Re: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
It may not be important whether you call it an applied part or not. You are not making a direct electrical connection to the patient. In any case you should meet the leakage requirement. This should be easy with properly insulated earphones. IEC 60950 also addresses this issue and throws in more considerations. For the condition of telephone type headsets they are worried about transients from telecom or power lines, and therefore have additional isolation requirements. Clause 6.2.2 requires an impulse test of 2.5 KV or hipot of 1.5 KV (in Australia this is increased to both 7KV impulse and 3KV hipot) applied to foil wrapped around the headset. Bob Johnson Kenneth McCormick wrote: I also agree that the headphones are a patient connection. Hi, Its been a while since I looked at UL 544, but a few comments. 1. Headphones are an applied part (UL2601-1) or patient connection (UL544). They come into direct contact with the patient. You can argue that they are an ordinary patient connection (Clause 2.18 of UL544). But, it is still a patient connection. The limit is 50 uA for ordinary patient connection. 2. How long is this product going to be in the market? UL 544 goes away on 1/1/2003 for new products and 1/1/2005 for all products. You might be better off going to UL2601-1 now. In UL2601-1 this type of patient connect is Type BF. The patient leakage current limit is 100 uA in normal condition and 500 uA in single fault condition. 3. Call UL. Maybe I missed some out in UL544. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:36 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment* Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- 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
RE: EMC Directive Revisions
Ed, do you know what group produced this document? Richard Woods -- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:17 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: EMC Directive Revisions I found an interesting document a few days ago. This is a draft of late 1999 revisions, actually amendments, to the EMC Directive. It looks like this will supplement, not necessarily replace, the existing Directive. Since nothing looked newer, and this is several months old, maybe this is nearly a final version. FWIW, no guarantee about the veracity of this document! I haven't read it in detail yet, but notice: 1. failure modes of which the user would not be aware 2. testing all manners of use 3. the need for an analysis The document is in the form of a 140K MS Word rtf. As I did last year with the 461E document, I'll return a copy of this EMC Directive Amendments draft by attachment to your email. (Email your request directly to me, not the list.) Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- 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: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
Thanks Mike for an excellent post. -Original Message- From: Mike Murphy [mailto:mmur...@alesis.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Brent and group, I can verify that the CASPPER system does perform this feat incredibly well in most cases IF you have the right conditions. I've had two demos of their product, one at our company in Santa Monica and another at an OATS. We devised quite a few scenarios to test its capabilities. For instance, at the OATS, we found a strong ambient. Then we took a signal generator (acting as EUT) and moved it slightly off of the center frequency of the ambient in order to measure its magnitude. We moved the EUT signal back to the exact center frequency of the ambient and the CASPPER system was able to remove the ambient and take a reading of the EUT signal to within 0.5dB of our reading. We then proceeded to AM and FM modulate the EUT signal and still the CASPPER system did a great job of reading it. However, if the system does not get the differential it needs between the ambient sensing antenna and the EUT antenna, the results are underwhelming. At the OATS (nestled in a valley) the system had problems with multipaths. At our company in Santa Monica, the system had problems with multipaths from high rise buildings and the overwhelming magnitude of some ambients. I packed these two demonstrations with as many engineers and technicians as I could in order to get a broad range of skepticism and opinion. Our engineers who have DSP and communications systems experience have no qualms about the theory and spoke directly with the CASPPER engineer to quiz him on what they were doing with regard to coherence. We all were satisfied that the system can do what it theoretically claims. However, it's a bit finicky and the ambient antenna placement (or multiple antenna placements) seems to be critical. At this point, I disagree with the marketing of the product that it is a virtual chamber in that it in no way removes the headaches of dealing with the multitude of ambients the way that a physical chamber would. It may even be that the users of the system become hyper-aware of ambients as they use the system. I've asked CASPPER to give me the names and phone numbers of customers who own the system to see how it's performing for them in the real world and gauge their customer satisfaction, but have not gotten this information yet. I'm still a little disappointed that I haven't heard any responses from this list server to my specific questions on this topic (see my 3/21/00 post). For those of you who have witnessed their demos: 1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction? 2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it? 3. Was it worth the asking price? Mike Murphy Compliance Engineer Alesis Studio Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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
What's your experience with GTEM?
Greetings, I would appreciate any input with regard to GTEM results for pre-compliance emissions and immunity measurements. Specifically, is there a limit to the size of a product that can be tested? I have heard that small products such as pagers, etc. perform well in a GTEM. Is there a limit to product volume vs. volume of the GTEM? Also, how about cable radiation. Will the GTEM sufficiently detect cable radiation with comparable results with an OATS? Thanks in advance for your input. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer PairGain Technologies tel: (919)875-3382 6531 Meridien Drive fax: (919)876-1817 Raleigh, NC 27616 email: allen_tu...@pairgain.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: Stroboscopic light sources
Not sure where to look. But it is my understanding that the frequency of an impulse stimuli can lock a person's alpha brain wave inducing trance-like states. Guess at around the 5Hz to 10Hz range. In particularly susceptible people, certain pulsating frequencies can induce epileptic seizures. Recommend a search under externally induced epileptic seizures - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Nick Williams n...@conformance.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 9:57 AM Subject: Stroboscopic light sources Does anyone know of any good resources or actual requirements for the safe use of stroboscopic light sources? The application is a public science display. I recall rumors of stroboscopes operating at certain frequencies being capable of triggering fits, but whether this is just an old wive's tale or has some basis in reality I am unclear, not do I know of any other potential hazards (except the obvious dangers of syncronisation with moving machinery). All input gratefully received. Regards Nick. --- 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
Brent and group, I can verify that the CASPPER system does perform this feat incredibly well in most cases IF you have the right conditions. I've had two demos of their product, one at our company in Santa Monica and another at an OATS. We devised quite a few scenarios to test its capabilities. For instance, at the OATS, we found a strong ambient. Then we took a signal generator (acting as EUT) and moved it slightly off of the center frequency of the ambient in order to measure its magnitude. We moved the EUT signal back to the exact center frequency of the ambient and the CASPPER system was able to remove the ambient and take a reading of the EUT signal to within 0.5dB of our reading. We then proceeded to AM and FM modulate the EUT signal and still the CASPPER system did a great job of reading it. However, if the system does not get the differential it needs between the ambient sensing antenna and the EUT antenna, the results are underwhelming. At the OATS (nestled in a valley) the system had problems with multipaths. At our company in Santa Monica, the system had problems with multipaths from high rise buildings and the overwhelming magnitude of some ambients. I packed these two demonstrations with as many engineers and technicians as I could in order to get a broad range of skepticism and opinion. Our engineers who have DSP and communications systems experience have no qualms about the theory and spoke directly with the CASPPER engineer to quiz him on what they were doing with regard to coherence. We all were satisfied that the system can do what it theoretically claims. However, it's a bit finicky and the ambient antenna placement (or multiple antenna placements) seems to be critical. At this point, I disagree with the marketing of the product that it is a virtual chamber in that it in no way removes the headaches of dealing with the multitude of ambients the way that a physical chamber would. It may even be that the users of the system become hyper-aware of ambients as they use the system. I've asked CASPPER to give me the names and phone numbers of customers who own the system to see how it's performing for them in the real world and gauge their customer satisfaction, but have not gotten this information yet. I'm still a little disappointed that I haven't heard any responses from this list server to my specific questions on this topic (see my 3/21/00 post). For those of you who have witnessed their demos: 1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction? 2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it? 3. Was it worth the asking price? Mike Murphy Compliance Engineer Alesis Studio Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?
Nick, Well said, but: AS the PLC in question might be a component, it cannot be covered using a DofC. Period. A DofI might just as well do the job, and the fact that it has not been defined in the EMC-directive, does not imply that incorporating one is illegal. Furthermore: common sense in fact is the basis of the ce marking system. Lawyers have made the system into a system of laws, but at the top EC-level, common sense is represented by the EC system of due diligence and essential requirements instead of strict prescripted standards and limits. Many European courts cannot handle this properly, and your court example is probably right. You should call for a higher justice (who helps me out with the language) to get your case defended right. Until then you are on your own ;) 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 Nick Williams Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:21 AM To: Dan Kinney (A) Cc: mertino...@skyskan.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: 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
RE: General Product Safety Directive
Hi John, Richard and group, I agree with your opinions for most of it but want to add this to it: The application of the GPSD is meant exactly the way we handle the generic EMC standards: as a backup to products not covered by any other more dedicated (ce) directive. Of course for a directive to be more specific, it needs a scope, having loop holes and omissions. This does not mean that your life as a manufacturer has become much more difficult, now selecting a directive for products with multifunction properties may seem to lead to contradictories. The EC target meant by using ce marking and the GPSD (which is not ce-mark related - I believe) is to create a situation in which safe products are created. Any safety problem with any product will ultimately be judged by the question: did the manufacturer show due diligence in creating a safe product, and not by did he select the right directive . Directives and standards and essential requirements are a way to handle this for mature manufacturers. As manufs are familiar with their product best of all, they can (need to) be trusted to categorize their product best. Due diligence is part of this idea. The EC system is not meant to create some framework where every product is covered by exactly the right directive and standard, and where a smart manufacturer can escape testing by using aloop hole in a directive or standards scope. A manufacturer is not lead by hand, but need to motivate his choices, and need to make a choice. In any of the cases below, your reasoning should be: Is my product safe for all these environments, and yes if this means that it should be covered by multiple directives at the same time, then it should be like that. But then, select one , the one that fits best to the original description of the product or covers the most relevant risks and create your files accordingly, Fill up the safety loop holes leftover voluntarily. As far as Richard's remarks concern: Professional products need to be safe too, if no other directive fits the product, how to show due diligence ? 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 John Allen Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:54 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: 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:
Duplicate Messages
I have placed a call to the IEEE asking them to investigate the duplicate messages. No doubt they will find the problem and fix it. Jim --- 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
EMC Directive Revisions
I found an interesting document a few days ago. This is a draft of late 1999 revisions, actually amendments, to the EMC Directive. It looks like this will supplement, not necessarily replace, the existing Directive. Since nothing looked newer, and this is several months old, maybe this is nearly a final version. FWIW, no guarantee about the veracity of this document! I haven't read it in detail yet, but notice: 1. failure modes of which the user would not be aware 2. testing all manners of use 3. the need for an analysis The document is in the form of a 140K MS Word rtf. As I did last year with the 461E document, I'll return a copy of this EMC Directive Amendments draft by attachment to your email. (Email your request directly to me, not the list.) Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) --- 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
Immediate Job Opening available for Certification Project Manager
Compaq Computer EMEA BV, the regional headquarter for Europe, Middle East and Africa of the Compaq Computer Corp. Houston/TX, located in Munich/Germany is seeking for a Certification Project Manager. Main responsibilities: * Manage and coordinate Product Certification for selected countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and Middle East independently in accordance with documented processes to obtain required regulatory approvals. * Support Compaq's entire product portfolio in the areas of Product Safety, EMC and Telecommunications. * Process customer regulatory inquiries in EU countries, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East. * Keep up-to-date with regulatory compliance requirements. * Collect and communicate regional and national regulatory, certification and standards requirements. * Represent Compaq EMEA in relevant international standards and regulatory meetings. * Interface with regulatory authorities, certification bodies and test labs. * Support our Product Divisions concerning technical localization of their products Education: * BSEE, BSME or equivalent Skills Experience: * 5+ years experience managing similar functions * Experience in project and vendor management * Demonstrated business understanding and development skills * Strong communication and interpersonal skills. * Comfortable working with MS Office applications and project management software. * Technical know-how and good understanding of international standards related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and telecommunication * Experience in working with Testing Laboratories in the area of Agency Approval/Product Certification. * Ability to understand regulatory requirements and relevant technical standards. * Excellent oral and written communication skills, English mother tongue preferred (another European language would be an asset but is not essential). Other: * Teamwork * Multi cultural work environment * Relocation Package * Willing to travel Contact: Paris Dieker [paris.die...@compaq.com] or John W. Smith [johnw.sm...@compaq.com] Compaq Computer EMEA BV Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach / Munich, Germany Phone: +49-(0)89 9392-2332 or -2338 Fax: +49-(0)89 9392-2336 --- 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
Stroboscopic light sources
Does anyone know of any good resources or actual requirements for the safe use of stroboscopic light sources? The application is a public science display. I recall rumors of stroboscopes operating at certain frequencies being capable of triggering fits, but whether this is just an old wive's tale or has some basis in reality I am unclear, not do I know of any other potential hazards (except the obvious dangers of syncronisation with moving machinery). All input gratefully received. Regards Nick. --- 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
At the final stages of development of IEC 61000-3-2, TC77 WG1 responsible for the document made an editorial change without review by voting bodies. That change was to add the statement This section is a Product family standard. With the exception of a few questionable characters leading WG1, no one thought of this as a product standard. We have been at odds over this standard ever since. 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:55 PM To: chr...@gnlp.com Cc: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: 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 --- 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,
JAPAN
Dear group, How can I know the standard code to apply if I want to install a machine in Japan ? It is enough to be in compliance with the UL508 ? Thanks in advance for your help, Rafael González Licerán Area Seguridad Eléctrica rgonzál...@cetecom.es _ CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A. PTA - C/Severo Ochoa 2, 29590 Campanillas (Málaga) Tel: 952619100 - Fax: 952619113 - Web: http://www.cetecom.es/ _ --- 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
REQUEST FOR HELP WITH LOOP ANTENNA DESIGN
At the other end of the spectrum from Frank's request- I have misplaced my design guide for loop antenna. Can anyone help with a source of information? You may wish to reply direct to avoid clogging the system. Thanks in advance. Andy Wood. --- 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
I've got a copy of DimStrip which calculates their characteristics. Either electrical properties from dimensions, or dimensions from required electrical characteristics for stripline, or microstrip. Runs under DOS and also has adjacent line capability. Is there a place I can post it so people can stop by and pick it up and not have to send the 100K to everyone? - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: Frank Krozel fr...@electronicinstrument.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:27 PM 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: EMC/PSTC/NEBS/TREG
Im with Dave. it is getting too cumbersome. we are going to have to split it up eventually. Lou At 03:51 PM 3/28/2000 -0500, you wrote: 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 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Fwd: Re: modest proposal
Sorry for bothering those who are not interested in. Rene, Please forgive me Fwding your email to the group. Barry Ma --- Start of forwarded message --- Subject: Re: modest proposal - unl at unu.edu To: Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com From: r...@twn.tuv.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:04:29 +0800 There is already a project running that will address item 1) of the mail shown below: http://www.unl.ias.unu.edu/ As the central concept of this project seems to be about grammar, it will probably not be able to fulfil the requirement of item 2) of the mail shown below. Learning vocabulary is learning facts, that might be done during sleeping (with a tape-machine running under the pillow). Grammar in my opinion is more a concept, a thing of logic. For learning grammar you probably have to be awake. Regards Rene Charton -- Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 03/28/2000 08:07:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc: Lou Gnecco l...@tempest-inc.com (bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: 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 --- End of forwarded message --- 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: modest proposal
Am I the only one receiving posts in duplicate? It seems that this has happened at least a dozen times. Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Foster Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212 Fax:(508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:28 PM To: geor...@lexmark.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: 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 --- 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 - unl at unu.edu
There is already a project running that will address item 1)of the mail shown below: http://www.unl.ias.unu.edu/ As the central concept of this project seems to be about grammar, it will probably not be able to fulfil the requirement of item 2)of the mail shown below. Learning vocabulary is learning facts, that might be done during sleeping (with a tape-machine running under the pillow). Grammar in my opinion is more a concept, a thing of logic. For learning grammar you probably have to be awake. Regards Rene Charton Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 03/28/2000 08:07:25 AM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc: Lou Gnecco l...@tempest-inc.com (bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: 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 --- 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
-- Forwarded by Brent F Pahl/FOS/PEC on 03/28/2000 03:59 PM --- Brent F Pahl 03/23/2000 01:43 PM To: Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com cc: Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS (Document link: Brent F Pahl) I recently attended one of the CASSPER demonstrations, and when asked the question of how their instrument deals with EUT noise buried under ambient noise, they gave this response: The CASSPER system not only compares the frequency of the incoming ambient (ambients being brought in through the distant antenna), but it also compares the phase and waveform of the signal. If the phase and waveform between the two antennae signals does not match, then the signal is not canceled out. They specifically claim that they can find EUT noise buried under ambient noise. Honestly, I'm still a little skeptical. Hopefully I'll be able to test this and see how true it is some time soon. Cheers, Brent Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com on 03/23/2000 09:34:35 AM Please respond to Lacey,Scott sla...@foxboro.com To: 'Brumbaugh, David' david.brumba...@pss.boeing.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Brent F Pahl/FOS/PEC) Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Exactly. Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Brumbaugh, David [SMTP:david.brumba...@pss.boeing.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 11:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS I would like to add that one must be careful when it comes to using such a system. I apologize if this has been pointed out already, but it can't be emphasized enough. When using a system like this, you take the risk that the ambient environment will mask significant emissions from the EUT. You may never see these emissions under such conditions, and it will bite you later. I am particularly concerned when I hear this being touted as a panacea for testing in traditionally noisy environments, such as development labs. Be careful folks. My 2 cents. DB -- From: Price, Ed[SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Reply To:Price, Ed Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 9:01 AM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Doug: As I understand the process, there isn't actually cancellation AT the OATS. They have a monitor antenna nearby, but relatively far from the EUT on the OATS. A real EUT signal should fall off considerably by the time it reaches the monitor antenna, but an ambient emission will be relatively constant at the monitor and measurement antennas. All you have to do is sample the ambient, invert it, and sum it with the measurement antenna voltage. This should delete the ambient from the measurement data. (Easy to say! All you need is enough computing power and sufficiently capable processing algorithms.) The cancellation takes place as a data operation within the Cassper hardware (or it's controlling computer), and not as an energy cancellation of the propagating fields actually on the OATS site. And yes, I would also like to know more about how Cassper manages to do this. But, I also realize they can't give away their trade secrets either. Ed :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Doug [SMTP:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 11:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Perhaps it's because I've never understood ... How exactly does one do ambient cancellation at an OATS? --- 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
