Non-HAR line cord
Illustrious group: A NEMA-fitted, SO cable is proposed for (optional) North American use on an ISM product that is CE labeled and, until now, wired to mains by the customer. Should I alert the owner against use of this combination in EU? Or is it implicit by use of the NEMA plug and non-HAR cable? --- 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
T1.403 tech rpt
Anyone know where to obtain a copy of the "T1 Technical Report No. 12, entitled: 'DS1 ESF data link application guidelines', 1991", as referenced in footnote 14 on page 18 of ANSI T1.403-1995? ANSI's website didn't seem to offer much help...thanks Dwight -- _ DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ T E C H N O L O G I E S 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax www.vina-tech.com _
Re: Need a substitute part
Try a search in www.partminer.com that's a hope. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronic Equipment (After sale) - Original Message - From: "Allan, James" To: "'emc-pstc'" Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:19 PM Subject: Need a substitute part > > HELP! I am looking for an equivalent to a connector from Spectrum Control > part number 93538-1. This is a shielded 8 position modular phone jack with a > capacitive filter of 110 pf at 710VDC on each pin. It was formerly Amp part > number 93538-1 before Spectrum Control bought the rights. Any one out there > have an idea of who might make an equivalent? (Yeah - Right) > Link to Spectrum catalog page here > > http://www.spectrumcontrol.com/sigconpdfs/jackconn.pdf > > Jim Allan > Senior Compliance Engineer > Milgo Solutions Inc. > E-mail james_al...@milgo.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: Need a substitute part
Allen, Try, STEWARD, Glen Rock PA, Phone 717-235-7512, Fax 717-235-7954 CORCOM, Libertyville IL, Phone 708-680-7400 AMPHENOL, (sorry, I don't have a phone number available) MAXCONN, San Jose (do you know the way?) CA, Phone 408-435-5050 Fax: 408-435-8377 We use an Amphenol FRJ-468 which is an RJ-45 filtered connector (perhaps what you could use). We also use a Corcom RJ11-2LC1-S which is a filtered RJ-11. You can't use this, but you may be able to find an RJ-45 in the same Corcom family. Wish I could be of more help. I don't have Amphenol's contact information. However, if you have trouble contacting them, drop me a private email (chr...@gnlp.com) and I'll get the information from our purchasing department. I hope you find what you're looking for. 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: Allan, James [SMTP:james_al...@milgo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:20 PM > To: 'emc-pstc' > Subject: Need a substitute part > > > HELP! I am looking for an equivalent to a connector from Spectrum Control > part number 93538-1. This is a shielded 8 position modular phone jack with > a > capacitive filter of 110 pf at 710VDC on each pin. It was formerly Amp > part > number 93538-1 before Spectrum Control bought the rights. Any one out > there > have an idea of who might make an equivalent? (Yeah - Right) > Link to Spectrum catalog page here > > http://www.spectrumcontrol.com/sigconpdfs/jackconn.pdf > > Jim Allan > Senior Compliance Engineer > Milgo Solutions Inc. > E-mail james_al...@milgo.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: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors
Hi Andrew, You said: "It is just like an ordinary transmission line such as stripline. " Please allow me to say something different. (1) When a signal propagates along a transmission line, we could observe a current loop from source to load through the transmission line. The signal velocity is the same as the speed of light in the dielectric. You are right. (2) When an electrical potential imbalance happens in a metallic plane, a current would flow on the plane for regaining the equi-potential. This current looks different from the signal current. There's no current loop here. Does it need EM field support from the dielectric? If not, should it have a different velocity? That is my point. I have no answer, and appreciate any input. Thanks. Bets Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com Barry Ma wrote: As the speed of digital signals gets faster and faster, people begin being concerned with the distance for electric charge to move on power and ground planes of multilayer PCB during the signal rise time from a decoupling capacitor (cap) to a chip it serves. I would like to raise two questions. (1) The charge is moving in a metalic plane, not inside the dielectric between pwr and gnd planes. Please let me know why you have to use the propagation velocity in the dielectric, instead of that in the metal. -- Ingraham, Andrew wrote: The charge may be moving in the metal, but the energy (which makes the charge keep moving) is primarily in the electro-magnetic field between the planes, in the dielectric. The charge won't move unless there is an E-M field to push it. It is just like an ordinary transmission line such as stripline. The propagation velocity of a trace is that of the dielectric, even though the charge moves only in the metal trace and planes. (Edited by BM) ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- 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: Need a substitute part
James, My company is also having problems with Spectrum Control, only in the PI filtered D-SUB connectors, all pin counts. They are having capacity problems at the factory and there is no relief in sight. There is no real equivalent to these connectors when you consider insertion loss over the entire bandwidth. We have been re-qualifying other connector vendors with trips to the test lab (expensive). We repeat radiated emissions and the immunity tests on the I/O ports where the connector is used. In some cases we have been able to eliminate the need of the connector by moving the filter function to discrete components on the PCB's (still requires re-test). Hope this helps a little. -doug = Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Ft. Collins, Co 80525 mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http:\\www.advanced-energy.com\ = -Original Message- From: Allan, James [mailto:james_al...@milgo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:20 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Need a substitute part HELP! I am looking for an equivalent to a connector from Spectrum Control part number 93538-1. This is a shielded 8 position modular phone jack with a capacitive filter of 110 pf at 710VDC on each pin. It was formerly Amp part number 93538-1 before Spectrum Control bought the rights. Any one out there have an idea of who might make an equivalent? (Yeah - Right) Link to Spectrum catalog page here http://www.spectrumcontrol.com/sigconpdfs/jackconn.pdf Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.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
Need a substitute part
HELP! I am looking for an equivalent to a connector from Spectrum Control part number 93538-1. This is a shielded 8 position modular phone jack with a capacitive filter of 110 pf at 710VDC on each pin. It was formerly Amp part number 93538-1 before Spectrum Control bought the rights. Any one out there have an idea of who might make an equivalent? (Yeah - Right) Link to Spectrum catalog page here http://www.spectrumcontrol.com/sigconpdfs/jackconn.pdf Jim Allan Senior Compliance Engineer Milgo Solutions Inc. E-mail james_al...@milgo.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: OJ mystery
Dan, Your email brings up two good points. One is an error that I made. EN 61000-6-2 is a Generic Standard, not a product specific or product family standard. My humble apologies (bow). The second point is that I never considered the possibility of a Generic Standard being entirely replaced by a new Generic Standard, or the possibility of a Generic Standard being partially replaced by a new Generic Standard with a partially overlapping scope. It adds another twist to my original email. It appears that a Generic Standard may be "in effect" for some products, "superceded by a product specific standard" for other products or "lame duck" (about to be entirely replaced) for yet other products all at the same time. It can get confusing, which is what started this thread in the first place. Thatsallfornow, 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: Dan Kinney (A) [SMTP:dan.kin...@heapg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:17 AM > To: Maxwell, Chris; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: RE: OJ mystery > > Chirs, > Everything you said sounds reasonable except EN61000-6-2 is not a product > specific standard; it is a generic standard. > Dan Kinney > Horner APG > (317) 916-4274 > > > -Original Message- > > From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:35 AM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > > Subject:RE: OJ mystery > > > > > > William, > > > > I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the "original" > > standards > > for CE marking. When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on > 1 > > January 1996, these standards were already in place. As such, it isn't > > any > > suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards. There > wasn't > > anything before them to supercede. (As far as CE marking goes.) > > > > However, since both standards are "Generic", they have covered a wide > > variety of equipment. As enforcement of the EMC Directive has > continued, > > more product specific standards are being ratified. Much of the > > equipment > > covered by these new product specific standards used to be covered by > > Generic Standards. This means that the Generic Standards are being > listed > > as the "superceded" standards by a number of product specific standards, > > such as EN 61000-6-2. > > > > So, there you have it. The Generic Standards don't supercede anything > > because they were in place from the start of EMC Directive enforcement. > > Now, whether a Generic Standard is "superceded" or "in effect" depends > > upon > > whether your product falls within the scope of a product specific > > standard. > > The Generic Standard may be "superceded" by a product family standard > for > > one product while still being "in effect" for another product. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Your brother in 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: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com] > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:47 PM > > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > > > Subject: OJ mystery > > > > > > > > > have been using the Generic Standards EN50081-2 and EN50082-2 for EMC > > > > conformity, but the Official Journal April2000 has got me flummoxed: > > > > > > Each of the above are listed in column 2 under reference and title, > with > > > > > 'None' under column 4, 'Reference of the superseded standard...'. > > Doesn't > > > this imply that they are valid and in-effect? > > > > > > Later in the journal, under EN61000-6-2, the standard EN50082-2 > appears > > as > > > > > > the 'superseded standard', effective April2002. > > > > > > Please explain how this seeming contradiction is to be interpreted; I > am > > > > > trying to determine the correct documents for my future compliance > > efforts > > > > > > --- > > > 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
RE: OJ mystery
Chirs, Everything you said sounds reasonable except EN61000-6-2 is not a product specific standard; it is a generic standard. Dan Kinney Horner APG (317) 916-4274 > -Original Message- > From: Maxwell, Chris [SMTP:chr...@gnlp.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:35 AM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: RE: OJ mystery > > > William, > > I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the "original" > standards > for CE marking. When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on 1 > January 1996, these standards were already in place. As such, it isn't > any > suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards. There wasn't > anything before them to supercede. (As far as CE marking goes.) > > However, since both standards are "Generic", they have covered a wide > variety of equipment. As enforcement of the EMC Directive has continued, > more product specific standards are being ratified. Much of the > equipment > covered by these new product specific standards used to be covered by > Generic Standards. This means that the Generic Standards are being listed > as the "superceded" standards by a number of product specific standards, > such as EN 61000-6-2. > > So, there you have it. The Generic Standards don't supercede anything > because they were in place from the start of EMC Directive enforcement. > Now, whether a Generic Standard is "superceded" or "in effect" depends > upon > whether your product falls within the scope of a product specific > standard. > The Generic Standard may be "superceded" by a product family standard for > one product while still being "in effect" for another product. > > Hope this helps, > > Your brother in 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: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com] > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:47 PM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > > Subject:OJ mystery > > > > > > have been using the Generic Standards EN50081-2 and EN50082-2 for EMC > > conformity, but the Official Journal April2000 has got me flummoxed: > > > > Each of the above are listed in column 2 under reference and title, with > > > 'None' under column 4, 'Reference of the superseded standard...'. > Doesn't > > this imply that they are valid and in-effect? > > > > Later in the journal, under EN61000-6-2, the standard EN50082-2 appears > as > > > > the 'superseded standard', effective April2002. > > > > Please explain how this seeming contradiction is to be interpreted; I am > > > trying to determine the correct documents for my future compliance > efforts > > > > --- > > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: > > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Color of grounded DC return conductor.....
Lauren - Electrical code requirements are generally enforced by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for the region. This individual determines what requirements apply (in accordance with local legislation), and what exceptions may be possible or acceptable. The general rule is adherence to the code, because you plan for general deployment. The risk of not following code can mean prevention of equipment connection by the AHJ until compliance is achieved. Regards, Mark Gill EMC/Safety/NEBS Design Nortel Networks > -Original Message- > From: Crane, Lauren [SMTP:lcr...@bev.etn.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:59 AM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Color of grounded DC return conductor. > > > I dislike subjective questions like thisbut I have to ask. > > The company I work for has a history of using brown wire for grounded DC > returns. > > I would like to get our Eng. design department to conform to NFPA79 > because > occasionally our tools must undergo field labeling to it. > > NFPA 79 asks for white with a blue stripe for this regime of circuit. > > Does anyone have an opinion on the risk of not following NFPA79 in this > regard? > > Has a machine ever been refused a field label for something as non-safety > related as the color of a DC ground return wire? > > All opinions welcomesage and wise ones preferred. > > Lauren E. Crane > * AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES > * (Formerly Eaton Corporation, SEO) > * Ion Beam Systems Division > * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance > * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 > > > --- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > >
RE: Color of grounded DC return conductor.....
Hi Lauren In Europe a brown grounded conductor seems only to apply in the automobile industry. I however recently had some equipment field labelled and was picked up on the point of the white wire with a blue stripe. However the inspector allowed it to pass on the understanding that all future units had the correct colour wire and the drawings for the particular system carried a note highlighting the difference Regards Brian Harlowe -Original Message- From: Crane, Lauren [SMTP:lcr...@bev.etn.com] Sent: 16 May 2000 13:59 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Color of grounded DC return conductor. I dislike subjective questions like thisbut I have to ask. The company I work for has a history of using brown wire for grounded DC returns. I would like to get our Eng. design department to conform to NFPA79 because occasionally our tools must undergo field labeling to it. NFPA 79 asks for white with a blue stripe for this regime of circuit. Does anyone have an opinion on the risk of not following NFPA79 in this regard? Has a machine ever been refused a field label for something as non-safety related as the color of a DC ground return wire? All opinions welcomesage and wise ones preferred. Lauren E. Crane * AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES * (Formerly Eaton Corporation, SEO) * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Alarm Systems Compliance
Don, I had a look through the ITE immunity spec EN55024 to see if it contained a better definition of acceptability. Section 7 defines performance criteria, and places the level of acceptability as that defined by the manufacturer. If it is not defined by the manufacturer, then it is "what the user may reasonably expect from the equipment if used as intended". EN55020, immunity of broadcast receivers and associated equipment, in section 6.1.2, gives a slightly better definition, as follows:- "The criterion of compliance with the requirement is just perceptible degradation by observation of the picture. The screen shall be observed under normal viewing conditions (brightness 15 - 20 Lux), at a viewing distance of six times the height of the screen." The above is, however, for a domestic broadcast receiver and not for CCTV, so the level of acceptability may not be the same in both cases. So, if all else fails, it's back to the Mark 1 eyeball and good engineering judgement. Subjective and with variable repeatability. Regards, Geoff Lister geoff.lis...@motionmedia.co.uk Senior Engineer Motion Media Technology Ltd., Horton Hall, Horton, Bristol, BS37 6QN, UK Direct: +44 (0) 1454 338561ISDN: +44 (0) 1454 338554 Switchboard: +44 (0) 1454 313444 Fax: +44 (0) 1454 313678 http://www.motionmedia.co.uk On Tuesday, May 16, 2000 1:46 PM, umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] wrote: > > Hello Friends, > > We are testing a CCTV system to the alarm systems standard EN50130-4. The > standard identifies the usual immunity requirements with different levels. > The interesting situation is that degradation of the video as viewed on the > monitor is allowed for conducted immunity and radiated immunity for 10V and > 3V, but degradation is not mentioned for other immunity tests. > > EFT is specified at different stress levels also, but degradation is not > addressed. The requirement is that there is no change in status. Status is > determined by observing the monitors. The switcher did not change cameras > nor did it change monitors ( i.e., camera "A" is still linked to monitor > "A" and "B" to "B", etc.). As no change in linking has occurred (no > apparent change of status), and visual degradation is not specified, does > slight "sparkles" observed on the monitor screen due to EFT indicate a > compliant or non-compliant result? > > If the answer is "it depends on how much degradation", how does one > "measure" the point at which the product crosses over from "allowed" > degradation to non-compliant degradation? At one end of the spectrum one > can clearly see the intended image; at the other end of the spectrum, the > screen is so obliterated with "sparkles" that the image is indeterminate. > What defines the cross-over point? How does one establish a repeatable, > non-subjective criteria? Or is that beyond the intent of this standard? > > Your interpretations are appreciated. > > Don Umbdenstock > Sensormatic > > --- > 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: Alarm Systems Compliance
The solution is to be found in the Criteria being defined for transients tests. EN 50082-1 defines criterion B for EFT testing. Performance loss (full loss) is allowed , but only if the equipment is self restoring it's mode of operation after the test. The authors of the 130-4 did have the generic in mind, and so is the opinion of the cenelec, explicitly instructing product committees to comply to the generic standards where possible. Product standards should normally just define test conditions, and explain the contents of Crit. B as applicable for the product group. The authors could have been more clear. EFT is normally not a continuous phenomena. This test was meant to simulate manual mains switching operations on inductive load. The burst imitates the switching transient of mechanical contacts. I think in general people read the standards too literally. After all, within the European system, complying to a standard just give presumption of compliance. Harmonized standards are just a way of showing compliance, one is not obliged to use them. The essential is complying to the generic requirements of the directive. The way to get there is your responsibility, not reading a standard to the letter. If a product standard f.a would exclude emission tests for certain equipment, and yours would create EMI, well then you are non-compliant to the EMC-directive, whatever the standard tells you otherwise. Same for Harmonic current emissions: may I remember you of the discussion about the EN 61236 excluding some category equipment from harmonic emission tests (where the EN 61000-3-2 prescribed them ) a few weeks ago, and the reply I got from Mr. de Vré (EMC consultant at the EC). 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 umbdenst...@sensormatic.com >>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:46 PM >>To: emc-p...@ieee.org >>Subject: Alarm Systems Compliance >> >> >> >>Hello Friends, >> >>We are testing a CCTV system to the alarm systems standard EN50130-4. The >>standard identifies the usual immunity requirements with different levels. >>The interesting situation is that degradation of the video as >>viewed on the >>monitor is allowed for conducted immunity and radiated immunity >>for 10V and >>3V, but degradation is not mentioned for other immunity tests. >> >>EFT is specified at different stress levels also, but degradation is not >>addressed. The requirement is that there is no change in status. >> Status is >>determined by observing the monitors. The switcher did not change cameras >>nor did it change monitors ( i.e., camera "A" is still linked to monitor >>"A" and "B" to "B", etc.). As no change in linking has occurred (no >>apparent change of status), and visual degradation is not specified, does >>slight "sparkles" observed on the monitor screen due to EFT indicate a >>compliant or non-compliant result? >> >>If the answer is "it depends on how much degradation", how does one >>"measure" the point at which the product crosses over from "allowed" >>degradation to non-compliant degradation? At one end of the spectrum one >>can clearly see the intended image; at the other end of the spectrum, the >>screen is so obliterated with "sparkles" that the image is indeterminate. >>What defines the cross-over point? How does one establish a repeatable, >>non-subjective criteria? Or is that beyond the intent of this standard? >> >>Your interpretations are appreciated. >> >>Don Umbdenstock >>Sensormatic >> >>--- >>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: OJ mystery
In addition to that: the EEN 61000-6-2 is the newer (IEC originated) version of the EN 50082-2. Both are valid, EN 50082-2 being in it's end of life, EN 61000-6-2 not yet mandatory . We call this a transitory period. It depends of the products lifespan which one you use. No mystery at all, it happened several times before although it is the first time a generic standard is being replaced. 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 Maxwell, Chris >>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:35 PM >>To: emc-p...@ieee.org >>Subject: RE: OJ mystery >> >> >> >>William, >> >>I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the "original" >>standards >>for CE marking. When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on 1 >>January 1996, these standards were already in place. As such, it >>isn't any >>suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards. There wasn't >>anything before them to supercede. (As far as CE marking goes.) >> >>However, since both standards are "Generic", they have covered a wide >>variety of equipment. As enforcement of the EMC Directive has continued, >>more product specific standards are being ratified. Much of the >>equipment >>covered by these new product specific standards used to be covered by >>Generic Standards. This means that the Generic Standards are being listed >>as the "superceded" standards by a number of product specific standards, >>such as EN 61000-6-2. >> >>So, there you have it. The Generic Standards don't supercede anything >>because they were in place from the start of EMC Directive enforcement. >>Now, whether a Generic Standard is "superceded" or "in effect" >>depends upon >>whether your product falls within the scope of a product specific >>standard. >>The Generic Standard may be "superceded" by a product family standard for >>one product while still being "in effect" for another product. >> >>Hope this helps, >> >>Your brother in 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: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com] >>> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:47 PM >>> To: emc-p...@ieee.org >>> Subject:OJ mystery >>> >>> >>> have been using the Generic Standards EN50081-2 and EN50082-2 for EMC >>> conformity, but the Official Journal April2000 has got me flummoxed: >>> >>> Each of the above are listed in column 2 under reference and >>title, with >>> 'None' under column 4, 'Reference of the superseded >>standard...'. Doesn't >>> this imply that they are valid and in-effect? >>> >>> Later in the journal, under EN61000-6-2, the standard EN50082-2 >>appears as >>> >>> the 'superseded standard', effective April2002. >>> >>> Please explain how this seeming contradiction is to be >>interpreted; I am >>> trying to determine the correct documents for my future >>compliance efforts >>> >>> --- >>> 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: Alarm Systems Compliance
Don, The manufacturer defines the acceptable level of degradation. It must be consistent through out all the reports on your products. When I test my products I specify that the image must be 'clearly discernable' (i.e. if you can see the image of a person, but you can't easily tell whether it's a man or woman - that is NOT clearly discernable). However, this is indeed a subjective criteria and open to interpretation. John Juhasz Fiber Options -Original Message- From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:46 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Alarm Systems Compliance Hello Friends, We are testing a CCTV system to the alarm systems standard EN50130-4. The standard identifies the usual immunity requirements with different levels. The interesting situation is that degradation of the video as viewed on the monitor is allowed for conducted immunity and radiated immunity for 10V and 3V, but degradation is not mentioned for other immunity tests. EFT is specified at different stress levels also, but degradation is not addressed. The requirement is that there is no change in status. Status is determined by observing the monitors. The switcher did not change cameras nor did it change monitors ( i.e., camera "A" is still linked to monitor "A" and "B" to "B", etc.). As no change in linking has occurred (no apparent change of status), and visual degradation is not specified, does slight "sparkles" observed on the monitor screen due to EFT indicate a compliant or non-compliant result? If the answer is "it depends on how much degradation", how does one "measure" the point at which the product crosses over from "allowed" degradation to non-compliant degradation? At one end of the spectrum one can clearly see the intended image; at the other end of the spectrum, the screen is so obliterated with "sparkles" that the image is indeterminate. What defines the cross-over point? How does one establish a repeatable, non-subjective criteria? Or is that beyond the intent of this standard? Your interpretations are appreciated. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- 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 it Safe?
Muriel - I hope this link helps... http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.383.html#2 Regards, Mark Gill EMC/Safety/NEBS Desgin Nortel Networks > -Original Message- > From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:38 AM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org; mur...@grucad.ufsc.br > Subject: RE: Is it Safe? > > > Safe from what? The majority opinion is that exposure to EM fields is > considered to be safe if the exposure is less than specified in standards. > These standards are based upon short term observable effects to cells. The > very minority opinion is that much much lower levels of fields can cause > certain types of cancer. If they are right, then we should all turn off > most > of the electrical circuits in the world. > > I have no doubt that the fields from that power line fall below the limits > of the exposure standards. And I would not worry about cancer. Your > chances > of being killed by lightning are much higher. > > Richard Woods > > -- > From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@grucad.ufsc.br] > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:38 PM > To: Lista de EMC da IEEE > Subject: Is it Safe? > > > Hello Group, > > I'd like to know if is it safe for somebody to have his office 7 > meters > away from a high voltage line (132KV, 50Hz)?? The working time of > the > person is 8 hours a day. > > Thanks in advance > > Muriel > > --- > 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: RTTE
Richard, All are labeling is in English. We did not use any country codes or symbols to represent countries, however we did of course apply the alert symbol. Oh, on the notification front, I am getting conflicting information on the necessity to notify for ISM equipment. My notified body says I don't have to, but if you ask the folks in the regulatory agencies of their respective countries, most say that you do. I'm inclined to believe them since they can toss me out of there country(Not likely, but a good rule to live by). Anyway, I choose to notify. Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:10 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Sam, did you use English or symbols and country codes? Richard Woods -- From: Wismer, Sam [SMTP:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:03 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Richard, My product and packaging labeling does not list the countries independently. I simply stated on the labels that this equipment is intended to be used in the EU/EFTA except for Spain and France, since our equipment is ISM that uses the whole 2400-2483.5MHz band. However, I clarified that in more depth in the users guide, where it is more practical to list the countries. For our Spain/France product(2450-2483.5MHz), we reversed the label to say that this equipment is intended to be used in Spain and France only. This method did not come under criticism when our TCF was submitted to a notified body for a Statement of Opinion. Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 12:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE Packaging and user instructions of radio equipment must indicate the Member states where the equipment is intended to be used. It appears to be sufficient to list the two letter ISO symbols for the 15 states. I am concerned that some non-EU states may also be adopting the RTTE and rewording the requirement such they must also be listed. For example, the EFTA states adopt the EU Directives. Is anyone aware of any need to list other states in addition to the 15 EU states? 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 --- 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
Color of grounded DC return conductor.....
I dislike subjective questions like thisbut I have to ask. The company I work for has a history of using brown wire for grounded DC returns. I would like to get our Eng. design department to conform to NFPA79 because occasionally our tools must undergo field labeling to it. NFPA 79 asks for white with a blue stripe for this regime of circuit. Does anyone have an opinion on the risk of not following NFPA79 in this regard? Has a machine ever been refused a field label for something as non-safety related as the color of a DC ground return wire? All opinions welcomesage and wise ones preferred. Lauren E. Crane * AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES * (Formerly Eaton Corporation, SEO) * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Alarm Systems Compliance
Hello Friends, We are testing a CCTV system to the alarm systems standard EN50130-4. The standard identifies the usual immunity requirements with different levels. The interesting situation is that degradation of the video as viewed on the monitor is allowed for conducted immunity and radiated immunity for 10V and 3V, but degradation is not mentioned for other immunity tests. EFT is specified at different stress levels also, but degradation is not addressed. The requirement is that there is no change in status. Status is determined by observing the monitors. The switcher did not change cameras nor did it change monitors ( i.e., camera "A" is still linked to monitor "A" and "B" to "B", etc.). As no change in linking has occurred (no apparent change of status), and visual degradation is not specified, does slight "sparkles" observed on the monitor screen due to EFT indicate a compliant or non-compliant result? If the answer is "it depends on how much degradation", how does one "measure" the point at which the product crosses over from "allowed" degradation to non-compliant degradation? At one end of the spectrum one can clearly see the intended image; at the other end of the spectrum, the screen is so obliterated with "sparkles" that the image is indeterminate. What defines the cross-over point? How does one establish a repeatable, non-subjective criteria? Or is that beyond the intent of this standard? Your interpretations are appreciated. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic --- 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: OJ mystery
William, I beleive that EN 50081-2 and EN50082-2 were among the "original" standards for CE marking. When enforcement of the EMC Directive went in place on 1 January 1996, these standards were already in place. As such, it isn't any suprise to me that they don't supercede any other standards. There wasn't anything before them to supercede. (As far as CE marking goes.) However, since both standards are "Generic", they have covered a wide variety of equipment. As enforcement of the EMC Directive has continued, more product specific standards are being ratified. Much of the equipment covered by these new product specific standards used to be covered by Generic Standards. This means that the Generic Standards are being listed as the "superceded" standards by a number of product specific standards, such as EN 61000-6-2. So, there you have it. The Generic Standards don't supercede anything because they were in place from the start of EMC Directive enforcement. Now, whether a Generic Standard is "superceded" or "in effect" depends upon whether your product falls within the scope of a product specific standard. The Generic Standard may be "superceded" by a product family standard for one product while still being "in effect" for another product. Hope this helps, Your brother in 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: wmf...@aol.com [SMTP:wmf...@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:47 PM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: OJ mystery > > > have been using the Generic Standards EN50081-2 and EN50082-2 for EMC > conformity, but the Official Journal April2000 has got me flummoxed: > > Each of the above are listed in column 2 under reference and title, with > 'None' under column 4, 'Reference of the superseded standard...'. Doesn't > this imply that they are valid and in-effect? > > Later in the journal, under EN61000-6-2, the standard EN50082-2 appears as > > the 'superseded standard', effective April2002. > > Please explain how this seeming contradiction is to be interpreted; I am > trying to determine the correct documents for my future compliance efforts > > --- > 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: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors
Barry - Dr. Todd Hubing at UMR (others as well) has done some research in this area. Recalling some of his published findings, in general terms, with a large power/ground spacing, the location of the decaps is more important, due to the inductance associated with the power and ground planes. With closely spaced power/ground planes, placement of the decaps becomes less critical. In between these two areas is a transition zone. Given this, it would seem that power/ground planes and decaps are more complementary in the transition zone, but not as much so at the boundaries. Note there are many opinions on this entire subject (decoupling), and most are backed by extensive research. My preference is to look at rules as guides, as I have seen far to many rules broken (sometimes intentionally), still have designs pass EMC with good margin, and satisfy the concerns of the Signal Integrity engineers. Everything is relative. If physical designers implemented every EMC rule on every design, a great deal of cost and delay would be added to development cycles. But I will say, experience is the best rule! Regards, Mark Gill EMC/Safety/NEBS Design Nortel Networks > -Original Message- > From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 4:33 PM > To: george_t...@dell.com; si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com > Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: RE: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors > > > Thanks a lot for your inputs. > > All responses to my second question are only concerned with the inductance > due to "long" distance between chip and decap. Nobody seems to agree > imposing another constrain to the distance. My question was > > "Do we really have to limit the distance letting the charge have enough > time to move from the cap to the chip during the rise time interval? I > doubt it." > > But I really read an article implying this extra concern. > > > George, you wrote: > > This is true if you have only DC current. For AC, you may have water in > the pipe but > > no water out of the faucet if the faucet is switching out of phase from > the water in > > the pipe. > > Thank you for reminding me of Frequency Domain analysis. Yes, I should > have described and analyzed a transient problem (charge travel during Tr) > in both TD and FD, and then correlate the results. Let me have a try this > time: > > It is generally acknowledged that decaps and plane cap are complementary > (supposing a 10 mil or less spacing between pwr and gnd planes). Decaps > cover low end of frequency range, while the plane cap takes care of high > frequencies. Thus the interplane cap would play more and more important > role in high-speed PCB design, as the speed gets faster and faster. On the > other hand, nobody objects closer distances from decaps to the chip, if > possible. . When a chip drains necessary charges from pwr/gnd planes > during Tr, decaps would supply charges to pwr and gnd planes on lower > frequencies, while interplane cap can respond itself on higher > frequencies. > > Best Regards, > Barry Ma > b...@anritsu.com > > > > ___ > > Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! > http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go > > ___ > > > --- > 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 it Safe?
Safe from what? The majority opinion is that exposure to EM fields is considered to be safe if the exposure is less than specified in standards. These standards are based upon short term observable effects to cells. The very minority opinion is that much much lower levels of fields can cause certain types of cancer. If they are right, then we should all turn off most of the electrical circuits in the world. I have no doubt that the fields from that power line fall below the limits of the exposure standards. And I would not worry about cancer. Your chances of being killed by lightning are much higher. Richard Woods -- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@grucad.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 6:38 PM To: Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Is it Safe? Hello Group, I'd like to know if is it safe for somebody to have his office 7 meters away from a high voltage line (132KV, 50Hz)?? The working time of the person is 8 hours a day. Thanks in advance Muriel --- 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: [SI-LIST] : Charge moving from decoupling capacitors
A\ndy, Those are very good answers. Keep up the good work. Lee Ingraham, Andrew wrote: > > As the speed of digital signals gets faster and faster, people begin being > > concerned with the distance for electric charge to move on power and > > ground planes of multilayer PCB during the signal rise time from a > > decoupling capacitor (cap) to a chip it serves. I would like to raise two > > questions. > > > > (1) The charge is moving in a metalic plane, not inside the dielectric > > between pwr and gnd planes. Please let me know why you have to use the > > propagation velocity in the dielectric, instead of that in the metal. > > The charge may be moving in the metal, but the energy (which makes the > charge keep moving) is primarily in the electro-magnetic field between the > planes, in the dielectric. The charge won't move unless there is an E-M > field to push it. > > It is just like an ordinary transmission line such as stripline. The > propagation velocity of a trace is that of the dielectric, even though the > charge moves only in the metal trace and planes. > > > (2) The second question is regarding distance between the cap and the > > chip. Do we really have to limit the distance letting the charge have > > enough time to move from the cap to the chip during the rise time > > interval? I doubt it. > > That depends whether you need the capacitor to help during the rise time > interval itself. > > If you had a single 1.0 Farad cap and attached it with 20 foot long jumper > cables to your chip, it would do nothing to help the chip during the rise > time interval. The jumper cable is a transmission line. If the voltage > sags at your chip, it takes many nanoseconds for the sag to reach the > capacitor. Until the sag reaches it, charge doesn't even start moving out > of it, i.e., the cap might as well not be there. > > Now flatten the jumper cable into two planes. The planes are a fat > transmission line (really!). The voltage sag propagates outward from the > chip, consuming charge stored in the intrinsic capacitance of the planes bit > by bit (not all of it at once!), and eventually reaching external capacitors > which help hold up the voltage. > > > Take the running water system for example. When we open, then close the > > water faucet within one second, does the water we've got in basin come > > from water tower (or water station, or reservoir)? No, it is the water > > that resides in the pipe. As a matter of fact, we have a very large pipe - > > pwr/gnd planes. Well, of cause you know, I did not mean we don't need > > water tower - the cap. .. > > Pwr/gnd planes are similar to a long pipe. At first they help hold up the > pressure, but without a tank, the pressure would disappear. > > Even with a tank, the pressure does drop a little when you open the faucet. > Open a very large faucet, and the pressure immediately drops a lot ... > especially if you are the house at the end of the water main. Open a very > large faucet right at the tank or pumping station, and the drop in pressure > is much less. (This analogy is not very good, however, because water pipes > also have resistance.) > > Regards, > Andy > > To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to > majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE > si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP. > si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
FYI: Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health
According to their website: The report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones entitled Mobile Phones and Health was published on Thursday, 11 May. A press conference was also held on 11 May at The Royal Academy of Engineering, London. The report is available here: http://www.iegmp.org.uk/IEGMPtxt.htm Matt --- 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: EN60950, 3rd Edition . . .
Hello Carla, EN 60950 has already been ratified by CENELEC BT, dated January 1, 2000. The following related dates have been set: doa (date of announcement, publication in the EU Official Journal): July 1, 2000 dop (date of publication in at least one European member country): January 1, 2001 dow ( date of withdrawal of conflicting standards, which is EN 60950 2nd edition A11:1998): January 1, 2005. This date will also be the date of cessation (doc), by which the superseded standard looses its presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the Low Voltage Directive. mit freundlichen Gruessen/ best regards Volker Gasse IBM Germany, Technical Relations/Product Safety, Tel: +49-7031-642-6796, Fax: -6916, e-mail: volker.ga...@de.ibm.com Mail: D3114/7103-91, D-70548 Stuttgart, Germany "Carla Robinson" on 15.05.2000 17:46:10 Please respond to "Carla Robinson" To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Volker Gasse/Germany/IBM) Subject: EN60950, 3rd Edition . . . Greetings! I am seeking information on when will the 3rd Edition of the EN60950, L.V. Directive, go into effect? When will it be ratified for the European Community? Carla Robinson 3Com Corp. 847-262-2494 carla_robin...@mw.3com.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: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . .
Hi David et al, I am very much aware that IEC950 has not been withdrawn. IEC950 has actually been IEC60950 2nd Ed. for some time now. (try ordering IEC950 from any document company. I would be willing to bet that if you ordered IEC950, you'd get IEC60950 2nd Ed. with all of the amendments). The many many references to IEC950 have not kept up with the IEC's new numbering convention and go way back to the days of IEC950 1st Ed. (that's a lot of history to change). The IEC950 moniker has been so established for such a long time that its an institution (like kleenix). Anyway, IEC60950 3rd Ed. is out, with UL60950 3rd Ed. in draft stage now. So, are EN60950 2nd Ed or other IEC60950 2nd Ed clones gearing up to clone IEC60950 3rd Ed any time soon? Inquiring minds like to know. Or is that need to know? Whatever. More tossing and turning. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com David_Sterner@ Ademco.comTo: carla_robin...@mw.3com.com, rpick...@hypercom.com cc: emc-p...@ieee.org 05/15/00 02:11Subject: RE: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . . PM IEC950 is not officially withdrawn yet. We received a draft CB-scheme test report February 2000 based on IEC 950, with 97-06 amendments. EN 60950 is based on IEC 950. Eventually IEC 950 will become IEC60950 to simplify the numerology. Provisional and draft documents are subject to change. As I noted before, certification to an issued document is preferable; even if the document is superseded, the conditions of acceptance are well-defined. David Sterner Alarm Device Manufacturing Co. Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . . Author: "Ron Pickard" at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/15/2000 2:23 PM Carla et al, I had recently asked a similar question regarding IE60950 3rd Ed. and its acceptabilitty, which also included the CB Scheme. I received very little response which I think was due to many not knowing themselves. After thinking about this while this thread has now resurfaced, I feel that IEC60950 3rd will not and should not enter into the CB Scheme arena until the member countries have national/regional versions of IEC60950 3rd Ed. in place. The only region I know that is pursuing this is North America with its UL60950 3rd Ed. The rest of the regulatory standards making bodies appear to be silent regarding this (unless I've been keeping my head in the sand). This apparent reluctance to proceed may jeopardize the one-basic-standard approach the ITE community has grown familiar with. So, to all those out there with their ears to the grindstones of the standard-making bodies, is IEC60950 3rd Edition being adopted into, say, EN60950 3rd Ed. or AS/NZ 60950 3rd Ed.? Any others? Just some added questions and opinions thrown in and tossed about. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com "Carla Robinson" cc: Sent by: Subject: EN60950, 3rd Edition . . . owner-emc-pstc@iee e.org 05/15/00 08:46 AM Please respond to "Carla Robinson" Greetings! I am seeking information on when will the 3rd Edition of the EN60950, L.V. Directive, go into effect? When will it be ratified for the European Community? Carla Robinson 3Com Corp. 847-262-2494 carla_robin...@mw.3com.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 dis
RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
Earl, Thanks. Is it possible to detect the problem by INTEL's Verification persons before shipping the product to customers? Recall is a very tough decision for any company to make. I understand that intermittent problems are difficult to screen. But we may use temperature cycling, or spot hot/cool to precipitate some latent EMC/SI problems and then detect them as early as during design stage, if the design engineer is not sure about the noise budget he used or hard to compromise with other margins. -barry -- On Mon, 15 May 2000, "Morse, Earl" wrote: > > Barry, > > Probably a ground bounce problem. If Intel violated or marginally violated > its noise budget then it could cause these types of errors. . > > Earl Morse > Portable Division EMC Design > Compaq Computer Corporation > Phone: 281.927.3607 > Pager: 713.717.0824 > Fax: 281.927.3654 > Email: earl.mo...@compaq.com > > Emissions Control Laboratory > 10320 Rodgers Road, EC106 > Houst, TX 77070 > > > > -Original Message- > From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:13 PM > To: EMC-PSTC > Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard > > > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_production_1.html > > INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused > by simultaneous switching of signals. > > > Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC > language? > > Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - > five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside > INTEL? See quotation below: > > First noted in November > "Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to > light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on > the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month." > > > > Barry Ma > b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- 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
