O.^H
MLF/3+.VUK2*D]=I8UL[_VJL;1N;@J[?WS\BRD]]2QO]^JCVFK8(Q!AN
MSKHQ7M;9SBYC/!UU=)+RJTA*YHMHM2*%[@K8[['J;Z#XD8XH3UM!H]X]:
M0/STR].UWY^QYT:TY\8RY!%+HXQ'68B].98!3V0ZGM0X$3R.8Y;@NQ]=)
MNCB92ZE7NU4YUBL28[D898YR90.$FY$/Y6DL2+DXB+4(RWZ3F207)[B5
M9]`1D)Q+P.%RQ!D7,^WU!9YZM$]Z(6;2#\G@:C/\EYBG%-=!A`.]X1
M(HT-G:%$/%WB1L9CNC%R@):YD1!+.:.!'K=#7-:WEJ.*+4TE$BC(Z4['-T
M:5`%8;C@\+CQFYW;49+_(55N8E1(-CFS]!'*PC8#WP*`?$,'N4@G))`A
M:Z2-\)TI`F9Y%+.$`2`XR7DY#[\!7,XS/+@69L$1!6%RM#4\F
M1N`RG1U8T[H\1(###9EPZFDWIV0LD4GYU$)M!`F)4B.^T#/:XDA,^DX
M10:8T=!09,@PB=\%XBU38[R*W##).%G2:2;1.3C26U/91T1AD%/N)
M296(!ZE-SRQ-1QHR$E3^C('(Q)(XGQ2[@F]1=+5.U!98RHE$5P\7@F
M$)[F^0I?-2IV7=;@X[)@=$XSM)`((T.`U^/(^1F$!F/(.C][.3G$!
M7$9T.*MT9(4S6FZ%[1Q$!DD%D!J9S15D5YH=2TKC1T.8AR$J8MT$GJV@+D
M$QU$\93W(YQ,!+*VCE':FL-$K)P1I(#I+M@3Q(4A#`)M)R::JCG:EBQI%
M4V9I5#.1TEU`-I@+Z-8FF5`666J,$*Y,$@PV0VVBX1A[E1(.1[4TT'G3=]
MY84D8,1H:==I\)S6];B7.:/%U^-XD7XJJ=6$28LD_H202=OP9)2
MM8.8MN6\T`:FCJ22#`1`@G:::9IKG%*WR*(@8YB.8]I2F-JQH`(959%
M*L1$_\EV=1PY$B-!\Z'=6`WAJPAW$_SN?\?UR6+G#XSP`75K`Q:=4O2,
M=R$\2L[ZQAPD2_E@%IN9_)6#JJL*^B1S.EA=G+'PAI:$X$V*@PHRO3!0
M]\-OQOQ`WMI(P:OQK*-M)X%0RT0S'[^[4,OH;GO3%^:Q?X]AM!):Q=WXQ
MU_6^F`,I3QEJNB%5ZE-N-P!?_991Z'9!D/!1O(O$,:-28\N:7-U=KY3
MNR1K135D(69U_(3V;A!\QB^$FAL2+A\1R]8,U;=7=/_92:=\(UU28?Q*#
M@CY?^Z-%[X024%D2UO?F'2I8TPK7QD?W#ZD80E/T83PQN,-@;,PUAP.=I
M.4.C9HGG0F[+;.X-@[P\=?N3,-/?1V`TZ@H6`?E8J$BZ)5Q%H*5#
M3VR:E;IW!H?9S1SK#IX(K;[^(UD#*C'RBZ20BK0%P/CVW!C#GE@-T$)F
M+T-I/?5?'P'GK$9Z0V`J$M1^5U([PUDWS.O$V)O[0T):V_XL+[$!DV6
MEUUSF/`,S4:8`/TNK(YGOH-'2NXKIW8D*L-,)X8OC#82WAS1J-)21AK
M\PF=V$45_4525H7P$UMW(1B8!F7'J+W$`BU.;,.S#-QG3QX1_*\1!QBN
M3XX#)=M$4F./=:D6D!T:.9K.=1S,),68Z@8M'\FQP9BI6_[Q^8R\.)X
M#T2C_$F,M7,4%CO*A=:59\'Q5*1D3R0%2L_$%C:8C!6Q,:#0CG;-\8+
ME-_ZPEA;9.;T#V9KTZ:!A27\4,%M;'FBT/+,3TTWQ@80,DTV/^ABMJ@XQ
MN^03%`\^L!CT6)4/;VB_B*UM4\C3C/C?EMDY;IMRJTI!]_/REWI.*X
MD?V,Q=3AMYAL%$1;:CE)DG3+E#(=VSH1Z2/#=OS(1=L%(U!SU@D455-GE
MBCNLEG-=)]A@_D)@BSMC0@Y4T;F^,=ZZPQ_F1C'1L'M:/P_C#SQ$P^FI_
M;U[+`ENUT;J(6/U-]5+_X57U%'0:.9.)Q!8=:07#,_C#$IAJ2S2WFK\4(W
M#D[*ZE1G)BE5KFM:[P%;O@N%Z1_?W,U)0F681=6AS,X==A0;I`8/Q!V-,
M!E29R49;R5[+,MC4XK2N$;?^G)]N=__Z43%;6@]^S52O6DA,`UQ,M*K;
MW!EUN$9/K-?A%KIH*:O$I84T,,!R_,,:$0.BUG82\U6O.N=K8,SW2P
