RE: StripLine
Presuambly you are referring to a stripline antenna?? Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Frank Krozel[SMTP:fr...@electronicinstrument.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: StripLine Hi All: Seem to have misplaced my data on Striplines. Is there somewhere on the web that I can find the dimensions to build a stripline? Frank Krozel --- 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: StripLine
A few years ago I picked up a freeware download on stripline and microstrip from an outfit called UltraCAD. Here is a link to their web page. It is full of useful and interesting info. The freeware is a program with a graphical interface that lets you put in the parameters you want to control and gives the results. You have dimensions and want Zo? you got it and vice versa too. Look them up. www.ultracad.com Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.com -Original Message- From: Frank Krozel [SMTP:fr...@electronicinstrument.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: StripLine Hi All: Seem to have misplaced my data on Striplines. Is there somewhere on the web that I can find the dimensions to build a stripline? Frank Krozel --- 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: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Chris, I am impressed by your gentleman discussion manner. We all agree that the committee of EN 61326-1 has very solid reason to exclude 3-2 3-3 for Class A equipment. If we had had the vote right we might have done the same thing. Unfortunately 3-2 3-3 became Product Standards with very broad definition. The rumor I heard is that these two standards were originally drafted as Basic Standards. ... (There must be some esteemed members in the EMC-PSTC group able to tell us what really happened.) If I have a piece of Class A lab equipment (referenced to EN 61326-1) with current 16A, I would rather test it for 3-2 3-3. Because I want to be prudent and conservative for the best interest of my company, the same attitude as you said: I don't want cause my company to be seduced by the dark side of non-compliance. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com --- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Maxwell, Chris wrote: Barry, You have a great point. It doesn't just apply to Information Technology Equipment. I apologize for using the term ITE loosely. I feel (don't know) that the lowering of the current limit from 16A per phase (one of the main differences between IEC 555-2, 3 and IEC 1000-3-2,3) was aimed at the proliferation of ITE and consumer products. Someone at IEC realized that there could be a cumulative effect of harmonic currents. However, the scope of the standards is very broad. It can be interpreted to include anything that uses an electron :-) I felt that the commitee that wrote EN 61326-1 actually looked at the difference between Class A and Class B equipment within EN 61326-1 and consciously left the harmonics and flicker limits out of the Class A requirements. This was confirmed by Norm Provost's reply to the thread. He participated in the writing and development of the standard. I think that you have a valid point in that EN 61326-1 treated EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 as Basic Standards as opposed to Product Standards. I never considered that point of view before your email. But I want to know more. Now that I have conceded that I used ITE incorrectly, could I get an explanation of what makes IEC 1000-3-2 and IEC 1000-3-3 a Product Standard as opposed to a Basic Standard? Thanks, 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 -Original Message- From:Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:40 PM To:chr...@gnlp.com Cc:bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Chris, Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are only applicable to ITE? Thanks. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC/PSTC/NEBS/TREG
Average number of messages is now between 30 and 50 a day. And people want more! I wish I had enough free company time to participate in this mountain of mail. We need to increase the quality and substance of the messages rather than to increase the amount. Dave George Unisys -Original Message- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: 17 March, 2000 4:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC/PSTC/NEBS/TREG Dear All, DO NOT SPLIT! I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF MIGRATING TREG AND NEBS GROUPS INTO TO THE EMC/PSTC LIST. ARE YOU ALL IN FAVOR? 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: modest proposal
Jim, Trust me, apart from providing a bit of humour, these translation programs don't work worth a sheet. grin Mind you, the original creator of Babel Fish does give you the correct answer: 42. BTW, from the ego-deflating department, the country with the most English speaking people is India. The U.S. is just a minor player. Egon :-) At 07:26 PM 28/03/2000, Allan, James wrote: Muriel: Of time in when I perdo the paciencia with these babacas. Generally, this forum is good, but the times have as much boçalidade Well you sure stumped Babel Fish with some of that one. I for one respect the willingness of the non-Americans to put up with our arrogance and to converse with us in our limited capacity. Thanks to all of you. Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.com __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca eva...@compuserve.com egon.va...@csa-international.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: modest proposal
Ed, Thanks. Here is my basic $0.02. Most of time spent learning a foreign language is to remember vocabulary. This is not a creative job. The most precious resource - our brain should be gradually released from downloading burden. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Price, Ed wrote: Barry: I've heard that your success rate depends entirely on the quality of the dictionary that you take to bed with you. Ahem grin Ed For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics
The standards have general applicability; however, the push by the European Power Industry for this standard has been to target switching power supplies as the culprit. Since most ITE use switching power supplies.. According the the scope, both 3-2 and 3-3 apply to virtually all electronic products. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:40 PM To: chr...@gnlp.com Cc: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Chris, Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are only applicable to ITE? Thanks. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Maxwell, Chris wrote: . My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. . For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Viewing NEC surface patches?
Brent, I am a user of NecWin Pro. I don't know the answer to your question, but I'd be interested in what you are able to find out. JIm Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jim.knigh...@ncr.com jim.knigh...@ncr.com Technical Consultant - Design NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com http://www.ncr.com Tel: 858-485-2537 Fax: 858-485-3788 -Original Message- From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com [mailto:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:22 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com Subject:Viewing NEC surface patches? I've been using NecVu in NecWin Pro for viewing model geometries and currents in wires, but it omits the display of surface patches. Does anyone know of a freeware, shareware or just cheap viewer for patches? 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
RE: List of upcoming dates for standards
Hello Tania and all, It is true that CENELEC is not the only player in this. The date that each standard is Published in the Official Journal (O.J.) and the date that CENELEC adopted it are consecutive but the dead line date where you will have no choice to use this stnadard (or version of standard) will not differ. So the date that I'm am more interested is the Date of Withdraw (DOW) which appear in the listings. By the way, the search engine of CENELEC allows you to filter out those standards that have been published in the O.J. Just select PUB (Published in the OJEC) in the OJEC Status line. Regards, Benoît At 11:09 AM 3/28/2000 -0800, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: Thank you, Benoit, Can you perhaps clarify: do the effective dates published in this standards list coincide with the effective dates published in the OJ? I believe that for a number of standards, the OJ effective dates prevail, notwithstanding whatever may be published in the standard.Thus, I for one, have been keeping track of the OJ effective dates and ignoring those published, or suggested, in the standard itself.Obviously, this would only apply for those standards that support the various Directives. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Benoit Nadeau [SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: List of upcoming dates for standards Bonjour de Montreal, For European standards the most useful link I found is http://www.cenelec.be/ Do a search on Harmonized standards and it will list you with the dates of effect (DOW). Regards, At 11:28 AM 3/28/2000 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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 -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.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 -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.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: StripLine
Hi All: Seem to have misplaced my data on Striplines. Is there somewhere on the web that I can find the dimensions to build a stripline? Frank Krozel
RE: modest proposal
I think we are going to have fun with these PCs!Us humans create interesting bloopers, can you image what a PC translator could do Human example, that actually happened at the Monterey (Army) Language School some years ago: Translate the following (either from Russian to English, or perhaps it was English to Russian.): The firefighter rushed into the burning house and emerged carrying a child. Translation: The firefighter rushed into the burning house and came out pregnant. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Doug [SMTP:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:11 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Re: modest proposal I've heard efforts of a universal translator through Java being worked on as we speak. You'll be able to go to any website written in any language and see it in your default language. I only hope they fix the little language snafus that crop up. And perhaps the death of having to learn another language? Gosh, I hope not. - Doug Barry Ma wrote: Hi Lou, There must be some day in the future, the artificial intelligence has been so well developed that (1) An instant interpreting machine built-in to your PC would automatically transfer any language you input (either typed or voiced) to any languages the other party would like to have. (2) Learning foreign language is a very pleasant process and can be completed in very short period of time even when you are in sleep. ... :-) Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.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: List of upcoming dates for standards
Thank you, Benoit, Can you perhaps clarify: do the effective dates published in this standards list coincide with the effective dates published in the OJ? I believe that for a number of standards, the OJ effective dates prevail, notwithstanding whatever may be published in the standard.Thus, I for one, have been keeping track of the OJ effective dates and ignoring those published, or suggested, in the standard itself.Obviously, this would only apply for those standards that support the various Directives. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Benoit Nadeau [SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: List of upcoming dates for standards Bonjour de Montreal, For European standards the most useful link I found is http://www.cenelec.be/ Do a search on Harmonized standards and it will list you with the dates of effect (DOW). Regards, At 11:28 AM 3/28/2000 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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 -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.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: modest proposal
As always . . . very well written, George. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:20 AM To: m.r...@ieee.org Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: modest proposal Martin, Your post included the following: * We, the ugly Americans, want the world to conform to our native language. We're too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. You may be partially right, but I believe there is a much simpler explanation. It is human nature to do only that which we are motivated to do. The English speaking world has been fortunate in not having to learn another predominate language to conduct global business. This is probably due to the fact that most non-English speaking countries do not agree that French, German, Spanish, etc. are an acceptable alternate global langauge. Therefore, English may have won only by default. Here is what I remember of the U.S. interest in other languages. Prior to WWII U.S. schools taught Latin as a way to learn the root of words. There was a little French, German, and Spanish taught. After WWII, it was thought that we should be learning Russian, as the other major technical country. Then, in the '70's or so, it was thought that Japanese may be the main other language to learn. In summary, Americans have never had any reason to pick one particular other language to learn. Many have studied other languages, but more for personal than business reasons. Personally, I studied Spanish in high school, and German a few years ago, but am not fluent in either,as there are few opportunities to practive what little I learned. There are people in every country that are too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. But I find that educated professionals will learn what they need to learn to conduct business in their chosen career. Finally, I greatly respect and am thankful for the many non-English speaking peoples who have learned this very difficult langauge for global business purposes. For this reason, I am never critical of their English spelling or errors in grammer. I can only imagine the result of my trying to use German, French, etc.! Regards, George Alspaugh --- 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: modest proposal
Thank you, Thank you, and applause 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 geor...@lexmark.com Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:20 PM To: m.r...@ieee.org Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: modest proposal Martin, Your post included the following: * We, the ugly Americans, want the world to conform to our native language. We're too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. You may be partially right, but I believe there is a much simpler explanation. It is human nature to do only that which we are motivated to do. The English speaking world has been fortunate in not having to learn another predominate language to conduct global business. This is probably due to the fact that most non-English speaking countries do not agree that French, German, Spanish, etc. are an acceptable alternate global langauge. Therefore, English may have won only by default. Here is what I remember of the U.S. interest in other languages. Prior to WWII U.S. schools taught Latin as a way to learn the root of words. There was a little French, German, and Spanish taught. After WWII, it was thought that we should be learning Russian, as the other major technical country. Then, in the '70's or so, it was thought that Japanese may be the main other language to learn. In summary, Americans have never had any reason to pick one particular other language to learn. Many have studied other languages, but more for personal than business reasons. Personally, I studied Spanish in high school, and German a few years ago, but am not fluent in either,as there are few opportunities to practive what little I learned. There are people in every country that are too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. But I find that educated professionals will learn what they need to learn to conduct business in their chosen career. Finally, I greatly respect and am thankful for the many non-English speaking peoples who have learned this very difficult langauge for global business purposes. For this reason, I am never critical of their English spelling or errors in grammer. I can only imagine the result of my trying to use German, French, etc.! Regards, George Alspaugh --- 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 attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Barry, You have a great point. It doesn't just apply to Information Technology Equipment. I apologize for using the term ITE loosely. I feel (don't know) that the lowering of the current limit from 16A per phase (one of the main differences between IEC 555-2, 3 and IEC 1000-3-2,3) was aimed at the proliferation of ITE and consumer products. Someone at IEC realized that there could be a cumulative effect of harmonic currents. However, the scope of the standards is very broad. It can be interpreted to include anything that uses an electron :-) I felt that the commitee that wrote EN 61326-1 actually looked at the difference between Class A and Class B equipment within EN 61326-1 and consciously left the harmonics and flicker limits out of the Class A requirements. This was confirmed by Norm Provost's reply to the thread. He participated in the writing and development of the standard. I think that you have a valid point in that EN 61326-1 treated EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 as Basic Standards as opposed to Product Standards. I never considered that point of view before your email. But I want to know more. Now that I have conceded that I used ITE incorrectly, could I get an explanation of what makes IEC 1000-3-2 and IEC 1000-3-3 a Product Standard as opposed to a Basic Standard? Thanks, 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 -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:40 PM To: chr...@gnlp.com Cc: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Chris, Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are only applicable to ITE? Thanks. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Maxwell, Chris wrote: . My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. . For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
In short: The update guide as referred to by Canio says: 6.4.2 Customer buys several apparatuses in one box that are ce-marked, do not ce mark the system, but include installation instructions. 6.4.2.1 You assemble several ce-marked apparatuses, and you are not sure ! Criterion: the foreseen EMC environment may not fit the individual component's. if they do: ce+ce=ce (for EMC only, not for LVD !) Conclusion : verify the standards and conditions your used apparatuses comply with Do not combine Class A and Class B ITE. Some standards have up to 5 environmental classes. Sub apparatuses may use an ISM frequency not allowed for the ITE characteristics of the combination you make etc. etc. The difference is very subtle. 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 paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:51 PM To: Canio Dichirico; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Here is my understanding of the approach to systems compliance for CE marking. If all parts of the system are CE marked you are not (legally) required to re-test the system for compliance to the EMC Directive, provided you give clear instructions for assembly/installation/operation/maintenance in the instructions for use (installation guidelines). The Declaration of Conformity , as well as the instructions for use, must refer to the system as a whole. My understanding of the modular approach is that if all parts are CE-marked you are not required to put the CE mark on the system as a whole. This is the legal aspect. On the other end, I fully agree that CE + CE = CE is far from sure until you have tested the whole system for compliance ! There is a clear statement on this in the Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC published by the European Commission (1997). In sec. 6.4.2.1 (System assembled from only CE marked apparatus) there is a paragraph titled Additional comment: ... combining two or more CE-marked subassemblies may not automatically produce a system which meets the requirements of the relevant standard. I fully agree with this statement, since the wirings/packaging/grounding/shielding aspects of any assembly process can determine the EMC behavior of the complete system. So my conclusion is: the safest way is to test the system as a whole, because in any case (whether you choose to follow the modular approach or not) the Declaration of Conformity refers to the whole system and manufacturer is responsible for compliance. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Paolo Roncone Compuprint - Italy Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org on 27/03/2000 14.30.50 Please respond to Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org To: IEEE EMC List emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Paolo Roncone/IT/BULL) Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Hello Group, Although EN 61326-1 excludes harmonics for class A, and that is a product standard having a narrower scope then EN 61000-3-2, I still believe the en 61000-3-2 , or at least the harmonics issue should be considered for laboratory equipment. At first: The European commission has expressed there concern about standards deviating from the framework of generic standards, leaving out or invalidating certain aspects that were brought in cover a set of minimum requirements equipment in Europe should be tested against. In their opinion the requirements of EN 50081/2-1/2 should be the minimum requirements. I remember that, just because of this and other product committees trying tricks to escape the EMC testing framework, a guideline to the product committees (TC210 Sec 133 / 001 /008) was issued stating the above. (there may be newer versions available) The report mentioned that any phenomena deviating from the generic framework should be rationalized and argumented. Too much of these standards could jeopardize the situation that CENELEC has, being a private organization having the confidence of the EC for creating standards with almost legal power. Second: Any notified body could consider a piece of equipment without harmonics current testing and complying as being not in compliance with the Essential Requirements, and as one should know Ess. Req. have preference to product standards (giving presumption of compliance only). There motives would be the statement and report above. Too many product committees and standard writing individuals (read: companies) deliberately overlook the ER's, trying to escape from costly requirements. They risk severe measures against there equipment, possibly by competing companies that take the EMC directive serious. 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 Provost,Norm Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 5:39 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Maxwell, Chris; 'Barry Ma'; bkundew...@qtm.net Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Unfortunately I don't get to post to this list very often, but now find myself posting twice the same week! I simply want to emphasize the intentions of EN 61326-1 relative to harmonics. The standard was written in IEC of course, but many of the same participants are involved in the sister CENELEC committee. I participated directly in the writing of this standard (in IEC) and still participate in the ongoing maintenance. I can assure you with the highest confidence possible that the harmonics requirements were not overlooked. As you might imagine, there was a considerable and hot debate on the subject at the committee level, but the conclusions are indeed reflected accurately in the standard. The standard was also voted on and accepted by both the international IEC community and the European (CENELEC) community by a wide margin. The words of EN 61326-1 speak for themselves. The underlying reasons for the decisions are partly and correctly described in Chris Maxwell's posting. The question of hierarchical authority is perhaps not fully solved, so user beware. If put to the test today, users of EN 61326 have firm ground to stand on in my opinion. Best Regards, Norm Provost -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:48 AM To: 'Barry Ma'; bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics I'd like to present a dissenting opinion on this one. I feel that, as the standard is written now, Class A test and measurement equipment complying to EN 61326-1 is exempt from the harmonics and flicker standards of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3. I don't feel as if it was overlooked by EN 61326-1. How could that be? It was specifically listed for Class B equipment (see Table 4, Page 14). I then assume that it was explicitly omitted for Class A equipment (see Table 3, Page 14). I just can't believe that the commitee working on the standard just plain forgot to include it in the Class A emissions requirements. My assumption is that they know the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 better than I. My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. I believe that there is a solid foundation for this reasoning. Harmonic and Flicker standards were written because equipment with poor power factors and or large in-rush currents were drawing disproportionately large peak currents. These fast moving, high amplitude current peaks can cause voltage
RE: Ultraviolet Light
Hi Doug, In the past we have used a textbook titled UV-A Biological Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation with Emphasis on Human Responses to Longwave Ultraviolet as guidance for compliance to clause 4.3.12 of the -950 standards. I'm down the road here in Greeley, so if you need to borrow it, it should not be a problem with me. Best regards, Frank Dominguez Product Regulations Engineer Hewlett-Packard Greeley, CO (970)350-4519 -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Ultraviolet Light Hello group, I have a product that uses extremely strong ultraviolet light and is enclosed in a light-tight enclosure. So far I have been unable to determine what the safety requirements (which standards) for Europe and CE marking are and what sort of warning label should be applied to the equipment covers. I checked EN 60417-2:1998 and found nothing that directly relates. The closest seems to be either laser or possibly something like a non-ionizing radiation label. But these do not seem appropriate. Any help is appreciated. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http:\\www.advanced-energy.com\ http://www.advanced-energy.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: Differential Modes - Even and Odd
Priyawrat, Differential transmission lines (microstrip or other) can support two modes of propagation, the even and odd modes. Usually, the odd mode is the intended mode of operation, as you have noted. Differential circuits inevitably suffer some imbalance between the two sides of the differential circuit, giving rise to the odd mode. Odd mode current must return by some path - often on the ground, or if the circuit contains a differential cable, on the cable shield, or on another pair within the cable if the cable is not shielded (e.g. Cat5 cable). It is this even mode current (often referred to as common-mode) that's can be a source of radiated EMI. Some in the EMI community have come to refer to this as signal-induced EMI, since it's source is the signal on the cable or transmission line, rather than from other noise (clocks, etc.) that merely hitch a ride out on cable shields, etc. Doug McKean is right - this is a signal integrity issue, but at the same time it is also an EMI issue, because differential imbalance is always present. For a reference on the EMI aspects of the common-mode generated by differential imbalance, see the following paper: Knighten, J.L., N.W. Smith, J.T. DiBene II, and L.O. Hoeft, Experimental Analysis of Common Mode Currents on Fibre Channel Cable Shields due to Skew Imbalance of Differential Signals Operating at 1.0625 Gb/s, 1999 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Seattle, WA, August 1999, pp. 195-200. An electronic copy of this may be found at: http://www.emcs.org/99papers.html http://www.emcs.org/99papers.html Hope this is helpful. Jim Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jim.knigh...@ncr.com jim.knigh...@ncr.com Technical Consultant - Design NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com http://www.ncr.com Tel: 858-485-2537 Fax: 858-485-3788 -Original Message- From: P.R.Dewasthalee [mailto:priyawrat.dewastha...@wipro.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Differential Modes - Even and Odd Importance: High Hi all, I feel the best way to close the argument about the split is to invoke a lot of discussion on EM related topics! Fortunately, I have a lot of doubts to clarify! *** In CML/pCML/ECL/pECL logic families, we see a differential output with even mode operation. I mean, CML/pCML sink currents on both the lines(T/F) whereas ECL/pECL source current on both lines(T/F). (Even Mode). Comparing this with LVDS, the current is sourced out of one line and is returned on the other one. (Odd mode). I can understand the benefits of differential pair in the odd mode operation (Flux Cancellation). Question is: Does the same phenomenon occur in the even mode also? Please give me some clue, any further references to look. Thanks in advance, best regards, - Priyawrat. --- 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: List of upcoming dates for standards
Bonjour de Montreal, For European standards the most useful link I found is http://www.cenelec.be/ Do a search on Harmonized standards and it will list you with the dates of effect (DOW). Regards, At 11:28 AM 3/28/2000 -0500, you wrote: Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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 -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.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: List of upcoming dates for standards
I forgot about another site. The Commission lists all standards that have been published in the OJ and lists their effectivity dates. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/r eflist.html Richard Woods -- From: WOODS, RICHARD Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:39 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: List of upcoming dates for standards This is not exactly what you want, but I think it is the best information available. The CENELEC web site lists the dop, dow and the date the reference was published in the OJ. In most, but not all cases, the Commission adopts the dow. http://www.cenelec.be/ http://www.cenelec.be/ Richard Woods -- From: Martin Rowe (TMW) [SMTP:m.r...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: List of upcoming dates for standards Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Hi Chris, Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are only applicable to ITE? Thanks. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Maxwell, Chris wrote: . My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. . For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: List of upcoming dates for standards
This is not exactly what you want, but I think it is the best information available. The CENELEC web site lists the dop, dow and the date the reference was published in the OJ. In most, but not all cases, the Commission adopts the dow. http://www.cenelec.be/ http://www.cenelec.be/ Richard Woods -- From: Martin Rowe (TMW) [SMTP:m.r...@ieee.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: List of upcoming dates for standards Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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: Ultraviolet Light
From the CENELEC web site, I see that EN60335-2-27:1997 and EN 61288:1994 covers exposure to UV. Richard Woods -- From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Ultraviolet Light Hello group, I have a product that uses extremely strong ultraviolet light and is enclosed in a light-tight enclosure. So far I have been unable to determine what the safety requirements (which standards) for Europe and CE marking are and what sort of warning label should be applied to the equipment covers. I checked EN 60417-2:1998 and found nothing that directly relates. The closest seems to be either laser or possibly something like a non-ionizing radiation label. But these do not seem appropriate. Any help is appreciated. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http:\\www.advanced-energy.com\ http://www.advanced-energy.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
Viewing NEC surface patches?
I've been using NecVu in NecWin Pro for viewing model geometries and currents in wires, but it omits the display of surface patches. Does anyone know of a freeware, shareware or just cheap viewer for patches? 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
List of upcoming dates for standards
Does anyone know of a web site that lists when the various EMC standards will go into effect? If not, would such a web age be useful? /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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: modest proposal
Martin, Your post included the following: * We, the ugly Americans, want the world to conform to our native language. We're too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. You may be partially right, but I believe there is a much simpler explanation. It is human nature to do only that which we are motivated to do. The English speaking world has been fortunate in not having to learn another predominate language to conduct global business. This is probably due to the fact that most non-English speaking countries do not agree that French, German, Spanish, etc. are an acceptable alternate global langauge. Therefore, English may have won only by default. Here is what I remember of the U.S. interest in other languages. Prior to WWII U.S. schools taught Latin as a way to learn the root of words. There was a little French, German, and Spanish taught. After WWII, it was thought that we should be learning Russian, as the other major technical country. Then, in the '70's or so, it was thought that Japanese may be the main other language to learn. In summary, Americans have never had any reason to pick one particular other language to learn. Many have studied other languages, but more for personal than business reasons. Personally, I studied Spanish in high school, and German a few years ago, but am not fluent in either,as there are few opportunities to practive what little I learned. There are people in every country that are too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. But I find that educated professionals will learn what they need to learn to conduct business in their chosen career. Finally, I greatly respect and am thankful for the many non-English speaking peoples who have learned this very difficult langauge for global business purposes. For this reason, I am never critical of their English spelling or errors in grammer. I can only imagine the result of my trying to use German, French, etc.! Regards, George Alspaugh --- 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
Ultraviolet Light
Hello group, I have a product that uses extremely strong ultraviolet light and is enclosed in a light-tight enclosure. So far I have been unable to determine what the safety requirements (which standards) for Europe and CE marking are and what sort of warning label should be applied to the equipment covers. I checked EN 60417-2:1998 and found nothing that directly relates. The closest seems to be either laser or possibly something like a non-ionizing radiation label. But these do not seem appropriate. Any help is appreciated. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http:\\www.advanced-energy.com\ http://www.advanced-energy.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: Questions about EN61000-4-6
Hi Barry, I commend you on the in-dept study you do when looking at standards, but as Abraham Lincoln said, If you look for the bad ... you will surely find it. Standards are written for the majority of products, not for every product in every environment. That's why there is the TCF rout to compliance. Remember that we are ultimately not striving for compliance to standards, but to the EU Directives which does not give boundaries. It is impossible to write a standard that some what if wouldn't kill. So don't expect it to. But, don't think that because a test standard sets some boundaries that that's all there is to it. If you (your company) designs a product that 'by design' would be susceptible at some condition or frequency or in some likely environment that is not covered in a test standard you are still reasonable for its immunity performance per the Directive. Trying to determine what to test for is why us EMC engineers make the 'big bucks'. If you miss a problem area don't worry. It will show up at the customer site and then you can fix it. We had a product that passed all our immunity tests (even more strict than what the EU requires) but at one customer site the product would fail every day at the same time. What we found out was that they had a clock system that sent a pulse emission on the AC power line for the entire building to tell the clocks to advance to the hour and stop. Then a second pulse would tell all the clocks to start back up synchronizing them throughout the building. This pulse was unique enough to get past our Immunity tests. Are we legally required to make our products immune to this and all known emissions? Does the Directive give us an alternative? I believe we are obligated to design our products to be immune to any emission that it would 'Likely' see in the environments it will be used in which is always a moving target. But, would we burden the entire industry to be immune to a 'Clock Pluse' emisision that was only found at a few customer sites? Only YOU can answer that question, not the standards writter. As technology advances the environment our products much work in will be different than today. We as EMC engineers must be ready to do our jobs even when it requires us to go beyond the published standards. The people who are involved in writing standards have a difficult task. My hat goes off to them for their hard work. My hope is that I didn't offend anyone with my comments. Brian -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Barry Ma Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Questions about EN61000-4-6 Hi Group, Here are some of my questions and thoughts about EN61000-4-6. Any corrections and comments are greatly appreciated. In discussion of Wisdom behind all these standards, Richard Nute summarized three points raised by Martin Rowe. One of them is reasonableness or appropriateness of the standard. Please allow me to have better understanding of reasonableness or appropriateness of the EN61000-4-6. Both EN61000-4-3 (4-3 in short below) and EN61000-4-6 (4-6) verify the immunity of EUT against induced disturbances caused by incident electromagnetic fields from 150 KHz to 1 GHz. The chamber test approach used in 4-3 is not suitable at lower frequencies (150 KHz to 80 MHz), - not in principle only technically. That's why we need to perform 4-6 differently from 4-3. The methodology of 4-6 is to inject conducted disturbance to cables connected to the EUT by using direct injection or clamp coupling. The injected cable currents are supposed to be the same as induced by incident electromagnetic fields in real world. The methodology of 4-6 also implies that at low frequencies the possible disturbance directly coupled into the EUT from incident electromagnetic fields can be ignored in comparison with the disturbance indirectly coupled to the EUT via attached cables. For many well-shielded EUT that assumption works because it is difficult for low frequency electromagnetic fields to directly get into the EUT through apertures (such as slots, seams, and holes), whose dimensions are small compared to wavelength. But what if the EUT has larger openings or only plastic enclosure? Let's see an extreme example. A component cannot work properly under the illumination of 2.5 V/m incident field at 50 MHz The component would feel 2.5 V/m field when installed if the EUT is illuminated by 3 V/m incident field. But the component could work OK if injecting cable current of 3V into the EUT. The boundary 80 MHz between 4-3 (80 to 1000 MHz) and 4-6 (0.15 to 80 MHz) is not always fixed. It may be adjusted depending on different scenario. That principle is mentioned only in principle. I would like to see a real example to adjust the boundary between 4-3 and 4-6. Does it make more sense to setup a transition region, say 50 to 100 MHz, for both 4-3 and 4-6 to overlap? For the same EUT the test level
RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Unfortunately I don't get to post to this list very often, but now find myself posting twice the same week! I simply want to emphasize the intentions of EN 61326-1 relative to harmonics. The standard was written in IEC of course, but many of the same participants are involved in the sister CENELEC committee. I participated directly in the writing of this standard (in IEC) and still participate in the ongoing maintenance. I can assure you with the highest confidence possible that the harmonics requirements were not overlooked. As you might imagine, there was a considerable and hot debate on the subject at the committee level, but the conclusions are indeed reflected accurately in the standard. The standard was also voted on and accepted by both the international IEC community and the European (CENELEC) community by a wide margin. The words of EN 61326-1 speak for themselves. The underlying reasons for the decisions are partly and correctly described in Chris Maxwell's posting. The question of hierarchical authority is perhaps not fully solved, so user beware. If put to the test today, users of EN 61326 have firm ground to stand on in my opinion. Best Regards, Norm Provost -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:48 AM To: 'Barry Ma'; bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics I'd like to present a dissenting opinion on this one. I feel that, as the standard is written now, Class A test and measurement equipment complying to EN 61326-1 is exempt from the harmonics and flicker standards of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3. I don't feel as if it was overlooked by EN 61326-1. How could that be? It was specifically listed for Class B equipment (see Table 4, Page 14). I then assume that it was explicitly omitted for Class A equipment (see Table 3, Page 14). I just can't believe that the commitee working on the standard just plain forgot to include it in the Class A emissions requirements. My assumption is that they know the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 better than I. My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. I believe that there is a solid foundation for this reasoning. Harmonic and Flicker standards were written because equipment with poor power factors and or large in-rush currents were drawing disproportionately large peak currents. These fast moving, high amplitude current peaks can cause voltage dips in the power grid and can cause harmonic currents (currents whose fundamental frequency is a multple of the power grid frequency) in capacitors of other devices connected to the same power grid. It's physical fact that these voltage dips and harmonic currents can hurt other devices connected to the power grid. The initial Harmonic and Flicker standards set by IEC (IEC 555-2 and 555-3) included equipment drawing more than 16A of current per phase because IEC thought that it took at least 16A of un-powerfactor-corrected (my own word) nominal current draw, per phase, to have a detrimental effect. It's my belief that the new standards (EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3) lowered the current draw limitation because of the cumulative effect of numerous pieces of ITE equipment connected to the same grid. For instance, in my office, we have 100 computers (ITE equipment). If all of these computers did not have power factor correction, we could have some serious harmonic current draw. EN 61326-1 covers a great deal of equipment that is not ITE equipment. As such, I don't think that the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 supercedes or overlaps the scope of EN 61326-1. The great thing about this forum is that, if I'm wrong in this, I hope that someone can point out my error and back it up with some tangible evidence. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know. I don't want cause my company to be seduced by the dark side of non-compliance. 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 -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:10 PM To: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Brian, Here is my $0.02. (1) As far as EN61326-1 is concerned, Class A is not required to pass EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. Because EN61326 committee treated these two standards as basic standards. (2) However, they are not basic standards. They are product standards. If your product falls under their definition the product MUST comply with them no matter whether EN61326 calls for them. (3) Therefore, we
Re: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS - Dual Channel Spectrum Analyzer
Rene, I am not aware of any analyzer built to perform signal cancellation. But I have not been looking for one. Here are the two phase cancelling methods I spoke of: The simplest method is also the hardest. At the spectrum analyzer input, place a combiner. To one input, connect your measurement antenna. To the other, connect a coax leading to an ambient sensing antenna at least ten times farther away from the EUT than the measurement antenna. Then rotate the sensing antenna between around its axes and move it from place to place until the combination of rotating the antenna and moving it provides the exact phase and amplitude combination you need to reduce the ambient on the analyzer screen. (But stay 10X the OATS distance from the EUT.) This is actually not as hard as it seems, but you need some way to see the analyzer screen. Clumsy, yes! But it actually can be made to work. If you have just one ambient, it may be all you need. (If you don't have a combiner, you can make one out of two attenuators on a T fitting; it's just a summing network.) A neater way is to bring the sense antenna coax to a phasing network. I've used a slotted line, and thought about using binary switched lengths of coax for coarser adjustments. You will need also to amplify and then attenuate the sense input, so as to be able to adjust its level. Then, you need only record the settings to cancel each ambient, and return to them as needed. However, it works the same as the method above. You still need a combiner. Most modern military forces have adaptive antennas to cancel jamming signals at their communications receivers. Apart from the fact that they can have both antennas close together, what they are doing is pretty much what we need to do; null out an unusable ambient. I gather from reading the advertisements, that such systems are similar to what CASSPER does. And, there are several small manufacturers who make noise cancelling adaptors for Amateur Radio operators. Typically, they come with a built-in noise pickup antenna (with provision for an external one) and work the same way I described for our EMC measuring setup. Regards, Cortland Richmond == Original Message Follows Rene Charton wrote: From: r...@twn.tuv.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:46:04 +0800 Subject: Re: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS - Dual Channel Spectrum Hi Cortland, I agree that if you want to get successful cancellation of ambient by mixing an negative ambient signal to the measured signal you need an exact adjustment of amplitude and phase. And here lies the problem. Is there a spectrum analyzer in the market that has two channels, or that makes it possible to couple two analyzers in a way that -- - the oscillators are coupled, and the phase relation can be adjusted - that can perform a substraction of the two IF Amplifier outputs, and feed this signal to the demodulator You say that there are two other methods apart from what CASSPAR suggests. Please can you let me know what the two other methods are. Thanks in advance Kind regards Rene Charton --- 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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Sense this discussion has started regarding CE + CE = CE, I have one question, and by the way - I agree with Paolo's comments (and the European Commission Guidance Doc). We offer with our device an off the shelf standard PC along with a printer, monitor, etc. This interfaces with our manufactured medical device, class IIa. We have tested devices in the past to the EMC Directive and the Medical Device Directive. When we tested the device we manufacture we did not test the computer, printer, etc. However, I assure that all PC's and related peripheral devices are compliant with the EMC Directive, etc (labeled CE). Our rational is that PC's, line printers, video monitors have a life span of about a year. This would relate to us having to test new combinations about three- four times a year (our test house would like that - extra $). Our Declaration of Conformities (DoC's)reflect this. We also assure that all interface cables are EMI compliant, that is, they are braid over foil with metal hoods, etc. and are terminated to the device. We communicate via RS-232 to a remote (outside chamber) PC during testing, the cable is heavily shielded at the chamber exit point using clamp on ferrite's. By questions are: 1) Does this scenario match anyone else's product they offer for sale internationally? 2) How do you deal with it? That is - the short life span of computers and their related peripheral devices. Also - the life span of our devices are approximately 5 years Thx in advance. -Original Message- From: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:51 AM To: Canio Dichirico; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Here is my understanding of the approach to systems compliance for CE marking. If all parts of the system are CE marked you are not (legally) required to re-test the system for compliance to the EMC Directive, provided you give clear instructions for assembly/installation/operation/maintenance in the instructions for use (installation guidelines). The Declaration of Conformity , as well as the instructions for use, must refer to the system as a whole. My understanding of the modular approach is that if all parts are CE-marked you are not required to put the CE mark on the system as a whole. This is the legal aspect. On the other end, I fully agree that CE + CE = CE is far from sure until you have tested the whole system for compliance ! There is a clear statement on this in the Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC published by the European Commission (1997). In sec. 6.4.2.1 (System assembled from only CE marked apparatus) there is a paragraph titled Additional comment: ... combining two or more CE-marked subassemblies may not automatically produce a system which meets the requirements of the relevant standard. I fully agree with this statement, since the wirings/packaging/grounding/shielding aspects of any assembly process can determine the EMC behavior of the complete system. So my conclusion is: the safest way is to test the system as a whole, because in any case (whether you choose to follow the modular approach or not) the Declaration of Conformity refers to the whole system and manufacturer is responsible for compliance. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Paolo Roncone Compuprint - Italy Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org on 27/03/2000 14.30.50 Please respond to Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org To: IEEE EMC List emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Paolo Roncone/IT/BULL) Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? --- 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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE+CE = CE?
Hi All! I am sorry to bother all of you again but I was just old by our IT people that email sent yesterday to our organization may have been delayed in delivery or bounced depending on the configuration of the remote site's (viz, your) mail system. Would you be so kind to re-send to me any reply of yours to my message? I would really appreciate. Canio Dichirico - Original Message - From: Canio Dichirico To: IEEE EMC List Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 14:30 Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! 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 website: www.eso.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: modest proposal
As perhaps the only member of this list who works for a publishing company, let me explain why a designed language won't work. * We, the ugly Americans, want the world to conform to our native language. We're too lazy, stubborn, and arrogant to learn another language. * A designed language with clear rules, spelling, and punctuation will throw lots of copy editors out of work. * There will always be new feelings, expressions, and physical objects that the designers of the universal language either didn't think we needed or that have come into existance after the adoption of the designed language. Languages change slowly over time. Eventually, the designed language will look like any other language. Languages change faster than editors think they do. I'll bet every one of you has said something like I need to access the data... Many magazine articles, that have supposedly pass through editors, contain the use of the word access as a verb. Around here, I'd have to write I need to gain access to the data because officially, the word access is a noun. Each of you would know what I mean if I were to use access as a verb, but professional editors will get confused and insist on using the word properly. So the bottom line is that speakers of a designed language will slowly change the language to where an accepted useage violates the rules anyway. * A clear language will mean that lawyers will have no choice but to write in lay terms. If the average person can understand a legal writing or a contract, then we won't hire lawyers as much as we do now. Because most politicians start out as lawyers... (you get the idea, I don't need *any* language to explain). /\ | 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 |\/ --- 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: General Product Safety Directive
Hi folks Very interesting and I am glad that Richard has spotted this as I was under the same impression (as, I think, were/are many other people). However, I personally doubt it makes much difference to the TECHNICAL safety requirements that should be applied to any specific product. These mainly come from standards which are often sector independent. Also, it should be noted that the discussion paper also says (in the middle) that when professional products migrate to the consumer market then the GPSD DOES now apply - so it might be difficult to identify exactly when that occurs. Personal computers are probably both a good and a bad example: a) A 230V desktop unit is definitely subject to the LVD and not the GPSD. b) A notebook PC with an external AC/DC PSU is not subject to the LVD, and thus the GPSD probably applies (but see c) below!) - EXCEPT if it is a very high-spec high-end unit for professional use when the GPSD would not appear to apply but it is then covered (according to the discussion document) by work-place legislation. c) A telecomms connectable notebook unit is subject to the RTTE Directive, not the LVD and that makes no supply-voltage rating distinction, nor any distinction between consumer and non-consumer products - (and the high-end unit will almost certainly have telecomms connectability!). d) High-spec units of this type often slide down the market to become consumer products so the GPSD now applies to even the high-spec unit! e) In all cases EN60950 is the applicable safety standard - so there's no difference to the technical requirements! f) Finally, I have seen many definitions of consumer that are not explicit enough to exclude personnel in their working environment. However, I can certainly see that where the product has no consumer applications then the GPSD will not apply - but, again, will the actual effects on the way we (as equipment suppliers) actually design, manufacture and supply products be much different? I rather doubt it. I think the major effects of the GPSD are related to the needs to inform various government bodies if you have been a bad boy - or you know of someone who has - and the on-going implications thereof. What do others make of this? John Allen Racal Defence Electronics Ltd UK -- From: wo...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 28 March 2000 13:40 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:General Product Safety Directive You may find this link concerning the potential revision of the GPSD to be of interest: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/policy/developments/prod_safe/ps04_en.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/policy/developments/prod_safe/ps04_en.html . I learn something every day. I always thought the GPSD applied to all products unless another safety directive existed, such as the LVD. Wrong! The GPSD only applies to consumer products. Professional products are not covered. That is made clear in the linked document. I wonder what else I have misunderstood all these years. 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 --- 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: modest proposal
This is really becoming a completely pointless discussion. Most of the people on this forum appear to be native English speakers. In my experience, native English speakers have absolutely no motivation or desire to learn any other language. Furthermore, a large percentage of the allegedly educated ones can barely handle their own grammar and spelling. Eg. in the sentence above, many would write they're own grammar ... AARGH!! On the other hand, those of us on this forum that are not native English speakers, seem to manage to convey our meaning quite nicely, thank you. English is already a bastard language; difficult enough to learn as it is. Let's not go out of the way to bastardize it even further with idiocies like enuf. Can we please stop this stupid thread? My time is valuable (if only to myself :-) Muriel: De vez em quando eu perdo a paciencia com esses babacas. Geralmente, este forum é bom, mas as vezes tem tanta boçalidade ... :-) Cheers, Egon :-) __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca eva...@compuserve.com egon.va...@csa-international.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: Questions about EN61000-4-6
CISPR 24 allows the transition from conducted to radiated immunity anywhere from 30MHz to 80MHz.. The European implementation, EN55024 does not. The 4-6, 4-3 boundary is at 80MHz. The Japanese did extensive testing for equivalence of RF field exposure to current injection. They found that above about 10MHz, the coupling falls as the log of the frequency. In other words, 3V/m does not equal 3V. This has been taken care of in CISPR 24. The test value of 3V was not changed but the limits were. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Reply To: Barry Ma Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Questions about EN61000-4-6 Hi Group, Here are some of my questions and thoughts about EN61000-4-6. Any corrections and comments are greatly appreciated. In discussion of Wisdom behind all these standards, Richard Nute summarized three points raised by Martin Rowe. One of them is reasonableness or appropriateness of the standard. Please allow me to have better understanding of reasonableness or appropriateness of the EN61000-4-6. Both EN61000-4-3 (4-3 in short below) and EN61000-4-6 (4-6) verify the immunity of EUT against induced disturbances caused by incident electromagnetic fields from 150 KHz to 1 GHz. The chamber test approach used in 4-3 is not suitable at lower frequencies (150 KHz to 80 MHz), - not in principle only technically. That's why we need to perform 4-6 differently from 4-3. The methodology of 4-6 is to inject conducted disturbance to cables connected to the EUT by using direct injection or clamp coupling. The injected cable currents are supposed to be the same as induced by incident electromagnetic fields in real world. The methodology of 4-6 also implies that at low frequencies the possible disturbance directly coupled into the EUT from incident electromagnetic fields can be ignored in comparison with the disturbance indirectly coupled to the EUT via attached cables. For many well-shielded EUT that assumption works because it is difficult for low frequency electromagnetic fields to directly get into the EUT through apertures (such as slots, seams, and holes), whose dimensions are small compared to wavelength. But what if the EUT has larger openings or only plastic enclosure? Let's see an extreme example. A component cannot work properly under the illumination of 2.5 V/m incident field at 50 MHz The component would feel 2.5 V/m field when installed if the EUT is illuminated by 3 V/m incident field. But the component could work OK if injecting cable current of 3V into the EUT. The boundary 80 MHz between 4-3 (80 to 1000 MHz) and 4-6 (0.15 to 80 MHz) is not always fixed. It may be adjusted depending on different scenario. That principle is mentioned only in principle. I would like to see a real example to adjust the boundary between 4-3 and 4-6. Does it make more sense to setup a transition region, say 50 to 100 MHz, for both 4-3 and 4-6 to overlap? For the same EUT the test level of 4-3 is 3V/m, and the test level of 4-6 is 3V (80% AM @ 1KHz). Is there any explanation or verification available to show the equivalence (even roughly) between these two levels in interferences with the EUT at boundary frequency? In real world all attached cables would have induced currents at the same time if an incident field illuminates upon the EUT. In 4-6 test procedure, however, all cables are injected one by one in turn. On the other hand, in Radiated Emission test we have to manipulate the placement of all attached cable to maximize the resultant emission from all cables. Is it fair? I mean there seems to be a double standard for Radiated Emission and Conducted Immunity. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help,
RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics
I'd like to present a dissenting opinion on this one. I feel that, as the standard is written now, Class A test and measurement equipment complying to EN 61326-1 is exempt from the harmonics and flicker standards of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3. I don't feel as if it was overlooked by EN 61326-1. How could that be? It was specifically listed for Class B equipment (see Table 4, Page 14). I then assume that it was explicitly omitted for Class A equipment (see Table 3, Page 14). I just can't believe that the commitee working on the standard just plain forgot to include it in the Class A emissions requirements. My assumption is that they know the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 better than I. My understanding of the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 is that it is targeting Information Technology Equipment (ITE). Much of the equipment under EN 61326-1 is not ITE. I believe that there is a solid foundation for this reasoning. Harmonic and Flicker standards were written because equipment with poor power factors and or large in-rush currents were drawing disproportionately large peak currents. These fast moving, high amplitude current peaks can cause voltage dips in the power grid and can cause harmonic currents (currents whose fundamental frequency is a multple of the power grid frequency) in capacitors of other devices connected to the same power grid. It's physical fact that these voltage dips and harmonic currents can hurt other devices connected to the power grid. The initial Harmonic and Flicker standards set by IEC (IEC 555-2 and 555-3) included equipment drawing more than 16A of current per phase because IEC thought that it took at least 16A of un-powerfactor-corrected (my own word) nominal current draw, per phase, to have a detrimental effect. It's my belief that the new standards (EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3) lowered the current draw limitation because of the cumulative effect of numerous pieces of ITE equipment connected to the same grid. For instance, in my office, we have 100 computers (ITE equipment). If all of these computers did not have power factor correction, we could have some serious harmonic current draw. EN 61326-1 covers a great deal of equipment that is not ITE equipment. As such, I don't think that the scope of EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 supercedes or overlaps the scope of EN 61326-1. The great thing about this forum is that, if I'm wrong in this, I hope that someone can point out my error and back it up with some tangible evidence. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know. I don't want cause my company to be seduced by the dark side of non-compliance. 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 -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:10 PM To: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Brian, Here is my $0.02. (1) As far as EN61326-1 is concerned, Class A is not required to pass EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. Because EN61326 committee treated these two standards as basic standards. (2) However, they are not basic standards. They are product standards. If your product falls under their definition the product MUST comply with them no matter whether EN61326 calls for them. (3) Therefore, we found a conflict between 61326 and 61000-3-2/3 (although they are all listed in harmonized standards). How to solve the conflict? There might be two options. (A) Change 61326: Class A is also required to pass EN61000-3-2 and -3. (B) Change 61000-3-2/3: They are basic standards. (the same as 61000-4-X series). Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Fri, 24 March 2000, Provost,Norm wrote: The exclusion of harmonic test requirements in EN 61326 for equipment which need only meet Class A emission limits was a deliberate decision by the authors. It was not an omission by error. Many outside the committee now view this decision as a mistake. There is no revision in progress. Best Regards, Norm Provost -Original Message- From:Brian Kunde [SMTP:bkundew...@qtm.net] Sent:Friday, March 24, 2000 12:16 PM To:'IEEE EMC/PS Group' Subject:EMC: EN61326-1 Harmonics The EN 61326-1 family standard for laboratory equipment only lists Harmonic testing as a requirement for Class B environments. So Class A products are not required to pass the harmonics tests (flicker too). Is this going to continue as the rule in the future? Will this rule carry over to other family and generic standards? I had heard that omitting harmonic testing in a class A environment was a mistake and that it will be corrected on future versions of the standard. Can anyone validate or invalidate this
General Product Safety Directive
You may find this link concerning the potential revision of the GPSD to be of interest: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/policy/developments/prod_safe/ps04_en.html http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/policy/developments/prod_safe/ps04_en.html . I learn something every day. I always thought the GPSD applied to all products unless another safety directive existed, such as the LVD. Wrong! The GPSD only applies to consumer products. Professional products are not covered. That is made clear in the linked document. I wonder what else I have misunderstood all these years. 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: Differential Modes - Even and Odd
P.R.Dewasthalee wrote: Hi all, I feel the best way to close the argument about the split is to invoke a lot of discussion on EM related topics! Fortunately, I have a lot of doubts to clarify! *** In CML/pCML/ECL/pECL logic families, we see a differential output with even mode operation. I mean, CML/pCML sink currents on both the lines(T/F) whereas ECL/pECL source current on both lines(T/F). (Even Mode). Comparing this with LVDS, the current is sourced out of one line and is returned on the other one. (Odd mode). I can understand the benefits of differential pair in the odd mode operation (Flux Cancellation). Question is: Does the same phenomenon occur in the even mode also? This is actually a signal integrity question. Unless you're implying that even produces common mode currents which are the source of much radiation problems. The same phenomenon? I'd say no. Even mode produces the magnetic wall, i.e. no tangential magnetic fields. Odd produces the electric wall, i.e. no tangential electric fields. Clearly two entirely different phenomena at work. What is interesting and not seemingly well known is that characteristic impedance and crosstalk can be explained with even/odd mode impedances. Please give me some clue, any further references to look. Quite an exhaustive account in terms of microstrip design in reference to even and odd modes with plenty of associated references is given in Title: Practical Microstrip Circuit Design Authors: L.A. Trinogga, Guo Kaizhou, I.C. Hunter List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 1991 ISBN: 0-13-580077-3 Publisher: Ellis Horwood Limited Market Cross House, Cooper Street CHichester, West Sussex, PO19 1EB, England Regards, Doug McKean --- 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 - Declaration of Incorporation?
As an engineer, I have a lot of sympathy with the position taken by Mike that the DofI would be a useful document for compliance with the EMC Directive (and other directives too). However, the DofI is only an available option for compliance with the Machinery Directive. It's important to remember that we're talking politics and the law here, not engineering common sense. There are three routes to compliance permitted by the EMC Directive and all require a DofC. There is no provision for a DofI under the EMC directive so you can't use it as a means of complying with the directive. Period. That's a shame, but until there's a change in the law, that's the way it is. It's all very well applying common sense to areas of the directives which are not clear (and god knows there are plenty of those!). However, the requirement for a DofC under the EMC Directive is not one of them. If you ever found yourself in court trying to defend the action you've taken to comply with the directive, imagine trying to persuade the court that your judgement was superior to that of all the lawyers who wrote the directive, and all those who are now lined up waiting to demonstrate how much smarter they are than you. Sorry if this sounds a bit terse: it isn't meant to be, but it's late and I'm afraid I don't feel able to say it in a nicer way without undesirable verbosity. Regards Nick. At 10:39 -0500 27/3/2000, Dan Kinney (A) wrote: Mike, Wow - that helps a lot. Thanks for the information. Dan 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 -Original Message- From: Michael Mertinooke [SMTP:mertino...@skyskan.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:28 AM To:'Dan Kinney (A)' Subject: RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation? Dan; Until 6 minths ago I was working for one of your competitors. All PLCs were shipped with Declarations of Conformity. The Declaration of Incorporation actually would be more appropriate, but we found our customers screaming for a DofC. So fine. We hired a Notified Body, set up TCFs, and went with DOCs. Also please note that the DOI is only mentioned in the Machinery Directive. This has often been interpreted to mean that it is only appropriate for mechanical parts. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that the rules are not clear for something like a PLC, which has its own enclosure (and therefore is a device) but which does not perform a complete standalone action (and therefore is a component). In this case none of the rules fit exactly - so I am in favor of using whatever existing precedents you can find. In this case, DOI would fit the situation perfectly: the device cannot be meaningfully tested all by itself, but you need to declare that when properly installed in accordance with user instructions, the device will meet all the declared requirements. One other point is the ongoing debate about random combinations of modular products. It is questionable whether the configuration you tested actually represents the real world. A DOI would sidestep this whole rathole, whereas a DOC is sort of a gamble. If you declare absolute conformity with a DOC, how do you know some customer won't put together a magic combination of modules that will violate emissions or immunity requirements? Personally, I spent a lot of test money proving to my satisfaction that I was really and truly testing the absolute worst case configuration for each test. I shipped with a DOC and a clear conscience, but a DOI would have made life a lot simpler and cheaper. See ya. Mike Mertinooke --- 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: modest proposal
I've heard efforts of a universal translator through Java being worked on as we speak. You'll be able to go to any website written in any language and see it in your default language. I only hope they fix the little language snafus that crop up. And perhaps the death of having to learn another language? Gosh, I hope not. - Doug Barry Ma wrote: Hi Lou, There must be some day in the future, the artificial intelligence has been so well developed that (1) An instant interpreting machine built-in to your PC would automatically transfer any language you input (either typed or voiced) to any languages the other party would like to have. (2) Learning foreign language is a very pleasant process and can be completed in very short period of time even when you are in sleep. ... :-) Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.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
Differential Modes - Even and Odd
Hi all, I feel the best way to close the argument about the split is to invoke a lot of discussion on EM related topics! Fortunately, I have a lot of doubts to clarify! *** In CML/pCML/ECL/pECL logic families, we see a differential output with even mode operation. I mean, CML/pCML sink currents on both the lines(T/F) whereas ECL/pECL source current on both lines(T/F). (Even Mode). Comparing this with LVDS, the current is sourced out of one line and is returned on the other one. (Odd mode). I can understand the benefits of differential pair in the odd mode operation (Flux Cancellation). Question is: Does the same phenomenon occur in the even mode also? Please give me some clue, any further references to look. Thanks in advance, best regards, - Priyawrat. --- 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: modest proposal
From: Barry Ma There must be some day in the future, the artificial intelligence has been so well developed that (1) An instant interpreting machine built-in to your PC . or brain. Remember, you need to meet class B limits though :-)) --- 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: modest proposal
Paul, I consider myself proficient in English, but I agree with you that those who throw Acronyms around without first typing them out are inconsiderate. There are quite a few Acronyms that have more than just one explanation. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Paul Rampelbergh [SMTP:rampelberg...@swing.be] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:24 PM To: ieee pstc list Cc: Lou Gnecco Subject: Re: modest proposal Hi there, A little bit behind the subject, i take the opportunity to express my opinion in general on english and at the end a NEW proposal (maybe). I'm from belgium and as you certainly know we don't have our own language here. In my country we have FRENCH, FLEMISH and GERMAN. I speak/write only French, Flemish (equivalent to Dutch) and some English (it could be worse). This being said let me comment a few general problems encountered with english: - its unbelievable the long time it takes to express my opinions and put it down on paper. The same way, it takes a long time to find-out the real meaning of some sentences put forward by people who try to convince they know very well english subtleties. The use of commonly used words in simple expressions would be more efficient and helpful. - in the future i had some people who ridiculed my spelling and expressions, but that past time, thanks for your understanding There is now spell checking, it helps (a lot). - pithy enough, and i find things smoothly changing, english speaking people don't do enough effort to try to find-out what's the real meaning behind the sentences and words expressed. This happens often during meetings. Just misplace the accentuation point in a word and there it goes.. A little more interpretation effort to understand the objective of the text or at least ask for complementary information could be less frustrating when the author read the reply. - the last, and the worst. To understand english i have to have at least 2 big dictionaries of abbreviations generally used. OK EMC everybody knows but other ones... Some time ago i worked with the US airforce, how boy that's an adventure you never forget. I think it would be wise to have at least once in the original text a full expression (word) and then its abbreviated equivalent. Final modest proposal for a solution (maybe): I suggest to use hieroglyphics in stead of abbreviations, its more image speaking and universal for everybody but i'm afraid it will require an extra language on my computer. Hey Mr MicroSoft! Consider this not as a open criticisms but more as an expression of my findings during several years of traveling (-/+ 45 times to the us and 15 to canada). I enjoy to come to the states, a comfortable car and country music let's me feel like in holiday even if i'm not. Best regards to all of youPaul On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:53:40 -0500, you wrote: To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! SORRY LOU, it took me some time I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Just realize, whe strugle here with frensh, english, german, dutch, spanish, italian, greeks, norsk, and more. Whe don't require an extra one. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. See above. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: modest proposal
This debate is moot. English is a good language for EMC and safety, for now. Until people adopt JAVA (or its variant, from Seattle) to communicate with each other because of its precision and unambiguity and logical constructs. And then you dont even have to learn a language; you can upload the language as it becomes available from online servers. You probably will still have to remember remnants of English to enjoy rock and roll. Cant imagine how you can make java (or its variant) rock and roll. Anil -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paul Rampelbergh Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 3:24 PM To: ieee pstc list Cc: Lou Gnecco Subject: Re: modest proposal Hi there, A little bit behind the subject, i take the opportunity to express my opinion in general on english and at the end a NEW proposal (maybe). I'm from belgium and as you certainly know we don't have our own language here. In my country we have FRENCH, FLEMISH and GERMAN. I speak/write only French, Flemish (equivalent to Dutch) and some English (it could be worse). This being said let me comment a few general problems encountered with english: - its unbelievable the long time it takes to express my opinions and put it down on paper. The same way, it takes a long time to find-out the real meaning of some sentences put forward by people who try to convince they know very well english subtleties. The use of commonly used words in simple expressions would be more efficient and helpful. - in the future i had some people who ridiculed my spelling and expressions, but that past time, thanks for your understanding There is now spell checking, it helps (a lot). - pithy enough, and i find things smoothly changing, english speaking people don't do enough effort to try to find-out what's the real meaning behind the sentences and words expressed. This happens often during meetings. Just misplace the accentuation point in a word and there it goes.. A little more interpretation effort to understand the objective of the text or at least ask for complementary information could be less frustrating when the author read the reply. - the last, and the worst. To understand english i have to have at least 2 big dictionaries of abbreviations generally used. OK EMC everybody knows but other ones... Some time ago i worked with the US airforce, how boy that's an adventure you never forget. I think it would be wise to have at least once in the original text a full expression (word) and then its abbreviated equivalent. Final modest proposal for a solution (maybe): I suggest to use hieroglyphics in stead of abbreviations, its more image speaking and universal for everybody but i'm afraid it will require an extra language on my computer. Hey Mr MicroSoft! Consider this not as a open criticisms but more as an expression of my findings during several years of traveling (-/+ 45 times to the us and 15 to canada). I enjoy to come to the states, a comfortable car and country music let's me feel like in holiday even if i'm not. Best regards to all of youPaul On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:53:40 -0500, you wrote: To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! SORRY LOU, it took me some time I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Just realize, whe strugle here with frensh, english, german, dutch, spanish, italian, greeks, norsk, and more. Whe don't require an extra one. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. See above. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: modest proposal
Hi Lou, There must be some day in the future, the artificial intelligence has been so well developed that (1) An instant interpreting machine built-in to your PC would automatically transfer any language you input (either typed or voiced) to any languages the other party would like to have. (2) Learning foreign language is a very pleasant process and can be completed in very short period of time even when you are in sleep. ... :-) Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: MoU between Czech Republic and EU countries?
Can't give you a direct answer, but I found a site you might find useful earlier today - it covers the details of the MRA's currently in force, including details of the approved labs. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/international/indexb1.htm HTH Nick. At 09:59 -0500 27/3/2000, Kevin Harris wrote: Hello Group, Does anyone know if there is a MoU between the Czech Republic and EU countries for the acceptance of each others type approval test reports for low power transmitters (CEPT/ERC 70-03 type) . Best Regards, Kevin Harris --- 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 - Dual Channel Spectrum Analyzer
Hi Cortland, I agree that if you want to get successful cancellation of ambient by mixing an negative ambient signal to the measured signal you need an exact adjustment of amplitude and phase. And here lies the problem. Is there a spectrum analyzer in the market that has two channels, or that makes it possible to couple two analyzers in a way that -- - the oscillators are coupled, and the phase relation can be adjusted - that can perform a substraction of the two IF Amplifier outputs, and feed this signal to the demodulator You say that there are two other methods apart from what CASSPAR suggests. Please can you let me know what the two other methods are. Thanks in advance Kind regards Rene Charton Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com on 03/24/2000 12:26:55 AM Please respond to Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com To: Doug dmck...@gte.net, ieee pstc list emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: Re: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Basically, one combines the ambient, a signal whose amplitude is not dependent on distance from an EUT, in the correct phase and amplitude, with the signals received by an antenna on the OATS. There are at least three ways (counting CASSPER) this can be done, ranging from the technically sophisticated to the technically ridiculous (but still effective). What you pay for in using a technically sophisticated method is speed of testing and reliability - it is less dependent for its effectiveness on the tech or engineer doing the test. What you pay for simplicity, is awkward and time-consuming set-up which requires much more of a tech or engineer. Plus, regrettably, people are more apt to believe your results if it takes a lot of equipment to achieve them. (sigh) Cortland == Original Message Follows SNIP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:38:20 -0800 From: Doug dmck...@gte.net Subject: Re: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Reply-To: Doug dmck...@gte.net Perhaps it's because I've never understood ... How exactly does one do ambient cancellation at an OATS? UNSNIP --- 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
