RE: EN 61000-3-2 (Harmonics standard)
There was a meeting between the US Trade, the Low Frequency Emissions Coalition and CENELEC on Wednesday. The purpose of the meeting was to postpone the implementation of EN61000-3-2 and -3 until 2004. By then the standards will have had a complete revision. The news is not out yet but many believe there is little chance for a delay of this length. Where did you get your information? Dave George Unisys Corp. 2476 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Tel: 1-610-648-3653 Fax: 1-610-695-4700 . -Original Message- From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 1:18 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: EN 61000-3-2 (Harmonics standard) Folks: I got the news that CENELEC is considering to enforce the new revision of the subject standard by mid-2001. The present version should be mandatoy from January 1, 2001. The most important amendment is the definition of class D devices (that would affect a great number of products). My understanding is that the new standard would greatly restrict the range of class D products (it should cover only TV sets and personal computers + PC monitors). The present standard will be in force for 6 months, then the new one will kick in. So a lot of companies (including the one I work for) have developed new products , or have modified existing ones, to meet the present class D more stringent criteria (all devices with switching power supplies are class D if not modified properly) but just for 6 months !! I honestly have serious problems believing it 's true. Anyone can give additional inputs? Thanks, Paolo --- 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: Telecom Ports
Dick et al, EN 61326-1, like it's kin that came before, all have test definitions for I/O and power ports. You simply have a connector that implements both I/O and power, so you consider both test requirements, and you might have to seperate the lines to run the tests. Your jack may be RJ-11 style, but it isn't telecom just because it *looks* like a telephone plug/jack. RS-232 isn't a telecom port either. So telecom isn't the right word to apply. You have a hybrid power and serial I/O port on your TM product, that's all. The jack is probably a cheap but poor choice in that the misplugging a true telecom device, or telecom network, could occur. Unless the jack is keyed. We have a device that uses the RJ-45 jack that is common to Ethernet, but we switched to the keyed version to prevent the obvious misplugging into Ethernet devices or networks. You may want to run your own safety fault tests to see what happens if the power is shorted or crossed to the I/O lines. Serial lines themselves seldom cause emission problems, but they can carry common mode noise from the system onto the unshielded cable, or have immunity problems. It's hard to say what would happen without knowing more. Best Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to Dick Grobner dick.grob...@medgraph.com To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: Telecom Ports Good Day Forum Members I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It regarded a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows: 1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in Telecom world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity requirement to the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can be converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar immunity requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should it be added to EN61326? My dilemma is that my company inherited a piece of equipment via an earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an RJ-11 telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V pwr gnd) from a remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx Rx)comm which terminates to a PC. Can anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI requirements and device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but welcome other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety (over current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can provide some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate it Thank You (in advance) Dick Grobner Compliance Engineering Medical Graphics Corporation 350 Oak Grove Parkway St Paul, MN 55127 651-766-3395 651-484-8941 (fax) dick.grob...@medgraph.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: Telecom Ports
Dick, the RTTE applies. ETSI standards exist for RF LAN (I don't know this standard number, it may be the one you mentioned) and Short Range Devices (I-ETS 300 440) operating in the 2.4 GHz band. One of these standards may be applicable to your use. You can search and download for free at http://www.etsi.org/ http://www.etsi.org/ . Of course, FCC part 15 applies in the US, and Canada has a similar standard which you can find at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/spectrum/engdoc/spect1.html http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/spectrum/engdoc/spect1.html . Of course, you already know that the port must comply with the medical safety and emc standards you listed. If the interface cable is routed through the building, the circuits and wiring will have to comply with the appropriate section of the US National Electrical Code (same story in Canada). See Section 725 which covers Class 2 circuits. Richard Woods -- From: Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:45 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: RE: Telecom Ports Mr. Woods informed me of missing data from my first e-mail - sorry about that! Equipment is medical (EN60601-1 Safety, EN60601-1-2 EMI) Countries: USA, Canada and Europe at this time There is also an option to use a short range telemetry unit with this device to transmit patient data. It is spread spectrum at 2.4 GHz. Is an OEM configuration which we repackage (the transmitter) into the battery back (+12V) worn my the athlete/patient. It does not have CE, but is complaint with ETSI 300.28 (I'm not sure what this is it yet)and FCC (which I still have not seen any FCC cert. yet). Does the telemetry module fall under the scope of the RTTE directive? If I'm missing any other pertinent information please advise. Thank you -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 9:32 AM To: dick.grob...@medgraph.com Subject: RE: Telecom Ports You will have to provide the forum with additional information. What kind of equipment? ITE, test equipment, medical, etc. What countries? Europe, North America, other Richard Woods -- From: Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:07 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: Telecom Ports Good Day Forum Members I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It regarded a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows: 1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in Telecom world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity requirement to the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can be converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar immunity requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should it be added to EN61326? My dilemma is that my company inherited a piece of equipment via an earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an RJ-11 telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V pwr gnd) from a remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx Rx)comm which terminates to a PC. Can anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI requirements and device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but welcome other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety (over current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can provide some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate it Thank You (in advance) Dick Grobner Compliance Engineering Medical Graphics Corporation 350 Oak Grove Parkway St Paul, MN 55127 651-766-3395 651-484-8941 (fax) dick.grob...@medgraph.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:
RE: Telecom Ports
The ETSI standard you refer to is actually ETS 300 328, and you can retrieve a copy from www.etsi.org Your transmitter module would certainly fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. I would contact a European notified body, and pay them to tell you which standards you need to meet. Then, test to those standards, which are likely to include radio performance and EMC and safety. Then, have them assess the test reports for compliance to the RTTE Directive. FInally, you can then declare conformity to the applicable directive, and that you meet all essential requirements and put the CE Mark on the product and sell it in the EU. If you have never been through this (and because the RTTE is new as of April most people have not) it pays to get a Notified Body and test lab helping you along. Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. Director of Agency Compliance Adaptive Broadband Corporation 615 Fishers Run Victor, NY 14564 +716 742 6154 (voice) +716 742 6102 (fax) +716 820 7364 (US cellphone) +0777 992 5368 (UK cellphone) jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com -Original Message- From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:45 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: RE: Telecom Ports Mr. Woods informed me of missing data from my first e-mail - sorry about that! Equipment is medical (EN60601-1 Safety, EN60601-1-2 EMI) Countries: USA, Canada and Europe at this time There is also an option to use a short range telemetry unit with this device to transmit patient data. It is spread spectrum at 2.4 GHz. Is an OEM configuration which we repackage (the transmitter) into the battery back (+12V) worn my the athlete/patient. It does not have CE, but is complaint with ETSI 300.28 (I'm not sure what this is it yet)and FCC (which I still have not seen any FCC cert. yet). Does the telemetry module fall under the scope of the RTTE directive? If I'm missing any other pertinent information please advise. Thank you -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 9:32 AM To: dick.grob...@medgraph.com Subject: RE: Telecom Ports You will have to provide the forum with additional information. What kind of equipment? ITE, test equipment, medical, etc. What countries? Europe, North America, other Richard Woods -- From: Dick Grobner [SMTP:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 10:07 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: Telecom Ports Good Day Forum Members I have a very similar question that Barry Ma presented on 7-13. It regarded a Ethernet port on test equipment. His question was as follows: 1. A phone line port has to comply with related regulations in Telecom world. In my recollection, PC industry just added an Immunity requirement to the phone line port. (It is included in EN55024?) But Ethernet can be converted to phone line through an adapter. Is there a similar immunity requirement for the Ethernet port in test equipment? If not, should it be added to EN61326? My dilemma is that my company inherited a piece of equipment via an earlier acquisition. On this piece of equipment they incorporated an RJ-11 telecom jack. Over this jack they are running power (+12V pwr gnd) from a remote battery pack and RS-232 (Tx Rx)comm which terminates to a PC. Can anyone provide me with some insight with regards to EMI/RFI requirements and device safety (I have somewhat of a handle on the safety side - but welcome other opinions!). None of these four lines have any type of safety (over current/voltage) protection nor any EMI filtering, etc. If you can provide some insight or reference to required standards I would appreciate it Thank You (in advance) Dick Grobner Compliance Engineering Medical Graphics Corporation 350 Oak Grove Parkway St Paul, MN 55127 651-766-3395 651-484-8941 (fax) dick.grob...@medgraph.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:
Radiated Immunity
Thanks to all those who responded to my message requesting some input with regards to test equipment for near-field radiated immunity troubleshooting. There were MANY suggestions . . . all good ones too. Ultimately I used an HP Signal Generator and EMCO near-field probes . . . worked very well . . . simulated the failure within minutes, and fixed the problem within a couple of hours (poor grounding - paint where the drawing said there shouldn't be) . . . . Thanks Again . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
RE: Implanted IC in brain
Hopefully in that case it has to be MIL STD tested for service above deck and in the overhead mast, and you get to choose the host subject. Sales and Marketing just acquired a new line in their job description. -Original Message- From: Angus McGill (Cascade Engineering Svcs, Inc.) [mailto:v-ang...@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:21 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain I would hope for a new EMC standard. Can you imagine being the host for testing this IC under EN55024? -Original Message- From: Regan Arndt [mailto:regan_ar...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 1:11 PM To: k...@nortelnetworks.com; mpeder...@midcom-inc.com; barry...@altavista.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain I hope that this era falls into the category of medical equipment using IEC 601. I hate to see 950 get rearranged again. I experienced enough grief with 225 being assimilated into 950. grin Regan Arndt ITE Telecomm Safety Specialist From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com Reply-To: Kazimier Gawrzyjal k...@nortelnetworks.com To: 'Mel Pedersen' mpeder...@midcom-inc.com,'Barry Ma' barry...@altavista.com, EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:55:55 -0400 Greetings, Interesting topic Personally if forced to choose, I'd place my money on the recent advances announced by the genetics community to get my great-grand kids to the enhanced state of humanity as opposed to a chip set in the old noodlemy thoughts will continue to be my own and not accessible by the crackers of tomorrow via the wireless web concept. Seems some form of operating system would be required to get the web interface runninganyone have that much faith in the existing options today as to load up some software in your noggin?? Hopefully airline pilots will be excluded from this vision of the future else face at least one crash per week.Can you go to Bob's Headshop for some aftermarket knock-off parts? Does UL 1950 cl. 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 allow for added abnormals? My 2 Cents and not those of my current employer. Kaz Gawrzyjal Safety Guy nortel networks k...@nortelnetworks.com k...@hotmail.com -Original Message- From: Mel Pedersen [mailto:mpeder...@midcom-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 10:54 AM To: 'Barry Ma'; EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: Implanted IC in brain Hello: I believe we should consider what precedents the Medical Equipment community has laid out hereat least as a startIEC 60601, FDA regs, etc these address safety concerns for implanted. Just my humble thoughts on the matter. - Mel -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 7:14 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Implanted IC in brain Hi, It seems not a pure friction to implant intelligent IC into human brains. Some people made prediction about this new breed of human being. Some are talking about downloading certain virtual sense from Internet. ... Let's put aside the feasibility and focus only on related EMC/Safety concerns. 1. If there going to be a wireless access from human brain to Internet, do we have the same Safety concern as cellular phone? 2. It would also be possible to directly communicate each other via brain ICs. We don't have to exchange thoughts by means of any language (spoken and written) or eye contact. ... Should we have EMC standards to regulate the emission level of brain waves and immunity capability for brain ICs? Thanks. Best Regards, Barry Mab...@anritsu.com ANRITSUwww.anritsu.com Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel. 408-778-2000 x 4465 ___ $1 million in prizes! 20 daily instant winners. AltaVista Rewards: Click here to win! http://shopping.altavista.com/e.sdc?e=3 ___ --- 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
archive service?
How often are the emc-pstc archives updated at the rcic site? Has it been a couple of years? --- 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: EMF Radiation : Test labs
Edward, I have no experience of RSS-102 etc and so can't help. However I suspect that the lack of response is due to the fact that your request could come across as being too commercial. Andy. -- From: Edward Fitzgerald[SMTP:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com] Reply To: Edward Fitzgerald Sent: 14 July 2000 10:26 To: 'EMC-PSTC (E-mail)'; TREG Reflector (E-mail) Subject: RE: EMF Radiation : Test labs Importance: High Dear Colleagues, Many thanks to those few members of EMC-PSTC that provided EMF Radiation lab details. However, I've now copied TREG members on this email as I find it hard to believe that I actually only received 2 independent recommendations of labs in this area out of the many hundreds of people that subscribe to the list. Does this mean that very few manufacturers are actually testing to RSS-102 and IEEE C95.1 / C95.3? Or that no one would recommend the test lab they are using for such compliance testing? I hope that there are some more members of this group that could provide recommendations on suitable laboratories. Waiting in anticipation for a flood of emails! Edward -Original Message- From: Edward Fitzgerald Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 4:56 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: EMF Radiation : Test labs Hi, I am currently putting together a list of suitably accredited laboratories that can test to RSS-102 and IEEE C95.1 C95.3 for meeting compliance with Industry Canada and FCC regulations. Most importantly I am interested in those labs you have worked with and could recommend; whether the recommendation be on price, service level or just a high level of competence. Many thanks, Edward Fitzgerald Director Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22 Mobile Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00 European Technology Services (EMEA) Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK. GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site http://www.ets-tele.com/tics pssst ... spread the word --- 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- Implanted IC in brain.- humour for Friday
Hi folks. I think I've already met some individuals that have been fitted with IC chip implants. It would certainly explain some of the situations I've come across in business meetings. blank proposals (screens), communication impasses (system lockups), people talking rubbish (software corruption) discussions going down a black hole (power failure) people falling asleep (brown-outs) unfulfilled commitments (insufficient memory) unrepresentative meeting notes (keyboard input error) people not up to speed (device not plugged in) people at the wrong meeting (wrong software loaded) people not understanding (obsolete software ) fingers up noses (looking for the reset button) Regards Eric. * Your best support in TESTING situations * * INTERTest Systems UK * * International Product Certification * *ONE-STOP-SHOP for ALL testing * *PO Box 321 - Bucks HP9 1XJ - England * * ++44 (0)1494 673438 Fax 678868* * INTERTest Systems UK is the trading name of * * the test laboratory of E M Consulting Ltd. * --- 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: EMF Radiation : Test labs
Dear Colleagues, Many thanks to those few members of EMC-PSTC that provided EMF Radiation lab details. However, I've now copied TREG members on this email as I find it hard to believe that I actually only received 2 independent recommendations of labs in this area out of the many hundreds of people that subscribe to the list. Does this mean that very few manufacturers are actually testing to RSS-102 and IEEE C95.1 / C95.3? Or that no one would recommend the test lab they are using for such compliance testing? I hope that there are some more members of this group that could provide recommendations on suitable laboratories. Waiting in anticipation for a flood of emails! Edward -Original Message- From: Edward Fitzgerald Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 4:56 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: EMF Radiation : Test labs Hi, I am currently putting together a list of suitably accredited laboratories that can test to RSS-102 and IEEE C95.1 C95.3 for meeting compliance with Industry Canada and FCC regulations. Most importantly I am interested in those labs you have worked with and could recommend; whether the recommendation be on price, service level or just a high level of competence. Many thanks, Edward Fitzgerald Director Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22 Mobile Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00 European Technology Services (EMEA) Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK. GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site http://www.ets-tele.com/tics pssst ... spread the word
R: R: R: Voltage Breakdown
Hi Rich and all others: Thanks a lot for clarifying this issue. I was living with one wrong idea about electro-static build-up mechanisms until you guys got me the right explanation. This to me is another confirmation of the value of this forum. Thank you again, Paolo -Messaggio originale- Da: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Inviato:mercoledì 12 luglio 2000 18.40 A: paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it Oggetto:Re: R: R: Voltage Breakdown Hi Paolo: From the other responses to your question, it appears that there are several phenomena that apply. Upon reading the other responses, and reading the referenced web sites, it appears that, in a humid atmosphere, build-up of electrostatic charge is limited by micro-condensation on material surfaces, which tend to bleed off charge before it can build to a value sufficient to break down the electric strength of the air. So, there appears to be no conflict between the fact that humid air has a slightly higher dielectric strength than dry air, and the fact that humid air limits the build-up of surface charge compared to dry air. (I have not copied the list with this response, but I did want to reply to you personally since you had ask a question of me personally.) 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
