Re: NAVSEA OP3565
The cover page of OP 3565 says: DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Distribution authorized to US government agencies only; administrative/operational use; 15 July 1989. Other requests for this document must be referred to the Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA-09B2). WARNING This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, USC, Sec 2751 et. seq.) or Executive Order 12470. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. That being said, the intent of controlling ERP from antenna-connected transmitters is to prevent rf induced arcing that could cause fuel vapor ignition. I'm not going to put numbers on it, based on the above restrictions. -- From: Antonio Sarolic antonio.saro...@fer.hr To: EMC Forum emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: NAVSEA OP3565 Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2000, 9:32 AM Hi group I am glad someone mentioned the OP 3565 document. I tried to locate it several times, but never successfully. I did some research on HERO and HERF, but couldn't compare the results to the document. I would appreciate a copy as well as advice how to get it. Thanks. Regards to all. Antonio Antonio Sarolic Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Dept. of Radiocommunications and Microwave Engineering Unska 3, HR-1 Zagreb CROATIA tel. +385 1 61 29 789, fax. +385 1 61 29 717 E-mail: antonio.saro...@fer.hr -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam wisme...@lxe.com To: EMC Forum emc-p...@ieee.org Date: 2000. lipanj 20 16:20 Subject: NAVSEA OP3565 Group, I posted a question regarding NAVSEA OP3565 on or around the 13th and received a good response from someone on the list but I lost that email. Hopefully, he or someone else here can help with an additional question. I am looking for an opinion on whether or not our type of radio equipment is likely to meet the requirements of OP3565. Our worst case radio configurations are: Part 90 - 450MHz 4Watt max(36dBm) w\0dBi antenna Part 90 - 800MHz 2Watt max(33dBm) w\3dBi antenna Part 15 - 900MHz SS 1Watt max(30dBm) w\6dBi antenna Part 15 - 2.4GHz SS 100mW max(20dBm) w\15 dBi antenna Also, I would appreciate any information on where I may be able to obtain a copy of the standard. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.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 --- 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: NAVSEA OP3565
Thank you very much for you Security Awareness. Given my background it is refreshing to see and should be punctuated with exclamation points, especially in this day and time. Best Regards, John E. Stuckey -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 3:56 PM To: Antonio Sarolic; EMC Forum Subject: Re: NAVSEA OP3565 The cover page of OP 3565 says: DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Distribution authorized to US government agencies only; administrative/operational use; 15 July 1989. Other requests for this document must be referred to the Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA-09B2). WARNING This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, USC, Sec 2751 et. seq.) or Executive Order 12470. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. That being said, the intent of controlling ERP from antenna-connected transmitters is to prevent rf induced arcing that could cause fuel vapor ignition. I'm not going to put numbers on it, based on the above restrictions. -- From: Antonio Sarolic antonio.saro...@fer.hr To: EMC Forum emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: NAVSEA OP3565 Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2000, 9:32 AM Hi group I am glad someone mentioned the OP 3565 document. I tried to locate it several times, but never successfully. I did some research on HERO and HERF, but couldn't compare the results to the document. I would appreciate a copy as well as advice how to get it. Thanks. Regards to all. Antonio Antonio Sarolic Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Dept. of Radiocommunications and Microwave Engineering Unska 3, HR-1 Zagreb CROATIA tel. +385 1 61 29 789, fax. +385 1 61 29 717 E-mail: antonio.saro...@fer.hr -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam wisme...@lxe.com To: EMC Forum emc-p...@ieee.org Date: 2000. lipanj 20 16:20 Subject: NAVSEA OP3565 Group, I posted a question regarding NAVSEA OP3565 on or around the 13th and received a good response from someone on the list but I lost that email. Hopefully, he or someone else here can help with an additional question. I am looking for an opinion on whether or not our type of radio equipment is likely to meet the requirements of OP3565. Our worst case radio configurations are: Part 90 - 450MHz 4Watt max(36dBm) w\0dBi antenna Part 90 - 800MHz 2Watt max(33dBm) w\3dBi antenna Part 15 - 900MHz SS 1Watt max(30dBm) w\6dBi antenna Part 15 - 2.4GHz SS 100mW max(20dBm) w\15 dBi antenna Also, I would appreciate any information on where I may be able to obtain a copy of the standard. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.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 --- 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: Dentori mark
George, The only correct spelling is in Japanese Kanji characters, of course, which are not phonetic. The Romanji, or phonetic, representation is normally Dentori. Doesn't matter if you use upper or lower case, since there is no case in Japanese anyway. If you're interested in trivia, dentori consists of two Kanji characters. The first, den, usually means electric (actually lightning) and the second, tori, usually stands for take (as in take the bread out of the oven). Cheers, Egon At 11:26 AM 20/06/2000, you wrote: Dumb question: I've used the term Dentori-T mark when referring to the Japan mark authorized by MITI. Lately I have seen this spelled as Dentory, even on foils presented by Japanese companies. I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory George Alspaugh __ Egon H. Varju, PEng E.H. Varju Associates Ltd. North Vancouver, Canada Tel: 1 604 985 5710 HAVE MODEM Fax: 1 604 273 5815 WILL TRAVEL E-mail: e...@varju.bc.ca eva...@compuserve.com egon.va...@csa-international.org __ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: General Product Safety and Liability Directives
Articles 2 and 3 of the General Product Directive specifically mention consumers. Check also, the fourth whereas which mentions consumers. Likewise, many of the whereas clauses of the Liability Directive mention consumers. Article 9(b)(I) indicates that the products are for private use or consumption. All of above leads me to my conclusion that both directives are intended for consumer products. Richard Woods -- From: Ron Pickard [SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:47 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com Cc: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: General Product Safety and Liability Directives Hi Richard, I disagree with you regarding your claim about these two directives only being applicable to consumer products. The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) is focused towards product where no other directives apply. The GPSD states Article 1 1. The purpose of the provisions of this Directive is to ensure that products placed on the market are safe. 2. The provisions of this Directive shall apply in so far as there are no specific provisions in rules of Community law governing the safety of the products concerned. It is agreed that as time moves on, there will be more product family specific directives put into force effectively limiting the scope of the GPSD. The Liability Directive (LD) title is focused to ... concerning liability for defective products. And, Article 1 of the LD states The producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product. This directive, in fact, deals with the liabilities of defective products regardless of market focus. As can be plainly seen, neither directive is focused toward consumer products. In fact, they reference to no particular product areas. However, the GPSD appears to be a catchall where no other directive applies. Well, so much for my 2 cents worth of opinions. Comments? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com WOODS@Sensormatic .com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com Sent by: cc: treg-approval@worSubject: General Product Safety and Liability Directives ld.std.com 06/20/00 07:58 AM Please respond to WOODS In the following discussion, I am interested in determining the legal aspects only. The General Product Safety Directive and the Liability Directives apply to consumer products and not to products used in the workplace. Consider electrical products that would otherwise be subject to the Low Voltage Directive but operate below the lower voltage limits of the directive. The safety of such products intended for use in the workplace are subject only to non-harmonized national regulations concerning worker safety. Do these national regulations make the assumption that such equipment must comply with the applicable essential requirements that are normally associated with equipment covered by the LVD? Richard Woods
RE: RTTE Spain, France
Jon, for frequency information, check the CEPT Decisions and Recommendations at http://www.ero.dk/ http://www.ero.dk/ . The alert symbol forms part of the CE marking, so it must appear where ever the CE marking must appear: the packaging, the product and the Declaration. The member states or geographical areas where the unit may be used must be listed on the packaging, and the restrictions must be in the user manual. We plan to insert a single page with the intended use and restrictions in the official languages of the EEA. We are referencing each country by their 2 letter postal codes. We will have three sets of listings: one list of letter codes will be for countries where there are no restrictions, one country will be listed with the restriction that the power must be reduced according to the installation instructions, and one country will be listed as operation is not allowed. Richard Woods -- From: Jon Bond [SMTP:jb...@zoomtel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 3:45 PM To: 't...@world.std.com'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RTTE Spain, France Hi Groups, We have performed ETS 300 328, ETS 300 826 (61000-4-3, 61000-4-2), CE, and FCC testing on our 11MBPS (2.4GHz) wireless card. We intend to ship this card throughout the EU after forwarding the Annex IV (TCF) info to a Notified Body and receiving their opinion on the test data. Questions we have based on the RTTE Directive: * Are France and Spain the only 2 countries in the EU that have the frequency channel restrictions for this type of device? I have some documentation from 1998 that lists France as allowing only 4 channels (10, 11, 12, 13 - 2457MHz thru 2472MHz). This same documentation lists Spain as allowing only 2 channels (10, 11 - 2457MHZ thru 2462MHz). This document also states that the remaining EU member states allow channels 1 - 13 (2412MHz thru 2472MHz) to be used. Are these channel restrictions the correct ones? Are there any others? * In addition to placing the ALERT symbol on the product, must we also list the ALERT symbol in our user's guide that ships with the product? * Is there a specific text statement that should be included in the manual that states that the product has legal (geographical) limitations in France and Spain (and/or any other countries)? Is there a specific way to state this restriction? Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Jon Bond Zoom Telephonics Senior Compliance Engineer jb...@zoom.com +617 753 0551 --- 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
RTTE Spain, France
Hi Groups, We have performed ETS 300 328, ETS 300 826 (61000-4-3, 61000-4-2), CE, and FCC testing on our 11MBPS (2.4GHz) wireless card. We intend to ship this card throughout the EU after forwarding the Annex IV (TCF) info to a Notified Body and receiving their opinion on the test data. Questions we have based on the RTTE Directive: * Are France and Spain the only 2 countries in the EU that have the frequency channel restrictions for this type of device? I have some documentation from 1998 that lists France as allowing only 4 channels (10, 11, 12, 13 - 2457MHz thru 2472MHz). This same documentation lists Spain as allowing only 2 channels (10, 11 - 2457MHZ thru 2462MHz). This document also states that the remaining EU member states allow channels 1 - 13 (2412MHz thru 2472MHz) to be used. Are these channel restrictions the correct ones? Are there any others? * In addition to placing the ALERT symbol on the product, must we also list the ALERT symbol in our user's guide that ships with the product? * Is there a specific text statement that should be included in the manual that states that the product has legal (geographical) limitations in France and Spain (and/or any other countries)? Is there a specific way to state this restriction? Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Jon Bond Zoom Telephonics Senior Compliance Engineer jb...@zoom.com +617 753 0551 --- 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: SLIM
Gail, and everyone This seems most improbable to me, but just to be sure, I contacted the Department of Trade Industry here in the UK. The person I contacted has not heard anything to this effect either, but is checking where such a story might have originated. I will post further information as soon as I hear anything. Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory -Original Message- From: Gail Birdsall gbird...@hach.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 19 June 2000 19:40 Subject: SLIM Greetings Colleagues, We heard form a reliable source who attended the June meeting of the EU Commission on the SLIM Initiative, of discussions to limit the certification of product family EMC standards to notified (competent?) bodies. If this is true, it would effectively close the self testing and certification route for manufacturers required to test to product specific EMC Standards. We understand that, possibly the Generic Standards route would still be left open to manufacturers who wish to self declare. As you all know, currently where product specific standards exist, they supercede the Generic Standards. My company has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars on EMC equipment and facilities to enable us to test and self declare our products. We originally tested and certified to the Generic Emissions Immunity Standards, but have recently switched to EN61326:97 AM1:98. If the above action is true, it would seem to be big victory and financial windfall for EU test laboratories and designates. At the same time, it would be a terrible blow to both EU and US manufacturers who invested heavily in test capability to self declare their products. Does anyone know of the validity of the SLIM action to require testing of product specific standards such as EN 61326 by Notified bodies? It has always been my understanding that the SLIM Initiative was to make things easier not more complicated and expensive by requiring 3rd party testing. Can anyone tell me if it is truly the plan of the EU Commission to take away self testing and declaration? We have heard that the new EMC Directive incorporating the SLIM Initiative recommendations may be out as early as the end of the year. Thank-you for your input/s Gail Birdsall Hach Co. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Video Testing
Hi all . . . I know that this is a little 'off topic' of what normally gets posted here but I can't find an answer anywhere else (even on the internet). . . does ANYONE know of an independent laboratory that does testing of Video signals (against EIA specs)?? I can't find one!! Unreal . . . Thanks in advance . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY 11716 (631) 419-2324 direct
Re: SLIM
Bonjour de Montreal, I'm also very skeptical about this since the tendency is Europe is to de-regulate. If you look at the new RTTE Directive you will see that Notify Bodies will only produce advices to the manufacturer, no type approval anymore. I wonder how the EMC Directive could manage to make that change without big complains from manufacturers (including us). Best regards, -- Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.) Conformity Group Manager Matrox 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Québec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475) Fax: (514) 822-6275 Chairman 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001 -- At 12:07 PM 6/20/2000 -0500, eric.lif...@ni.com wrote: List Chums, I just love getting inflammatory tidbits from the List, and, since nobody else has commented yet... Last October we completed our own full compliance lab for EN 61326 as well, an investment at that time of about 250k USD (not counting equipment we already had, about 100k worth). The lab has already paid for itself (this week in fact). Though we'd be pretty irate to see it reduced to a mere precompliance lab: we're kinda proud of our solid aluminum 10 m OATS and the thousands of pre-drilled holes and self-tapping screws spaced every 5.1 cm (2 inches) we used to build it. I suspect the SLIM comment was taken out of context. I think we can all imagine the many and political, financial, trade effects and their very serious consequences, such as it might kill the US/EU MRA - if I had a vote on the matter It'd absolutely convince industry and corporate leaders that the regulatory world had gone insane, something they already suspect. Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to Gail Birdsall gbird...@hach.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: SLIM Greetings Colleagues, We heard form a reliable source who attended the June meeting of the EU Commission on the SLIM Initiative, of discussions to limit the certification of product family EMC standards to notified (competent?) bodies. If this is true, it would effectively close the self testing and certification route for manufacturers required to test to product specific EMC Standards. We understand that, possibly the Generic Standards route would still be left open to manufacturers who wish to self declare. As you all know, currently where product specific standards exist, they supercede the Generic Standards. My company has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars on EMC equipment and facilities to enable us to test and self declare our products. We originally tested and certified to the Generic Emissions Immunity Standards, but have recently switched to EN61326:97 AM1:98. If the above action is true, it would seem to be big victory and financial windfall for EU test laboratories and designates. At the same time, it would be a terrible blow to both EU and US manufacturers who invested heavily in test capability to self declare their products. Does anyone know of the validity of the SLIM action to require testing of product specific standards such as EN 61326 by Notified bodies? It has always been my understanding that the SLIM Initiative was to make things easier not more complicated and expensive by requiring 3rd party testing. Can anyone tell me if it is truly the plan of the EU Commission to take away self testing and declaration? We have heard that the new EMC Directive incorporating the SLIM Initiative recommendations may be out as early as the end of the year. Thank-you for your input/s Gail Birdsall Hach Co. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to
Re: MITI/Dentori-T
Hi George: I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory The word is a Japanese word. The translation of a Japanese word is a phonetic translation. The spelling of the word is inconsequential as long as the phonetic is maintained. Spelling is an english language phenomenon. Mis- spelling can be quite dramatic without loosing meaning. If you go to Korea, you will find many English language words mis-spelled because they are phonetic to the Koreans. Both Dentori and Dentory are correct because they are the same phonetically. There is no loss of meaning with either spelling. We who speak the english language have yet to come to an agreement on how to spell dentori/dentory (i.e., it is not in our dictionary -- which is our rule-book for spelling). Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements.
Dear friends, As far as the validity of European Standards ( harmonized standards) concerns, not the DOW or other dates are valid, but -with the exclusion of all other dates- the ones on the most recent list of harmonized standard as published in the European Official Journal (OJ/C) , lastly published on 7-April-2000. And yes, older designs need to comply (most often) within 2 years after publishing the reference to it in the OJ. Normally this is not such a hassle as it look like. A good quality product will almost always meet new requirements, unless they are fully new tests. In that case, most of the time a product that fails to comply will meet problems in the field too. After all, immunity requirements are there to solve performance problems as can be met in real life. Sometimes a product fails, because of some non-applicability of a test to a specific equipment, most often caused by a product accidentally falling within the scope of a standard that was not written for. Then a TCF route with a competent body may resolve your problems. Note that competent bodies are required to accept tests performed by yourself, provided they are credible. So no investment is lost. I doubt however that the citation is meant the way it was suggested. The number of tests would overwhelm the CB's capacity very quick. The procedure of self certification is one of the routes as defined in the blue guide and used in many directives that are concerned with customer risk much more then EMC. Take f.a. the LVD and MDD directive. The route chosen in the new RTTE directive is even more liberal towards this regime. Basically only frequency selection (harmonization) is left over to a notified body, the application of harmonized TTE-standards is voluntarily. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing P.S. this list is downloadable in .PDF format on the link below. === 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, June 20, 2000 6:01 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements. Don asked: I would appreciate some feedback on the following: Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the requirements for CE Marking today (EMC Safety). What is the requirement for these existing designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new requirements or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is out there for me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? Don, In my experience, one cannot predict whether new standards will allow existng products to be forever grandfathered under previous standards, or required to meet the new standard immediately, or some grace period after which compliance to the new standard is required. The allowances are made known by the time the standard is placed in force. This decision is often what slows the introduction of new standards as all affected parties lobby for what best suits their products. Products with relatively short market lifetimes are not usually impacted by new standards. However, products with long market lifetimes may require a re-design to meet the end of the grace period for new standards. Fortunately, our products typically fall into the first category, with market lifetimes of a year or so. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
NEC
What wiring method does the US National Electrical Code require/allow for a rf cable from a transmitter to an antenna? 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
Dentori mark
George: I have no sure and certain reference for this, but my understanding is as follows: Spelling - Dentori Dentori is the name of the law which requires certain products to be certified for sale in Japan and to bear the Dentori mark, commonly and unofficially referred to as the T-mark. The Dentori law is applied/enforced by MITI the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Richard Payne Tektronix, Inc. Product Safety Engineering Ph: (503) 627-1820 Fax: (503) 627-3838 email: richard.pa...@tektronix.com From: geor...@lexmark.com Dumb question: I've used the term Dentori-T mark when referring to the Japan mark authorized by MITI. Lately I have seen this spelled as Dentory, even on foils presented by Japanese companies. I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: General Product Safety and Liability Directives
Hi Richard, I disagree with you regarding your claim about these two directives only being applicable to consumer products. The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) is focused towards product where no other directives apply. The GPSD states Article 1 1. The purpose of the provisions of this Directive is to ensure that products placed on the market are safe. 2. The provisions of this Directive shall apply in so far as there are no specific provisions in rules of Community law governing the safety of the products concerned. It is agreed that as time moves on, there will be more product family specific directives put into force effectively limiting the scope of the GPSD. The Liability Directive (LD) title is focused to ... concerning liability for defective products. And, Article 1 of the LD states The producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product. This directive, in fact, deals with the liabilities of defective products regardless of market focus. As can be plainly seen, neither directive is focused toward consumer products. In fact, they reference to no particular product areas. However, the GPSD appears to be a catchall where no other directive applies. Well, so much for my 2 cents worth of opinions. Comments? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com WOODS@Sensormatic .com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, t...@world.std.com Sent by: cc: treg-approval@worSubject: General Product Safety and Liability Directives ld.std.com 06/20/00 07:58 AM Please respond to WOODS In the following discussion, I am interested in determining the legal aspects only. The General Product Safety Directive and the Liability Directives apply to consumer products and not to products used in the workplace. Consider electrical products that would otherwise be subject to the Low Voltage Directive but operate below the lower voltage limits of the directive. The safety of such products intended for use in the workplace are subject only to non-harmonized national regulations concerning worker safety. Do these national regulations make the assumption that such equipment must comply with the applicable essential requirements that are normally associated with equipment covered by the LVD? Richard Woods
Re: MITI/Dentori-T
George: I read some Japanese but do not know the meaning of dentori unless it is a compound of two other nouns. I would say, dentori because there is no Y in the Japanese syllabry. Japanese are quite flexible in their phonetic liberties particularly when appealing to an English speaker. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant for the Suppresion of Consumer Electronics (After Sale) - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:13 AM Subject: MITI/Dentori-T Dumb question: I've used the term Dentori-T mark when referring to the Japan mark authorized by MITI. Lately I have seen this spelled as Dentory, even on foils presented by Japanese companies. I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory 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: SLIM
List Chums, I just love getting inflammatory tidbits from the List, and, since nobody else has commented yet... Last October we completed our own full compliance lab for EN 61326 as well, an investment at that time of about 250k USD (not counting equipment we already had, about 100k worth). The lab has already paid for itself (this week in fact). Though we'd be pretty irate to see it reduced to a mere precompliance lab: we're kinda proud of our solid aluminum 10 m OATS and the thousands of pre-drilled holes and self-tapping screws spaced every 5.1 cm (2 inches) we used to build it. I suspect the SLIM comment was taken out of context. I think we can all imagine the many and political, financial, trade effects and their very serious consequences, such as it might kill the US/EU MRA - if I had a vote on the matter It'd absolutely convince industry and corporate leaders that the regulatory world had gone insane, something they already suspect. Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to Gail Birdsall gbird...@hach.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: SLIM Greetings Colleagues, We heard form a reliable source who attended the June meeting of the EU Commission on the SLIM Initiative, of discussions to limit the certification of product family EMC standards to notified (competent?) bodies. If this is true, it would effectively close the self testing and certification route for manufacturers required to test to product specific EMC Standards. We understand that, possibly the Generic Standards route would still be left open to manufacturers who wish to self declare. As you all know, currently where product specific standards exist, they supercede the Generic Standards. My company has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars on EMC equipment and facilities to enable us to test and self declare our products. We originally tested and certified to the Generic Emissions Immunity Standards, but have recently switched to EN61326:97 AM1:98. If the above action is true, it would seem to be big victory and financial windfall for EU test laboratories and designates. At the same time, it would be a terrible blow to both EU and US manufacturers who invested heavily in test capability to self declare their products. Does anyone know of the validity of the SLIM action to require testing of product specific standards such as EN 61326 by Notified bodies? It has always been my understanding that the SLIM Initiative was to make things easier not more complicated and expensive by requiring 3rd party testing. Can anyone tell me if it is truly the plan of the EU Commission to take away self testing and declaration? We have heard that the new EMC Directive incorporating the SLIM Initiative recommendations may be out as early as the end of the year. Thank-you for your input/s Gail Birdsall Hach Co. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: MITI/Dentori-T
Not so dumb. It's probably a translation issue, since Kenji and the English alphabet are nothing alike. I've mostly seen it spelled in all-caps as DENTORI. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Homologation Engineering Nortel Networks ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com Dumb question: I've used the term Dentori-T mark when referring to the Japan mark authorized by MITI. Lately I have seen this spelled as Dentory, even on foils presented by Japanese companies. I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: NAVSEA OP3565
Hi group I am glad someone mentioned the OP 3565 document. I tried to locate it several times, but never successfully. I did some research on HERO and HERF, but couldn't compare the results to the document. I would appreciate a copy as well as advice how to get it. Thanks. Regards to all. Antonio Antonio Sarolic Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing Dept. of Radiocommunications and Microwave Engineering Unska 3, HR-1 Zagreb CROATIA tel. +385 1 61 29 789, fax. +385 1 61 29 717 E-mail: antonio.saro...@fer.hr -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam wisme...@lxe.com To: EMC Forum emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 2000. lipanj 20 16:20 Subject: NAVSEA OP3565 Group, I posted a question regarding NAVSEA OP3565 on or around the 13th and received a good response from someone on the list but I lost that email. Hopefully, he or someone else here can help with an additional question. I am looking for an opinion on whether or not our type of radio equipment is likely to meet the requirements of OP3565. Our worst case radio configurations are: Part 90 - 450MHz 4Watt max(36dBm) w\0dBi antenna Part 90 - 800MHz 2Watt max(33dBm) w\3dBi antenna Part 15 - 900MHz SS 1Watt max(30dBm) w\6dBi antenna Part 15 - 2.4GHz SS 100mW max(20dBm) w\15 dBi antenna Also, I would appreciate any information on where I may be able to obtain a copy of the standard. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.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: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements.
Don asked: I would appreciate some feedback on the following: Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the requirements for CE Marking today (EMC Safety). What is the requirement for these existing designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new requirements or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is out there for me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? Don, In my experience, one cannot predict whether new standards will allow existng products to be forever grandfathered under previous standards, or required to meet the new standard immediately, or some grace period after which compliance to the new standard is required. The allowances are made known by the time the standard is placed in force. This decision is often what slows the introduction of new standards as all affected parties lobby for what best suits their products. Products with relatively short market lifetimes are not usually impacted by new standards. However, products with long market lifetimes may require a re-design to meet the end of the grace period for new standards. Fortunately, our products typically fall into the first category, with market lifetimes of a year or so. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- 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
over voltage tester
Dear Sir/Madam; I am looking for a over voltage tester to test for UL 1950 third edition. Can anyone tell me where I can buy one? Thanks. Best Regards; John Chan Bay Area Compliance Laboratory Corp. (Sunnyvale, CA) Tel: (408) 732 9162 Fax: (408) 732 9164 e-mail address: jo...@baclcorp.com
RE: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements.
Don, The new standards have associated with them a date known as the Date of Withdrawal (DoW). That is the date on which the presumption of conformity to the essential requirements of the applicable directive (in this case, the EMC Directive) is withdrawn for the old standards. Any product imported or placed into service in the EC as of that date must have been tested to the new standards. If it is an older product, it must be re-tested. The DoW for EN 55022:1998 is 1 August 2001. The DoW for EN 55024:1998 is 1 July 2001. These are ITE standards. I'm not sure if there are others that apply to your products. BTW, I'll be in Pullman this weekend if you want to discuss this personally. Ghery Pettit Intel Corporation -Original Message- From: don_macart...@selinc.com [mailto:don_macart...@selinc.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements. I would appreciate some feedback on the following: Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the requirements for CE Marking today (EMC Safety). What is the requirement for these existing designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new requirements or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is out there for me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? Thank you, Don --- 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
MITI/Dentori-T
Dumb question: I've used the term Dentori-T mark when referring to the Japan mark authorized by MITI. Lately I have seen this spelled as Dentory, even on foils presented by Japanese companies. I am confused. Which is the correct spelling: Dentori or Dentory George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Site Attenuation Measurement / Antenna Factors
Hi, Please allow me to take the liberty of fwding this note in another discussion forum. Michael was talking about OATS validation using networm analyzer. -barry ma - From: Michael Foegelle [mailto:michael.foege...@emctest.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:15 AM To: Tim Harrington (AEI); Kefeng Liu Cc: 'patentlaw...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Site Attenuation Measurement / Antenna Factors Gentlemen: Unfortunately Clifford's response cut off Doug's e-mail address, so hopefully you can forward this or post it to the discussion group. Here at ETS we've used vector network analyzers for antenna calibration and site validation for the past five years. They provide results that are far superior to that possible from a spectrum analyzer/tracking generator configuration due to the excellent dynamic range, linearity, and external signal rejection. If you perform a full two-port calibration, you can also eliminate the necessity of pads since the calibration can correct for mismatch. However, there is one significant limitation and a couple of pitfalls to be aware of. Clifford is quite correct that the first issue is the height scan requirement and the lack of max-hold functionality on network analyzers. I've tried to get HP (Agilent) and others to listen and convince them that there is an untapped market here if they'd just add max-hold to their firmware, but so far I've been unsuccessful. Thus, the only way to use the network analyzer is to perform the max-hold from test automation on the PC. In order to do broadband scans with a large number of points, this also requires height stepping of the tower, since the sweep time becomes too slow to maximize on the fly. An additional danger to be aware of is a limitation (I consider it a defect) in the popular HP line of analyzers (HP 8753, 8720, etc.). If the cable length is too long, the path delay becomes longer than the step period, thus the transmitted signal does not reach the tuner before it steps to the next frequency. Thus, the tuner is not centered on the received signal. In minor cases, this results in a 10 dB error or so, but the inexperienced user is not likely to realize where the problem comes from or even that there is a problem. (Worst case, the receiver sees the noise floor because it's stepped so far that the received signal is outside the bandwidth of the receiver.) For broad span measurements, this will typically be indicated by falling steps in the signal as you sweep to higher frequencies. For narrow span measurements, you'll never notice the effect, since the receiver bandwidth will typically still cover the incoming signal, but it will be recorded at a different frequency point on the display. The result would be that a resonance would appear to be at different frequencies depending on the bandwidth, frequency span, and number of points. The only solution is to forcibly slow the sweep speed (typically by narrowing down to 10-30 Hz bandwidth) which greatly increases the test time. We've pointed this problem out to HP, but they do not seem to be interested in fixing it. We've tested the newest analyzers from Anritsu/Wiltron and they do not seem to suffer from the same problem. I've been told that the new Rhode Schwarz units do not either, but I haven't had the opportunity to test one yet. As far as ANSI testing, the next revision of C63.5 will contain more generalized wording that make it clear that network analyzers and automated measurements are acceptable for performing the calibrations specified in the standard. After all, a network analyzer is really just a high quality signal generator and receiver with a few additional features over a spectrum analyzer/tracking generator combination. It's just that in their current incarnation, none of them have the max-hold automation built in. All-in-all, vector network analyzers are great pieces of equipment to have around, and if you have one that's going unused, I suggest you take a look at it. Chances are, you've only scratched the surface of its potential! (Ok, so I got my Ph.D. using an 8753B! It allowed us to perform measurements and see things that had never been seen before, so I'm definitely a fan! =) Sincerely, Dr. Michael D. Foegelle --- Dr. Michael D. Foegelle | 2205 Kramer Lane Senior Principal Design Engineer | Austin TX, 78758 EMC Test Systems, L.P. |(512) 835-4684 x650 ___ 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
General Product Safety and Liability Directives
In the following discussion, I am interested in determining the legal aspects only. The General Product Safety Directive and the Liability Directives apply to consumer products and not to products used in the workplace. Consider electrical products that would otherwise be subject to the Low Voltage Directive but operate below the lower voltage limits of the directive. The safety of such products intended for use in the workplace are subject only to non-harmonized national regulations concerning worker safety. Do these national regulations make the assumption that such equipment must comply with the applicable essential requirements that are normally associated with equipment covered by the LVD? Richard Woods
Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam; Safety and EMC Requirements
Dear All, What are the requirements for Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam for Safety and EMC? Thanks Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements.
Hello Don, As I understand it, once a standard has been replaced (reached it's DOW), product bearing the CE marking and intended for shipment to the EU must meet the requirements of the new standard. This almost always involves some degree of product redesign. I've found that this is also a good time to include product improvements / upgrades that may be in the works. As far as ammunition goes, if you list or certify your product with an agency (UL, TUV, etc) you should receive notification calling for a product re-evaluation. Take Care, George -Original Message- From: don_macart...@selinc.com [mailto:don_macart...@selinc.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:07 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements. I would appreciate some feedback on the following: Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the requirements for CE Marking today (EMC Safety). What is the requirement for these existing designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new requirements or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is out there for me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? Thank you, Don --- 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
NAVSEA OP3565
Group, I posted a question regarding NAVSEA OP3565 on or around the 13th and received a good response from someone on the list but I lost that email. Hopefully, he or someone else here can help with an additional question. I am looking for an opinion on whether or not our type of radio equipment is likely to meet the requirements of OP3565. Our worst case radio configurations are: Part 90 - 450MHz 4Watt max(36dBm) w\0dBi antenna Part 90 - 800MHz 2Watt max(33dBm) w\3dBi antenna Part 15 - 900MHz SS 1Watt max(30dBm) w\6dBi antenna Part 15 - 2.4GHz SS 100mW max(20dBm) w\15 dBi antenna Also, I would appreciate any information on where I may be able to obtain a copy of the standard. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.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: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements.
For EMC, if you have demonstrated compliance with the EMC Directive via the technical construction file route, you probably don't need to be concerned with new standards. You should check with the competent body that assessed the file. However, if you have demonstrated compliance with the EMC Directive by testing to the harmonized standards that apply to your product, then you do have to comply with any new standards if your product falls under their scope. This also applies to revisions of existing standards. There is a transition period for each new or revised standard that can be found in the front of the standard. The date of withdrawal (DOW) of conflicting standards is the date by which your product must comply with the new or revised standards. Jim Hulbert Pitney Bowes don_macart...@selinc.com on 06/19/2000 04:06:58 PM Please respond to don_macart...@selinc.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements. I would appreciate some feedback on the following: Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the requirements for CE Marking today (EMC Safety). What is the requirement for these existing designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new requirements or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is out there for me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? Thank you, Don --- 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: Measuring noise, spectrum analyzer
Ron Tektronix has some application notes for using spectrum analyzers in measuring CDMA signals which would apply to OATS sites. You may want to contact their local office as the notes are free. They may even be available on their web site Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) - Original Message - From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: rcher...@home.com Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:41 PM Subject: Measuring noise, spectrum analyzer I am looking for information or articles written on measuring a CDMA or noise-like signal with a spectrum analyzer. I will be doing EIRP measurements on an OATS. Thanks in advance, Ron Chernus, DENSO --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
MIL STD for 19 enclosures
Hi! First of all, thank you for the virus advise. Heh... I was about to open it when I saw your warning message. Thank you. Besides, I would like to know which are the MIL standards for 19 shielded enclosures. I'd also like to know if any MIL STD talks about seismic pads for those enclosures. TIA Best regards, David Monreal Marketing and Office Manager Advanced Shielding Technologies --- 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
Is anything wrong withhttp://assist.daps.mil?
Group, Is anything wrong withhttp://assist.daps.mil;? Thank you. Lucian Yau
where I could get NIST tenical note?.
Group, Could anyone tell me where I could get NIST tenical note?. Thanks in advance, Lucian Yau
RE: Jokes text -- MAY INCLUDE VIRUS!
Thanks for your prompt warning. I received about 8 messages containing LIFE_STAGES.TXT and deleted all. SP -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:51 AM To: tdonne...@lucent.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Jokes text -- MAY INCLUDE VIRUS! WARNING! The message distributed under this subject line appears to include an attached uncleanable virus. The virus is: SHS_STAGES.A In file: LIFE_STAGES.TXT.SHS Message headers are attached for your info. Best regards, Richard Nute co-administrator, EMC-PSTC Listserver. From owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Mon Jun 19 10:08:34 PDT 2000 Received: from hpsdlo.sdd.hp.com (hpsdlo-sw.sdd.hp.com [15.80.36.40]) by hpsdlfsg.sdd.hp.com with ESMTP (8.7.6/8.7.3 TIS 5.0/sdd epg) id KAA14124 for ri...@hpsdlfsg.sdd.hp.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by hpsdlo.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.8.5btis+epg) with ESMTP id KAA04331 for ri...@sdd.hp.com; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id MAA22428; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:31:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Donnelly tdonne...@lucent.com To: tdonne...@lucent.com Subject: Jokes text Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:41:27 -0400 Message-ID: 000e01bfda0d$378d4b60$0c0e1...@ho.lucent.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary==_NextPart_000_000B_01BFD9EB.B07283A0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Tom Donnelly tdonne...@lucent.com X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.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
FYI - AS/NZS 60950 (new AS/NZS 3260) Just Published
Thought the group would be interested to know that the Australian equivalent of IEC 60950 3rd Edition has just been published (5 Jun 2000). The Australian equivalent to IEC 60950 has in the past been designated AS/NZS 3260 however, with Australia adopting the 3rd Edition of IEC 60950 we have redesignated its number to be in line with that of the IEC numbering, hence AS/NZS 60950. AS/NZS 60950 still has national deviations to that of IEC 60950 and as before (with AS/NZS 3260) these are identified throughout the standard by marginal bars plus as in past versions of AS/NZS 3260, these national deviations are detailed in Annex ZZ of the new AS/NZS 60950. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology Products and Services (Legislation/Regulations/Standards) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@ieee.org k...@technologist.com (alternate internet) --- 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: Korea New EMI label
1) Is this logo replacing the old EMI/EMS logo (an oval shape logo surrounded by Korean wording and approval number)? Ayes from 2000.5.22 2) When is this new logo effective? Any grandfather period? Afrom 2000.5.22 3) Do previous approved products need to change to this new logo? A Goverment said if you certified before 5.22,you can use any logo.ie,change depend on you. But if you certified after 5.22,you have to use only new logo. ie,MIC mark. 4) What is the size requirement of this logo? And any specific placement of the korean wording? A Goverment said manufacturer resize MIC logo adequatly,so we confuse.But have no choice. Also including korean word. 5) If the product size is small or unable to affixed the whole label (as per the attached file), what is the minimum information that must placed onto the product? A Govement said manufacture make logo to visible by customer.so minimummaximum size isn't defined. 6) As the label states the applicant name, manufacturer and country, does this means different applicant name (i.e. different distributer) will have different approval number? Also if the same product is manufacturered in different countries, does it indicate different approval number too? ANo! 7) Lastly, beside EMI/EMS requirement, does this label covers safety and PTT requirement too? ASure.It cover EMI/EMS,Safety,PTT like as CE. Thanks. Tommy - Original Message - From: kohscp koh...@cyberway.com.sg To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:15 PM Subject: Korea New EMI label Hi group, I just got a news from our Korean office that there is a new EMI label. This new label is to be affixed onto new products that are sent for EMI/EMS testing. See the attached file for sample format of the label. Could someone within the group advice me on the question for this new logo requirement. 1) Is this logo replacing the old EMI/EMS logo (an oval shape logo surrounded by Korean wording and approval number)? 2) When is this new logo effective? Any grandfather period? 3) Do previous approved products need to change to this new logo? 4) What is the size requirement of this logo? And any specific placement of the korean wording? 5) If the product size is small or unable to affixed the whole label (as per the attached file), what is the minimum information that must placed onto the product? 6) As the label states the applicant name, manufacturer and country, does this means different applicant name (i.e. different distributer) will have different approval number? Also if the same product is manufacturered in different countries, does it indicate different approval number too? 7) Lastly, beside EMI/EMS requirement, does this label covers safety and PTT requirement too? Thanks in Advance. Regards Koh --- 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
