RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Dick Grobner]

It must be interesting in New York City then! Every building must have a
cell antenna on top of it.

-Original Message-
From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:27 PM
To: Brent DeWitt
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@ieee.org; rbus...@es.com
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft




Cell phone techology is fundamentally flawed when used in flight/altitudes
(even tall buildings).

Problem: there is a limited number of frequencies (or bands) allocated by
the authorities, and must be "resusable" on a grid of "cells" with minimal
overlap from cell to cell.

Cellphone users in flight (or any high altitude) occupy a given "channel"
over potentially hundreds of "cells".  Each tower, hearing a strong signal
on that user's channel, no longer considers that channel to be available to
other users: when all the channels are busy, calls can't be made by cell
phone clients, and they can't take calls either, the system is overloaded.

If you juggle the numbers in your head, considering the number of aircraft
in flight -- around any given aircport, times the number of people that
have cell phones (on average) per aircraft, then you see the problem.  Out
of six on my row in a recent domestic flight, three of us had cell phones
(that I could see).  I leave the math to the reader.

Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments




 

"Brent

DeWitt"  To: ,



etcom.com>   cc:

Sent by: Subject: RE: consumer
electronics used on board  
owner-emc-pstaircraft

c...@ieee.org

 

 

01/25/2001

12:09 PM

Please

respond to

"Brent

DeWitt"

 

 






It's conceivable, but the folks at Qualcomm I did base station testing for
seemed to think the problem was real, and they don't make aircraft systems.

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of rbus...@es.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the
right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why
I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has
therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll
throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is
or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or
CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of in

Re: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[John Howard]

List Folks,
   Like others who have already responded I am somewhat familiar with 
the aviation
world.  I have owned aircraft for the past 25 years and am both a flight 
instructor and
a FAA blessed engine and airframe mechanic.  One point not made by 
previous posts
is that current behavioral rules must consider commercial aircraft which 
were designed
and manufactured over 30 years ago (eg the B-727).  In these early 
aircraft there was
negligible shielding protection to signal and other wiring routed 
interior to the pressure
vessel.  The aluminum airframe provided adequate separation between 
sensitive interior
wiring and the RF antenna system.  Now fast forward to today and 
consider all of the
RF sources brought on board by passengers and you see the concern of the 
airlines.
They cannot reasonably make one rule for the older aircraft and another 
for newer

airplanes - which do have better interior wire protection.
Best Regards To All
John

Don House wrote:


I have alsways thought this... however there is a man serving a year prison
sentence in England for interfering with a planes navigation system.  There
is also a plane crash now attributed to a man who refused to stop using his
cell phone.  This is out of my area but one of my fellow engineers says it
has to do with antenna placement on the aircraft.

Don

-Original Message-
From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication woul

Dale Albright

[Pryor McGinnis]

I need the email address or phone number of Dale Albright.  The Email address I 
have does not appear to work.

Best Regards,
Pryor McGinnis
c...@prodigy.net 
www.ctl-lab.com

Re: Video training

[eric . lifsey]

Richard,

Try UMR, http://www.emclab.umr.edu/

They have a EMC principles video course, and one on EMC laboratory, maybe
more.

Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments





  
WOODS@sensorm   
  
atic.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
  
Sent by: cc:
  
owner-emc-pstSubject: Video training
  
c...@ieee.org   
 

  

  
01/25/2001  
  
02:12 PM
  
Please  
  
respond to  
  
WOODS   
  

  

  





Anyone know of any videos on EMC and product safety training?

Richard Woods

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Sykes, Bob]

For those interested, check out:

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0039a.html
(scroll down to "Cellphone Fails Flight Systems")

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0020b.html
(scroll to "British Study Says Airborne Cellphones Are A Problem")

For the opposing (economic) spin see:
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news9941.html#3
(... "Cellphone Use In Aircraft May Not Be Dangerous")

If you've really got some time on your hands see:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf
(this one encompasses all PEDs)

-Bob


---
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: Video training

[Dan Kwok]

Hello Richard,

The University of Missouri offers an EMC course in video format. The
course is available by itself or as part of their EMC Certificate
Program. For more details, check out
http://www.umr.edu/~conted/courses/EE/EMC/video.htm or contact Dr. Todd
Hubing at Ph: 573-341-6069.


Dan

-- 

Daniel Kwok, P.Eng.
Principal EMC Engineer 
Intetron Consulting, Inc.  
Vancouver, Canada
Phone (604) 432-9874
Email dk...@intetron.com
Web http://www.intetron.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[eric . lifsey]

Cell phone techology is fundamentally flawed when used in flight/altitudes
(even tall buildings).

Problem: there is a limited number of frequencies (or bands) allocated by
the authorities, and must be "resusable" on a grid of "cells" with minimal
overlap from cell to cell.

Cellphone users in flight (or any high altitude) occupy a given "channel"
over potentially hundreds of "cells".  Each tower, hearing a strong signal
on that user's channel, no longer considers that channel to be available to
other users: when all the channels are busy, calls can't be made by cell
phone clients, and they can't take calls either, the system is overloaded.

If you juggle the numbers in your head, considering the number of aircraft
in flight -- around any given aircport, times the number of people that
have cell phones (on average) per aircraft, then you see the problem.  Out
of six on my row in a recent domestic flight, three of us had cell phones
(that I could see).  I leave the math to the reader.

Eric Lifsey
Compliance Manager
National Instruments





  
"Brent  
  
DeWitt"  To: ,  
  
  
  
etcom.com>   cc:
  
Sent by: Subject: RE: consumer electronics 
used on board  
owner-emc-pstaircraft   
  
c...@ieee.org   
 

  

  
01/25/2001  
  
12:09 PM
  
Please  
  
respond to  
  
"Brent  
  
DeWitt" 
  

  

  





It's conceivable, but the folks at Qualcomm I did base station testing for
seemed to think the problem was real, and they don't make aircraft systems.

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of rbus...@es.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the
right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why
I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has
therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll
throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is
or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
e

RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Don House]

I have alsways thought this... however there is a man serving a year prison
sentence in England for interfering with a planes navigation system.  There
is also a plane crash now attributed to a man who refused to stop using his
cell phone.  This is out of my area but one of my fellow engineers says it
has to do with antenna placement on the aircraft.

Don

-Original Message-
From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek







-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent:

RE: Product Marking

[Don House]

Thanks for your reply Greg,
This is news to me.   My experience is that UL will not accept the test
results of any other laboratory (except one of their own).  I was told they
are being sued over this because they were the only NRTL that would not
accept data from other NRTLs.  Has this changed recently?  Normally we would
not consider using UL because of the high cost and long time intervals
anyway.

Don

-Original Message-
From: Greg Nielsen [mailto:greg.niel...@setengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:49 AM
To: 'Don House'
Subject: RE: Product Marking


Don,

I believe the intent of your wording is correct, but a unit does not
necessarily have to be "tested" by UL to be authorized to apply the UL Mark.
A CB or other report with a product sample can be "evaluated" and certified
by UL without UL performing any testing.  

Greg Nielsen
Compliance Engineer
Set Engineering, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Don House [mailto:dho...@excelsus-tech.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:17 AM
To: Praveen Rao; 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Perhaps you are being confused by the symbols.  The UL symbol can only be
used if your product is tested by UL not another lab.  UL1950 and CSA 22.2
are both the same requirements.  They have been "normalized" by
international agreement. 
Text can be used in place of logos if the text is in close proximity to the
logo of the LISTING laboratory.  Of course nothing can be sold in Canada
without the Canadian supplied flag labels with the certification number
imprinted.

Don

-Original Message-
From: Praveen Rao [mailto:p...@tennyson.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:36 PM
To: 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking


This is the symbol (see attached) we were advised to use by CSA for both
Canada and USA.
But no 'UL' to be mentioned anywhere.
The testing was through the CB scheme tested here in Australia.
Praveen


-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tac [mailto:tac.p...@power-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:00 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Courtland,

The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the product with
the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In some cases,
TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards.

Tac,
Power-One TSD


 -Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject:Product Marking


Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org



---
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.

RE: Fuse Markings

[Chris Maxwell]

Mike,

Page 22 of our company copy of EN 61010-1:1993 refers to:

very fast = FF or black
fast  = F or red
medium, time-lag = M or yellow
time-lag = T or blue
long time-lag = TT or grey

There is a reference to these code/color designations coming from IEC 127.

There are some other "trade" fuse designations such as "slo-blo".  My
experience is that "slo-blo" has similar ratings to a type "T" fuse
according to IEC 127.  Of course, you have to check the manufacturer's data
sheets to see what standard they used for ratings ...

Hope this helps.

Chris.

> -Original Message-
> From: Davis, Mike [SMTP:mike_da...@adc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:09 AM
> To:   EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
> Subject:  Fuse Markings
> 
> 
> I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product
> that
> needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
> shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked
> in
> the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.
> 
> Michael S. Davis
> Compliance Engineer
> ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
> Tel:  203 630-5788
> Fax:  203 630-5762
> mike_da...@adc.com
> 
>   
> Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Ted . Eckert]

This story was in the news a few weeks ago.  In this case, a cell phone
cause a fire sensor to falsely indicate that there was a problem.  The risk
of using electronics may seem small, but it is real.  Are you willing to
risk your life so you don't have to wait an hour or two to make a phone
call?

---

LJUBLJANA (Reuters)  January 10, 2001

A Slovenian airliner made an emergency landing Tuesday after a passenger's
mobile phone caused its electronics system to malfunction and indicate
there was a fire on board, Adria Airways said Wednesday.


The state-owned carrier said a Canadair Regional Jet bound for the Bosnian
capital Sarajevo had turned back soon after take-off because of the
erroneous fire warning and made an emergency landing in Ljubljana.


An investigation showed that the alarm had been caused by a mobile phone in
the luggage compartment which had not been switched off.


---



Ted Eckert
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
American Power Conversion Corporation
ted.eck...@apcc.com

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader.  The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC's
official position on any matter.




rbus...@es.co   

mTo: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org

Sent by: cc:

owner-emc-pstSubject: RE: consumer electronics 
used on board aircraft   
c...@ieee.org   
   




01/25/01

11:26 AM

Please  

respond to  

rbusche 









I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the
right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why
I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has
therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll
throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalen

RE: MIL-STD-461E

[Price, Ed]

Mil-Std-461E has several Test Methods related to EMP.

Test Methods CS115 & CS116 attempt to evaluate the response of cabling to an
EMP.

Test Method RS105 directly creates a "mini EMP" by placing the EUT within a
parallel plate transmission line and whacking the EUT with a 2nS risetime,
50kV/M pulse. (Caution; don't try this at home!)

{Don't overlook the Appendix A, which provides further insight and rationale
for the official requirements.)

Ed


Ed  Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis


-Original Message-
From: Brumbaugh, David [mailto:david.brumba...@pss.boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:30 AM
To: 'Darrell Locke'; 'emc-pstc'
Subject: RE: MIL-STD-461E



The only difference that I am aware of is that MIL-STD-461E merges -461D and
462D into one document (list members, please correct me on this if I am in
error.)
If you are looking for HEMP, you can refer to MIL-STD-464. It has
unclassified requirements, but not test methods.
DB

> --
> From: Darrell Locke[SMTP:dlo...@advanced-input.com]
> Reply To: Darrell Locke
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:51 AM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC - forum' (E-mail)
> Subject:  MIL-STD-461E
> 
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> I have received the new revision of MIL-STD-461 revision E.  It contains
> much more detail on testing to the existing requirements.  I have also
been
> told by another source that it contains unclassified sections for HAEMP
> testing and parameters.  However, I do not see any reference to HAEMP in
the
> E revision.  Can any of you military experts help me out here.
> 
> 1.  What are the differences between 461D and 461E?
> 
> 2.  Are there HAEMP requirements buried in the E revisions somewhere?
> 
> Thanks
>  
> Darrell Locke
> Advanced Input Devices
> 
> ---
> 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: Fuse Markings

[john . merrill]

The IEC standard is IEC127 which has requirements for Very Fast, Fast, Delay,
Long Delay and M (Medium?) along with breaking current capacity codes.





"Davis, Mike"  on 01/25/2001 11:08:33 AM

Please respond to "Davis, Mike" 

To:   "EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)" 
cc:(bcc: John Merrill/Aut/Schneider)
Subject:  Fuse Markings





I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Fred Townsend]

I did both the FCC and FAA submittals for the system that Qualcomm did the front
end system design for.  It was one of the more interesting systems I have ever
worked on because of the blend of commercial avionics and consumer electronics.
Let me clarify a few issues.

Airborne cellar shares the same band (NOT the same frequencies) as the ground
based cell systems.  However, the transmitter power levels were around 25 watts
making the system substantially more powerful than a ground type mobil cell
phone.  Therefore if there was no EMI to the aircraft systems (several octaves
lower in frequency) from the airborne cell system, then it is highly unlikely
the lower powered ground cell phones would cause any interference to the
aircraft systems either. It was never a concern to the FAA.

So why not allow ground based cell phone usage while in the air? The answer is
ground based systems rely on FM radio's capture characteristic to allow very
heavy frequency reuse.  The low powered ground units depend on the mobil unit
seeing only a few cell sites so they can reuse the same frequencies at other
cell sites.  The system measures the power level at the individual cell site and
determines which antennae (and cell site) to use.  If the power levels are
saturating at more than one cell site, (as is typical when the aircraft can see
many cell sites) the system can not determine which antenna to use and locks up.

There are issues too.  Cell sites are designed for slow moving mobiles where
there is plenty of time to anticipate of the hand off to another cell site.
Airborne units quickly overtake a cell sites causing existing mobil connections
to be dropped. One airborne mobile cell phone can wipe out many ground mobile
cell sites.

So the real answer to the question of airborne mobile cell phone usage is not
interference to the aircraft or aircraft navigation system; rather it is
interference of ground based mobile units.

Fred Townsend

Brent DeWitt wrote:

> It's conceivable, but the folks at Qualcomm I did base station testing for
> seemed to think the problem was real, and they don't make aircraft systems.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of rbus...@es.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:26 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
> make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
> of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
> To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
> agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
> phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
> by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
> planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
> are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
> different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
> made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
> the ground.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brent DeWitt
>
> "Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
> Of Mike Hopkins
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
> To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft
>
> As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
> in a few comments:
>
> It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
> electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
> finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
> communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
> if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
> electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
> use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.
>
> On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
> top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
> Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
> players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
> in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
> large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
> and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
> a general pro

Fuse Markings

[Davis, Mike]

Thanks to all who responded to my question of what are the letter
designations for blow open speeds of fuses.

The consensus of responses were the following:

N 60127-1 1991 Clause 6.1d

FF: denoting very quick acting
F: denoting quick acting
M: denoting medium time-lag
T: denoting time-lag
TT: denoting long time-lag

I have another question. 

A slide in power supply module has an externally accessible and replaceable
fuse located at the rear panel of the module.  When the power supply module
is inserted into the chassis, the fuse is then only is accessible through a
slot in the rear panel of the chassis. Where is the appropriate place to
locate the power ratings; on the chassis rear panel, the module rear panel
or both. 
Service personnel has a choice to either replace the fuse from the rear of
the chassis or merely remove the power supply module, then replace the fuse.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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

Video training

[WOODS]

Anyone know of any videos on EMC and product safety training?

Richard Woods

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Re: Fuse Markings

[JRadomski]

Mike,

Fuse-holders shall be marked with the symbol relative to the time/current
characteristic (F or T), the rated current (mA or A), and the rated voltage
(V) of the fuse.
Examples: F250mA 250V (fast acting)
  T3A 250V ("slow blow")

John Radomski
Product Compliance Engineer
Clare




   
"Davis, Mike"   
   
  
   
Sent by: cc:
   
owner-emc-pstSubject: Fuse Markings 
   
c...@ieee.org   
  

   

   
01/25/01
   
11:08 AM
   
Please  
   
respond to  
   
"Davis, Mike"   
   

   

   





I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product
that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: Product Marking

[JRadomski]

> Of course nothing can be sold in Canada without the Canadian supplied
flag labels with the certification number imprinted.

Don,

The Canadian flag labels can be affixed only to equipment certified by
Industry Canada (different issue, not related to the original question
[NRTL, safety approvals to UL1950/CSA950, etc.]).

Best Regards,

John Radomski
Product Compliance Engineer
Clare


---
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: Product Marking

[Don House]

No arguments here Ron.
Best regards,
Don

-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:31 AM
To: Don House
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Hi Don,

>The requirement for most customers, especially telecommunications
providers,
>is that the product be LISTED or RECOGNIZED to comply with the safety
>standards of concern.  The most important being UL1950 and NEBS.  To be
>listed and participate in continuing compliance (required) you must use the
>logo of the certification laboratory, such as ETL, MET, UL, etc.  The
>listing number is also required in close proximity to the logo. (Since this
>is a legal requirement with the lab, it is a "badge of quality" on the
>product, which should be appreciated by your marketing department!)

All true. However, as to the listing number, different NRTLs
require/recommend different
designations. UL, for instance, requires the word "LISTED", an assigned
control number along with a
product identity marking (e.g., ITE, NWGQ, etc.). I'm sure that the other
NRTLs have similar marking
requirements other than just the use of their mark. And, as for quality,
continued use of a NRTL
mark means only that the product is continuing to be built according to how
it was written up into
the report, nothing more. I have seen many many instances where reports have
been simply wrong,
incorrect, and in one case a while back, negligent (I will offer no further
information about any of
these instances).

>I am told that there are changes "afoot" to allow manufacturers to self
>certify to these requirements, however my experience shows that most of our
>customers will not accept self certification.

IMHO, I don't see self certification in the US happening any time soon, if
at all. Even if it did,
there would be at least 2 federal regulators (OSHA & NEC) to change their
reg's, and not to mention
the thousands of municipal authorities. Of course, to align with the EU-US
MRA, that might actually
happen, but not in the near future or in my lifetime. But, I could be wrong.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.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: Fuse Markings

[Veit, Andy]

Mike-
My copy of EN 61010-1 gives the codes from IEC 127.  I'm not sure of this is
what you are looking for or not.

>From EN 61010-1:
Very Quick Acting   FF, or black
Quick ActingF, or red
Medium Time-Lag M, or yellow
Time-LagT, or blue
Long Time-Lag   TT, or grey

EN 61010-1 also says that if the fuse is user-replaceable, then the fuse
rating and type (using the above codes) shall be marked beside the
fuseholder.

-Andy

Andrew Veit
Systems Design Engineer
MTS Systems Corp
Ph: 919.677.2507
Fax: 919.677.2480
1001 Sheldon Drive 
Cary, NC 27513 


-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mike_da...@adc.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: Fuse Markings



I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: Product Marking

[PGodfrey]

Just a 'small' correction here.

As I'm sure most who have been through any of the UL programs will agree, it
took some work to get there!!. Therefore, I'd like to point out that KTL is
a UL CAPS Engineer laboratory and therefore manufacturers who have their
products tested/investigated with us under this scheme will get UL
authorization to apply the UL Listed or Recognized Mark. EXACTLY the same as
they would by going directly to UL, except of course we believe we offer a
faster turnaround time than UL themselves. :>).

Phillip Godfrey
Manager, Product Safety
KTL Dallas, Inc
802 N. Kealy Ave
Lewisville. TX75057-3136

email: pgodf...@icomply.com
Tel: (972) 436-9600
Fax: (972) 436-2667 

-Original Message-
From: Don House [mailto:dho...@excelsus-tech.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:17 AM
To: Praveen Rao; 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Perhaps you are being confused by the symbols.  The UL symbol can only be
used if your product is tested by UL not another lab.  UL1950 and CSA 22.2
are both the same requirements.  They have been "normalized" by
international agreement. 
Text can be used in place of logos if the text is in close proximity to the
logo of the LISTING laboratory.  Of course nothing can be sold in Canada
without the Canadian supplied flag labels with the certification number
imprinted.

Don

-Original Message-
From: Praveen Rao [mailto:p...@tennyson.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:36 PM
To: 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking


This is the symbol (see attached) we were advised to use by CSA for both
Canada and USA.
But no 'UL' to be mentioned anywhere.
The testing was through the CB scheme tested here in Australia.
Praveen


-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tac [mailto:tac.p...@power-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:00 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Courtland,

The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the product with
the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In some cases,
TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards.

Tac,
Power-One TSD


 -Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject:Product Marking


Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org



---
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

F

RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Pettit, Ghery]

Well, you can't use a cell phone in a light plane once it's off the ground,
too.  This rule is not limited to commercial airliners that have commercial
air phones (which use a different system).

Brent - remember the difference between good landings and great landings.

Good landing - any landing you can walk away from

Great landing - any landing when you can immediately re-use the aircraft.

Ghery S. Pettit, NCE
and after too many years - Student Pilot!

-Original Message-
From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek

RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Mike Hopkins]

That might be right, but if the FCC didn't ban the use of cell phones in
airplanes, I'd bet the airlines or FAA would.

Mike Hopkins

-Original Message-
From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:26 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek







-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



There is growing concern amongst professional aircrew about the use of
consumer electronics (CD players, mo

Re: Cost of EMC Testing

[reheller]

You forgot Power Frequency Magnetic Fields (on the computer monitor),
61000-4-8.






brian_kunde  on 01/25/2001 12:00:20 PM

Please respond to brian_kunde 


To:   emc-pstc 
cc:(bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US)
Subject:  Cost of EMC Testing





All this talk about Test Labs has got me thinking about the cost for EMC
Testing
for CE marking.  I know test labs have become more competitive over the
last few
years but am I paying too much?

I know that the cost depends on many factors such as the size of the EUT
and how
many configurations, but for the sake of comparison how much should someone
expect to pay for CE testing "EMC ONLY" for a computer (IT Equipment) in
only
one configuration?  That would be one test of the following: Radiated and
Line
Conducted emissions, Harmonics, Flicker, Radiated Immunity, Conducted
Immunity,
Surge, Burst, Dips, & ESD (did I forget anything?).

For you test labs out there please respond directly to me or in a way that
would
not be viewed as advertising. I don't want to get anyone in trouble.

I'm in the United States if that matters. I know that products are shipped
all
over for testing so lab location probably doesn't factor in all that much.

Thanks,
Brian




---
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: Product Marking - new twist

[Rich Nute]

Hi Chris:


>   For instance, one of the messages says that the NEC gives an electrician the
>   right to unplug an un-NRTL-marked piece of equipment.  Another message
>   states that the NRTL's mark is the proof of product safety.  

"NRTL" is a designation issued by OSHA.  

"Approved" is a designation used by the NEC.

An NRTL may or may not be "approved," depending
on the jurisdiction, i.e., the authority 
enforcing the NEC.

The authority enforcing the NEC can disconnect
any equipment that is not "approved."  The
electrician may be delegated (through licensing)
to enforce the NEC, including disconnecting 
equipment that is not "approved."

>   1. Are other certifications from other labs, such as A2LA and/or NVLAP
>   allowed as long as there is a test report?

Under the NEC, equipment must be "approved."
"Approved" is defined as acceptable to the
jurisdiction enforcing the NEC.  The jurisdiction
decides "approved" on a lab-by-lab basis, and
sometimes by standards or equipment type covered 
by that lab.

Ultimately, it boils down to a certification
mark from one of the labs accepted by the
local jurisdiction.  The test report is nothing
more than a record maintained by the certification
house for its own purposes of granting the right
to use the mark on the equipment.

Under the NEC (and OSHA), it is possible to 
install a non-certified product provided it
is tested in place.  In such a situation, the
test report may be highly useful.

(In Europe, the test report is essential, as
Europe relies on the manufacturer proving the
safety of the product.)

>   2.  Does it matter what the voltage rating of the product is?  

No.

Safety certification process almost always requires
the product to be safe (and therefore certified)
in accordance with the product's ratings, including
its input voltage rating.

Although rare, it is possible to certify a multi-
voltage product for one voltage by one lab and 
another voltage by another lab.  This is done by 
agreement between the submittor and the lab.  In
such a case, the voltage for which the certification
applies is specifically related to the certification
mark.

>   3.  For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL mark need
>   to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?

The external ac power supply must be "approved."

The product may or may not need to be approved.  If
the rated input voltage exceeds 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then it must be approved (per the NEC).  If the
rated input voltage is less than 30 V rms or 42.4 V
dc, then the NEC does not require it to be "approved;"
it is a manufacturer's option whether to seek third-
party certification.

>   4.  Does it matter where the product is used? (home, farm, factory ...)

The NEC applies to almost every location (except 
electric utility locations).



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: Product Marking

[Ron Pickard]

Hi Don,

>The requirement for most customers, especially telecommunications providers,
>is that the product be LISTED or RECOGNIZED to comply with the safety
>standards of concern.  The most important being UL1950 and NEBS.  To be
>listed and participate in continuing compliance (required) you must use the
>logo of the certification laboratory, such as ETL, MET, UL, etc.  The
>listing number is also required in close proximity to the logo. (Since this
>is a legal requirement with the lab, it is a "badge of quality" on the
>product, which should be appreciated by your marketing department!)

All true. However, as to the listing number, different NRTLs require/recommend 
different
designations. UL, for instance, requires the word "LISTED", an assigned control 
number along with a
product identity marking (e.g., ITE, NWGQ, etc.). I'm sure that the other NRTLs 
have similar marking
requirements other than just the use of their mark. And, as for quality, 
continued use of a NRTL
mark means only that the product is continuing to be built according to how it 
was written up into
the report, nothing more. I have seen many many instances where reports have 
been simply wrong,
incorrect, and in one case a while back, negligent (I will offer no further 
information about any of
these instances).

>I am told that there are changes "afoot" to allow manufacturers to self
>certify to these requirements, however my experience shows that most of our
>customers will not accept self certification.

IMHO, I don't see self certification in the US happening any time soon, if at 
all. Even if it did,
there would be at least 2 federal regulators (OSHA & NEC) to change their 
reg's, and not to mention
the thousands of municipal authorities. Of course, to align with the EU-US MRA, 
that might actually
happen, but not in the near future or in my lifetime. But, I could be wrong.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.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: Fuse Markings

[Allen, John]

Mike

I believe that you will find the international markings in one of the parts
of IEC60127 (was IEC127).

Although I have'nt got the standards to hand, and if I remember correctly,
typically these markings are: 

"FF"=   Very Fast
"F" =   Fast/Normal 
"T" =   Slow/Time Delay/Slow-Blo
"TT"=   Very Slow 

Thus typical ratings could be: 
- T3.15A + voltage rating for a time-delay fuse
- F3.15A + voltage rating for a fast/normal blow fuse.

By comparison, USA fuses tend to be marked with the words (in "American"
English!).

There also some special fuses around for semiconductor protection - butI
cannot remember the details.

Fuseholder markings must match fuse-ratings if in an Operator-accessible
area.

Also bear in mind that the marked ratings of fuses to UL/Canadian standards
and IEC standards are often different (e.g 3A USA v 3.15A IEC) and they have
different blow characteristics - follow some of the earlier threads on the
RCIC forum for more information.

John Allen
THALES Defence Ltd
Bracknell, UK




-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mike_da...@adc.com]
Sent: 25 January 2001 16:09
To: EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: Fuse Markings



I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Brent DeWitt]

It's conceivable, but the folks at Qualcomm I did base station testing for
seemed to think the problem was real, and they don't make aircraft systems.

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of rbus...@es.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:26 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek







-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



There is growing concern amongst professiona

RE: Fuse Markings

[James, Chris]

EN 60127-1 1991 Clause 6.1d

FF: denoting very quick acting
F: denoting quick acting
M: denoting medium time-lag
T: denoting time-lag
TT: denoting long time-lag


Chris James
Engineering Services Manager
Dolby Laboratories Inc
Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
SN4 8QJ
tel: 01793 842136
fax: 01793 842101
c...@dolby.co.uk
www.dolby.com



-Original Message-
From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mike_da...@adc.com]
Sent: 25 January 2001 16:09
To: EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: Fuse Markings



I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[rbusche]

I may regret saying this, but isn't it conceivable that the FCC Rules that
make it illegal to use a cell phone in the air has more to do with the right
of the airline to sell expensive phone time, than the technical issues? :(

-Original Message-
From: Brent DeWitt [mailto:bdew...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Mike Hopkins; 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek







-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



There is growing concern amongst professional aircrew about the use of
consumer electronics (CD players, mobile phones, hand held GPS etc) on board
aircraft.  Some claim that passenger electronics has definitely interfered
with navigation systems, primary flight displays or engine warning systems.
There are rumours that a mobile phone contributed to the demise of a
Crossair Saab 340 on 10 Jan 2000 killing all passengers and crew.  Some
pilots 

RE: MIL-STD-461E

[Brumbaugh, David]

The only difference that I am aware of is that MIL-STD-461E merges -461D and 
462D into one document (list members, please correct me on this if I am in 
error.)
If you are looking for HEMP, you can refer to MIL-STD-464. It has unclassified 
requirements, but not test methods.
DB

> --
> From: Darrell Locke[SMTP:dlo...@advanced-input.com]
> Reply To: Darrell Locke
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:51 AM
> To:   'EMC-PSTC - forum' (E-mail)
> Subject:  MIL-STD-461E
> 
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> I have received the new revision of MIL-STD-461 revision E.  It contains
> much more detail on testing to the existing requirements.  I have also been
> told by another source that it contains unclassified sections for HAEMP
> testing and parameters.  However, I do not see any reference to HAEMP in the
> E revision.  Can any of you military experts help me out here.
> 
> 1.  What are the differences between 461D and 461E?
> 
> 2.  Are there HAEMP requirements buried in the E revisions somewhere?
> 
> Thanks
>  
> Darrell Locke
> Advanced Input Devices
> 
> ---
> 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: Fuse Markings

[Andrews, Kurt]

Mike,

The following is from clause 5.1.4 of IEC 1010-1 which is for equipment for
measurement, control, and laboratory use. NOTE: IEC 127 is the standard that
International fuses are tested against. Apparently you can use letter or
color codes. 

The letter and color codes of IEC 127 are as follows:

Very quick acting:  FF, or black
Quick acting:   F, or red
Medium time lag:M, or yellow
Time-lag:   T, or blue
Long time-lag:  TT, or grey

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/  


-Original Message-
From:   Davis, Mike [SMTP:mike_da...@adc.com]
Sent:   Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject:Fuse Markings


I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a
product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there
that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I
looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes
on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: consumer electronics used on board aircraft

[Brent DeWitt]

My background is the pretty much the same as Mike's, which is probably why I
agree with his response.  I just wanted to add that the prohibition on cell
phone usage (in the US at least) is not FAA or airline driven, but mandated
by the FCC.  The architecture of the cellular system is rather carefully
planned.  The placement of antenna sites, coverage and hand-off algorithms
are based on the propagation from land based phones, which is quite
different from a phone in an airliner 25000' feet up.  The FCC has therefore
made it illegal to operate a cell phone after the wheels of the plane leave
the ground.

Regards,

Brent DeWitt

"Takeoffs are optional.  Landings are mandatory"

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf
Of Mike Hopkins
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:38 AM
To: 'Colgan, Chris'; 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



As a frequent flyer and private pilot with some knowledge of EMC, I'll throw
in a few comments:

It is clear to me that consumer electronics can interfere with aircraft
electronics, and I've probably heard all the same horror stories -- DC10
finds itself off course on landing, false engine warnings, interrupted
communications, etc... It isn't clear to me how prevalent this problem is or
if it happens often enough to be considered a problem. One instance of
electronic interference is enough to have everyone up in arms against the
use of ANY electronics in ANY airplane.

On a 747 flight to the Pacific, I'd bet there are as many as 30 to 40 lap
top computers operating together at some point during the flight.
Additionally, there are probably another 40 to 50 walkman tape players or CD
players in operation, plus the on-board entertainment systems and a few
in-flight telephones being used. On shorter flights, there may still be a
large number of laptops being used by business people plus tape/CD players
and air phones and the like in use during the flight. I don't think this is
a general problems for aircraft electronics.

HOWEVER; if radio or television receivers or cell phones were allowed, I
believe the level of interference could easily reach the level of being at
least disruptive to aircraft systems if not downright dangerous. I have
personally seen commercial scanners and FM broadcast receivers that will
interfere with voice comms -- 118MHz to 136MHz -- which means they could
certainly interfere with nav equipment operating between 108MHz and 118MHz
(VOR's and ILS's, specifically). I also have a Garmin hand held GPS system
that I cannot find anything that it will interfere with nor have I found
anything that interferes with it (except things getting in the way of the
antenna - Maybe I'm just lucky?).

My sense is the following: Interference with nav stuff is the most likely --
a VOR indicator off, or something like that. With GPS back-up (or getting to
be primary) in most aircraft, a faulty Nav indication would likely be caught
before it was a problem (NOT so if you're on an ILS approach in IMC
(Instrument meteorological conditions) where a faulty indication can run you
into terrain -- this is why no electronics should be operated on the
aircraft below 10,000 feet on take-off or approach).

I doubt a cell phone caused the Saab to crash -- most airplanes will still
fly even with all electronics blocked out (don't know if the Saab is fly by
wire or not, but I don't think so). Horizontal situation indicators and
gyro's are driven by vacuum and in larger airplanes, there's back-up vacuum,
red flashlights in the cockpit, etc... Upsetting autopilot controls might
cause the airplane to do something erratic, but that sort of thing should be
recoverable as long as someone in the cockpit is paying attention.

Enough of that -- need to get back to my real job

Mike Hopkins
KeyTek







-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: consumer electronics used on board aircraft



There is growing concern amongst professional aircrew about the use of
consumer electronics (CD players, mobile phones, hand held GPS etc) on board
aircraft.  Some claim that passenger electronics has definitely interfered
with navigation systems, primary flight displays or engine warning systems.
There are rumours that a mobile phone contributed to the demise of a
Crossair Saab 340 on 10 Jan 2000 killing all passengers and crew.  Some
pilots reckon that it is absolute nonsense.

Knowing what you do, about how EM disturbance can affect electronics
equipment, that it is almost impossible to make electronics equipment
completely immune to EM effects, that FCC class B or CE marked equipment has
not been tested (presumably) with avionics in mind etc, etc, how do you feel
when the guy next to you on your flight gets his Minidisc player or laptop
out?  Remember, when you are descending through a cloud 

RE: Product Marking - new twist

[Don House]

"The customer is not always right, but they are always the customer."

Most of the telecommunications providers require NRTL lab certification
because they are not familiar with the other laboratory certification
agencies.  This has to do with risk management. They are afraid of "Garage
Labs." Most carriers are self insured.  Having a product certified and
listed by a NRTL is a "comfort level" to the companies marketing and
management.

Don (Ameritech NEBS representative - Retired)
Don Robert House, SMTS
Product Certification & Regulatory Compliance
Excelsus Technologies, Inc.
2875 Loker Avenue East
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6626  USA
(760) 918-2552 Office/Lab
(760) 476-1519 FAX
URL: http://www.excelsus-tech.com




-Original Message-
From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:03 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Product Marking - new twist



As I read this thread, a couple of the postings stick out in my mind.

For instance, one of the messages says that the NEC gives an electrician the
right to unplug an un-NRTL-marked piece of equipment.  Another message
states that the NRTL's mark is the proof of product safety.  

Courtland's original question asked about products that were not NRTL
marked.  I want to follow that a little more.  

His original posting considers a product that is safety tested by a third
party lab.  The product has passed the third party safety certification.
However the lab is not an NRTL.  So the product just says "Conforms to UL
1950" or some similar verbage.

1. Are other certifications from other labs, such as A2LA and/or NVLAP
allowed as long as there is a test report?
2.  Does it matter what the voltage rating of the product is?  
3.  For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL mark need
to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?
4.  Does it matter where the product is used? (home, farm, factory ...)

If the answer to the above questions are "No", "No", "Yes" and "No" then,
theoretically, every piece of electronics in use in the United States would
have been NRTL tested and marked.  The tone of the answers in this thread
sounds like this is true.  But I believe it isn't.  Am I whacked here?

Chris Maxwell
Design Engineer
GN Nettest
6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4
Utica,NY 13502
email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
phone:  315-266-5128
fax: 315-797-8024




---
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: Fuse Markings

[Colgan, Chris]

Mike

I certify products to IEC60065 and UL6500.  These standards require the use
of "F" for fast breaking fuses and "T" for time lag.  Eg F1.6A/250V or
T1.6A/250V.

Chris Colgan
Compliance Engineer
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
*Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627
*Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
* http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Davis, Mike [SMTP:mike_da...@adc.com]
> Sent: 25 January 2001 16:09
> To:   EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail (E-mail)
> Subject:  Fuse Markings
> 
> 
> I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product
> that
> needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
> shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked
> in
> the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.
> 
> Michael S. Davis
> Compliance Engineer
> ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
> Tel:  203 630-5788
> Fax:  203 630-5762
> mike_da...@adc.com
> 
>   
> Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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
> 


**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**

The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive
use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error,
please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either
by E-mail, telephone or fax. You  should not  copy, forward or 
otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.

TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)

**  
   Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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

MIL-STD-461E

[Darrell Locke]

Dear Members,

I have received the new revision of MIL-STD-461 revision E.  It contains
much more detail on testing to the existing requirements.  I have also been
told by another source that it contains unclassified sections for HAEMP
testing and parameters.  However, I do not see any reference to HAEMP in the
E revision.  Can any of you military experts help me out here.

1.  What are the differences between 461D and 461E?

2.  Are there HAEMP requirements buried in the E revisions somewhere?

Thanks
 
Darrell Locke
Advanced Input Devices

---
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

Cost of EMC Testing

[brian_kunde]

All this talk about Test Labs has got me thinking about the cost for EMC Testing
for CE marking.  I know test labs have become more competitive over the last few
years but am I paying too much? 

I know that the cost depends on many factors such as the size of the EUT and how
many configurations, but for the sake of comparison how much should someone
expect to pay for CE testing "EMC ONLY" for a computer (IT Equipment) in only
one configuration?  That would be one test of the following: Radiated and Line
Conducted emissions, Harmonics, Flicker, Radiated Immunity, Conducted Immunity,
Surge, Burst, Dips, & ESD (did I forget anything?). 

For you test labs out there please respond directly to me or in a way that would
not be viewed as advertising. I don't want to get anyone in trouble.  

I'm in the United States if that matters. I know that products are shipped all
over for testing so lab location probably doesn't factor in all that much.  

Thanks,
Brian




---
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: Test Laboratory/Tests Equipment

[Don House]

We use only labs that are NRTL with OSHA.
Don

-Original Message-
From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:19 PM
To: Pryor McGinnis; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Test Laboratory/Tests Equipment


I apologise to all.  The correct URL is:
 
www.ctl-lab.com  
 

- Original Message - 
From: Pryor McGinnis   
To: emc-p...@ieee.org   
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: Test Laboratory/Tests Equipment


Hello All,
 
I know that this is not a vehicle for advertising; however, I would like to
present an opportunity to this group.
 
Compliance Test Laboratories, a fully functional Accredited (NVLAP, VCCI,
FCC,
BSMI) EMC Test laboratory located in Liberty, SC, is for sale at a bargain
for the type of business/equipment involved.
 
Sale of individual assets will be considered.
 
Owners desire to retire/pursue other careers.
 
Owner is available for a one year transition period.
 
Please visit www.ct.-lab.com   to view current
equipment at various test
stations and additional information.

If interested, Please contact me via phone (864) 843-1604; Fax (864)
843-1812;
or email c...@prodigy.net  

Best Regards,
Pryor McGinnis
c...@prodigy.net   
www.ctl-lab.com  

RE: Product Marking

[Don House]

Perhaps you are being confused by the symbols.  The UL symbol can only be
used if your product is tested by UL not another lab.  UL1950 and CSA 22.2
are both the same requirements.  They have been "normalized" by
international agreement. 
Text can be used in place of logos if the text is in close proximity to the
logo of the LISTING laboratory.  Of course nothing can be sold in Canada
without the Canadian supplied flag labels with the certification number
imprinted.

Don

-Original Message-
From: Praveen Rao [mailto:p...@tennyson.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:36 PM
To: 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking


This is the symbol (see attached) we were advised to use by CSA for both
Canada and USA.
But no 'UL' to be mentioned anywhere.
The testing was through the CB scheme tested here in Australia.
Praveen


-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tac [mailto:tac.p...@power-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:00 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Courtland,

The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the product with
the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In some cases,
TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards.

Tac,
Power-One TSD


 -Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject:Product Marking


Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org



---
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: Product Marking

[Don House]

Hi Ron,
The requirement for most customers, especially telecommunications providers,
is that the product be LISTED or RECOGNIZED to comply with the safety
standards of concern.  The most important being UL1950 and NEBS.  To be
listed and participate in continuing compliance (required) you must use the
logo of the certification laboratory, such as ETL, MET, UL, etc.  The
listing number is also required in close proximity to the logo. (Since this
is a legal requirement with the lab, it is a "badge of quality" on the
product, which should be appreciated by your marketing department!) 

I am told that there are changes "afoot" to allow manufacturers to self
certify to these requirements, however my experience shows that most of our
customers will not accept self certification.

Regards,
Don

Don Robert House, SMTS
Product Certification & Regulatory Compliance
Excelsus Technologies, Inc.
2875 Loker Avenue East
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6626  USA
(760) 918-2552 Office/Lab
(760) 476-1519 FAX
URL: http://www.excelsus-tech.com


-Original Message-
From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:52 AM
To: Courtland Thomas
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; owner-emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Product Marking




Hi Courtland,

You asked:

>I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
>Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
>on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
>different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as
UL.
>This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
>possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
>use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
>1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
>logo?

Exactly what will "Conforms to UL1950 and CSA 1950" mean to your customers,
given that they are
unfamiliar with your products and knowers of the law? Personally, I would
not believe it since a
NRTL mark is not present (not legal in the workplace environment) and
especially since I believe you
were referring CSA C22.2 No. 950-95.

I'm curious, do you switch NRTLs because one is cheaper (um, less expensive)
than another? In my
experience, I like to stick with a single NRTL. They get to know me, I get
to know them, and we both
get a good working relationship and respect out of the deal. This is worth
far more than a few bucks
saved by switching NRTLs.

Here in the US, such practice is mandated by US law in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR),
specifically 29 CFR Part 2910 Subpart S. These federal regulations come from
OSHA and the US Dept.
of Labor and can be viewed on-line at:

http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc_1910_SUBPART_S.html

BTW, 1910.399(a) gives 3 routes to compliance:
1. Listing by a NRTL,
2. Inspection by a local municipal inspector of every installation*, or
3. For custom-made equipment, test data must be made available for
inspection by the Asst. Secretary
of Labor.

* will likely fall back to a NRTL anyway due to the inspector's lack of
technical expertise.

IMHO, I do believe that choice #1 would be the path of least resistance.
And, why would anyone
willingly invite the government into their organization? (rhetorical
question here)

Also, the US National Electric Code (NEC) requires NRTL listing of products.

I am very sure that Canada has a similar system in place requiring product
certification.

>Thanks,

No problem. I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.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

Fuse Markings

[Davis, Mike]

I am in the process of updating markings for power ratings on a product that
needs a marking for a FAST blow fuse. Is there a reference out there that
shows the letter designations for the various blow open speeds? I looked in
the IEC 417 and in UL1950 3rd edition to no avail. The search goes on.

Michael S. Davis
Compliance Engineer
ADC BATG Compliance Engineering
Tel:  203 630-5788
Fax:  203 630-5762
mike_da...@adc.com  


Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: Lights for 3-meter Chamber

[Price, Ed]

-Original Message-
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com
[mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 6:15 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Lights for 3-meter Chamber



We are setting up a 3-meter chamber to do some pre-compliance measurements.
What are the best low emissions lights to purchase for this chamber.
Please be specific as to manufacturer and models.

Thanks

Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems


---

The choice for internal chamber lighting is still simply incandescent bulbs.
Avoid anything that uses fluorescent lights, and also avoid any electronic
ballast or driver circuitry.

Incandescent lamps within chambers have a reputation for burning out
quickly. This is because they are turned on and off so much (I turn mine off
whenever I close the chamber door), and also because the lights are operated
off of filtered power. When the lights are off, there is often very little
load on the output side of the room filters, causing a slight voltage rise.
Thus, the lights are turned on usually with a slightly high nominal voltage
condition.

You can use expensive "traffic light" lamps, or you may find some industrial
bulbs rated for 130V or so. My position is ordinary light bulbs are cheap. I
just keep a case handy, and I bought one of those extension wands so that I
can change a bulb without even getting a ladder.

I also installed a couple of 150W floodlights, so that I can switch them on
to help my digital camera's flash when I take pictures. (The anechoic wall
treatment really soaks up the available light; I usually force the camera up
the equivalent of two "f-stops", even with the floodlights.)

Regards,

Ed


Ed  Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (Fax)
Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty
Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

IEC 606010-1-2

[Brian O'Connell]

Any advance info on conducted emissions for the new standard?

thnx
Brian O'Connell
Taiyo Yuden (USA), 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

RE: Product Marking

[Joe Finlayson]

Vitaly,

I believe you misinterpreted my statement.  I was not implying that
you test to a standard and then arbitrarily place an NRTL mark on your
product.  The original question was, "If we go to a NRTL and get Safety
testing performed ..would it be possible to just put "Conforms to
UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a
requirement to have a logo?"  My point was that if you have the product
tested by NRTL X and do not affix the logo of NRTL X, your product is not
considered to be NRTL Listed as it will not audited at the factory.  Does it
comply with the standard? - yes.  Can you print on a label that it complies?
- yes.  Can you tell your customers that your are NRTL Listed, no.  This, in
addition to the other valuable input, validates the fact (for me, anyway)
that the NRTL mark should be affixed to the product, especially since you
just went through all that work!!  My apologies if I misinterpreted the
intent of the original question.  

Thx,


Joe


Joe Finlayson
Manager, Compliance Engineering
Telica, Inc.
734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100
Marlboro, MA 01752
Tel:(508) 480-0909 x212
Fax:(508) 480-0922
Email:  jfinlay...@telica.com


-Original Message-
From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:26 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Joe -

It is the other way around: you can mark your product only if it's NRTL
Listed.  Manufacturers are supposed to obtain Authorization to mark from an
NRTL Lab which performed safety evaluation.   There's no Mutual Agreement
allowing arbitrary mark alternation: you can't use UL mark if, let's say,
you obtained Authorization from ITS (all marks were born equal but some
marks are more equal than others).  Product Listing results in Follow up
Service, it is required for continuous use of the mark. 

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Joe Finlayson [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:45 PM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject:RE: Product Marking



My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't
mark it,
it is not considered Listed.  It doesn't matter if it has been
tested or
not.  I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a
factory audit,
they will only review marked product.  Therefore, if you do not mark
it, you
can not claim NRTL Listing.

-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject: Product Marking



Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL
and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for
example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with
having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo
such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which
doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and
CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to
have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee 

RE: Product Marking

[rfm]

None of the MARKS are listed on the web site. Only the company name(s) are
shown, with links to their scopes of accreditation.



-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:49 PM
To: bolin...@dscltd.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Product Marking



I see no cETL listed at http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html
I did see ITS listed.




bolintic%dscltd@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:52:35 PM

To:   "George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com,
  emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: Product Marking



Dear George,

Just a small clarification: in regard to item 5, "one of the following..",
are mixed-up TESTING AGENCIES(NRTLs) with MARKS. In Canada, are acceptable
the following MARKS:

CSA, cETL (issued by ITS - Intertek Testing Services, formerly Inchcape
T.S.), cUL and ULC. (for CERTIFICATION purposes.)

Respectfully yours,
Constantin

Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng.
DIGITAL SECURITY CONTROLS LTD.
3301 LANGSTAFF Road, L4K 4L2
CONCORD, ONTARIO, CANADA
e-mail: bolin...@dscltd.com
telephone: 905 760 3000 ext 2568
www.dscgrp.com


-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 3:49 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Product Marking



Courtland,

You raise a very interesting question, prompted by the usual "Dilbert"
marketing thinking.  Here are some comments, in no particular order,
nor do I draw a conclusion:

1.  As you know, OSHA has approved multiple NRTLs to issue certifications
to UL 1950 and other standards.  We were once acquiring a product which
used the CSA/NRTL mark, i.e. perfectly acceptable.  Marketing thought
the world would come to an end, as they would not be able to respond to
bids (particularly gov't bids) specifying "UL" approval. I personally
assured marketing that if a U.S. gov't bid held to the "UL" approval
requirement they would be at odds with OSHA, i.e. the Code of Federal
Regulations. We wrote a statement for them to the effect that the
product was tested as conforming to UL 1950 etc. without specifying
the agency.  They finally accepted our position, but we still get the
UL mark on most products.

2.  Similarly, Canada will accept a CSA or c-UL mark. However, it seems
that the Canadian gov't prefers the CSA mark when bidding for their use.
Hence, we normally require the CSA mark for models that would most likely
be candidates for gov't office use.

3.  It is my observation and position that customers buying off-the-
shelf or over the internet have no clue what a power rating label is nor
do they look at it after purchase.  Therefore, for the average consumer,
the particular marks or absence thereof matters little.

4.  Large customers of business products do often want know the details
of marks and approvals, but do not necessarily understand that UL =
CSA/NRTL = ITS = MET etc. if tested to the same UL/CSA standards.

5.  If you do NOT market to Canadian gov't, I suggest using any one of
the following, acceptable for other customers in both countries, assuming
your marketing can live with any of these:

-  c-UL-us
-  MET
-  ITS
-  TUVR


George Alspaugh
-- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
01/24/2001
03:35 PM ---

cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com on 01/24/2001 04:05:09 PM

Please respond to cthomas%patton@interlock.lexmark.com

To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Product Marking




Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org






---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

T

RE: Product Marking - new twist

[Chris Maxwell]

As I read this thread, a couple of the postings stick out in my mind.

For instance, one of the messages says that the NEC gives an electrician the
right to unplug an un-NRTL-marked piece of equipment.  Another message
states that the NRTL's mark is the proof of product safety.  

Courtland's original question asked about products that were not NRTL
marked.  I want to follow that a little more.  

His original posting considers a product that is safety tested by a third
party lab.  The product has passed the third party safety certification.
However the lab is not an NRTL.  So the product just says "Conforms to UL
1950" or some similar verbage.

1. Are other certifications from other labs, such as A2LA and/or NVLAP
allowed as long as there is a test report?
2.  Does it matter what the voltage rating of the product is?  
3.  For products with external AC power supplies, would the NRTL mark need
to be on the supply and the product?  Or the supply only?
4.  Does it matter where the product is used? (home, farm, factory ...)

If the answer to the above questions are "No", "No", "Yes" and "No" then,
theoretically, every piece of electronics in use in the United States would
have been NRTL tested and marked.  The tone of the answers in this thread
sounds like this is true.  But I believe it isn't.  Am I whacked here?

Chris Maxwell
Design Engineer
GN Nettest
6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4
Utica,NY 13502
email: chris.maxw...@gnnettest.com
phone:  315-266-5128
fax: 315-797-8024




---
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: Product Marking

[Andrews, Kurt]

Praveen,

The symbol you attached is the CSA Listing mark showing approval for use in
the U.S. and Canada. It is the equivalent of the UL Listing mark for the
U.S. and Canada. CSA has been approved as a NRTL by OSHA so a product with
this mark will satisfy the requirements of both OSHA and the NEC along with
the regulatory authorities in Canada. It indicates evaluation to both the
U.S. and Canadian standards. Some U.S. consumers may not know that this mark
is essentially the same as the UL mark, which can be a marketing issue.
However consumers in Canada would be more familiar with this mark. The
reason you see so many different marks on some products is a marketing
issue. Consumers are typically more familiar with marks from their own
countries. If you look at the back of any newer computer monitor you can see
what I mean. I have seen monitors with as many as 7 or 8 different marks,
most of which indicate compliance to the same standards.

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer

Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
voice:  614.846.6175
toll free:  800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791

http://www.tracewellsystems.com/  


-Original Message-
From:   Praveen Rao [SMTP:p...@tennyson.com.au]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:36 PM
To: 'Pham, Tac'; 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject:RE: Product Marking

This is the symbol (see attached) we were advised to use by CSA for
both
Canada and USA.
But no 'UL' to be mentioned anywhere.
The testing was through the CB scheme tested here in Australia.
Praveen


-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tac [mailto:tac.p...@power-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:00 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Courtland,

The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the
product with
the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In
some cases,
TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards.

Tac,
Power-One TSD


 -Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject:Product Marking


Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL
and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for
example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with
having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo
such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which
doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and
CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to
have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

 << File: CSA NRTL.doc >> 

---
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: Product "Risks"

[John Juhasz]

As always . . . George has provided excellent commentary! 

Well said George!!

John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY

-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:08 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Product "Risks"



Product safety is a relative term.  It usually means that
a product meets the public's generally accepted level of risk
for the benefits it provides.  My plastic coffee mug is quite
"safe", aside from the stuff that I sometimes allow to grow
inside.  My chain saw is a nightmare waiting to happen, but it
provides benefits well beyond the hand powered bow saw I once
used.

Humans are willing to take many risks which have some rewards,
driving a car, flying in a plane, skiing, filling up their gas
tank, etc.  In my opinion, even if cellphones are someday found
to increase the risk of cancerous brain tumors, the public will
not let that stop them from suing what has become a part of the
culture, moreso in underdeveloped countries, as their existing
land line phone systems suck.

However, there are some products we purchase and use all the time
for which we assume there is little or no risk.  A good example
might be the home or office ITE devices we use.  Do you really
think of possible injuries when using your PC, printer, scanner,
etc.?  Aslo, look at how many CPSC recalls are for seemingly
benign products; pajamas, plastic toys, curtains, ..?

Speaking of vehicle safety, when was the last time you heard of
an accident that was totally due to a defective part.  Accidents
are largely due to bad drivers.  When we speak of car safety,
don't we usually mean that when a bad driver causes an accident,
the car's design should protect us from any serious consequences?

Most folks in first world countries have enough drugs in their
medicine cabinet, and flammable liquids in their garage to either
poison or burn down the entire neighborhood.  Is this "safe"?
I don't think so, but these are products we have accepted as a
part of everyday life.

Go figure

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: Client Presence During Testing

[Roger Magnuson]

Kate,

We are a test lab as well as a regular client at many different labs around
the world and we never use test labs that don't allow us to attend the
testing. We always provide technical support during testing which in my
opinion benefits all involved. The same applies when we do the testing, if
only the client representative is competent we prefer to get immediate
support instead of endless discussions via email (or late night phone
calls).


Roger Magnuson
Managing Director, TGC AB
Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden
TEL: +46 856250050 (direct)
FAX: +46 856250045
mobile: +46 707770594
mailto:ro...@tgc.se
internet: http://www.tgc.se


-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of k.macl...@aprel.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Client Presence During Testing


Hello, Folks -

Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client
presence during testing?  I'd like to know

a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ?  If not, then
where are clients who are at the lab normally placed?
b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in
this respect?
c) What about formal witnessing of tests?
d) How you feel about the policies that are in use?  Do they influence your
choice of labs?
f)  Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use?  How do
you feel about this, and is it an influencer?
e) Any other comments about this?

Huge thanks in advance for your input!  (Labs are welcome to comment, too!)

Kate

Kathy M. MacLean
President, APREL Laboratories
-EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE-
-Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless-
51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6
(613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161
cell (613) 791-3777
Web site:  http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon!

RE: Blue alarm color

[Don House]

The function of the Blue alarm is that something is deteriorating and will
eventually go to Red if interaction is not taken to correct a problem. Blue
indicates that no single customer is currently out of service but warns that
they might if another failure occurs. 

Example:  Circuit A fails but is automatically switched to a protection
spare.  Blue says that if Circuit B fails there will be no protection spare
since A and B share the same protection circuit.  Circuit A must be restored
to get rid of the Blue alarm.  In older systems Yellow was used for this
function.  Yellow is different in that the alarm indicates that the
particular circuitry associated with the yellow alarm is actually out of
service. In this case Circuit A would be Yellow.

2nd Example:  A bit error rate or severely errors seconds alarm could be
defined as a Blue Alarm if the degradation is not enough to be defined as
out of service.

I am looking for the official description(s) but have not yet found it.

Don
Don Robert House, SMTS
Product Certification & Regulatory Compliance
Excelsus Technologies, Inc.
2875 Loker Avenue East
Carlsbad, CA 92008-6626  USA
(760) 918-2552 Office/Lab
(760) 476-1519 FAX
URL: http://www.excelsus-tech.com




-Original Message-
From: David Spencer [mailto:dspen...@oresis.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:04 AM
To: 'n...@world.std.com'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Cc: 't...@world.std.com'
Subject: RE: NEBS/telco LED alarm color


Hi Dwight,
>From GR499:Dec 1995:
"
R12-2 [313] The following color conventions shall be adhered to:
RED To indicate critical or major failure, error, or danger
YELLOW  To indicate a minor failure, caution, warning, or temporary
malfunction
GREEN   To indicate satisfactory operation, completion of a
process,or proceed
WHITE   To indicate a neutral condition that implies nothing about
the success or failure of system operations (e.g., status of a switch).
"

Have a Great Day!
Dave Spencer
Oresis Communications

-Original Message-
From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:51 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Cc: 't...@world.std.com'; 'n...@world.std.com'
Subject: NEBS/telco LED alarm color


All-
Our system test guys are concerned that we don't vary our T1 card indicator
LED color to distinguish between minor, major, and critical alarms. I recall
a Bellcore spec that says we have to do this. Can anyone help me track down
the spec reference for this? thanks
Dwight

Lights for 3-meter Chamber

[MartinJP]

We are setting up a 3-meter chamber to do some pre-compliance measurements.
What are the best low emissions lights to purchase for this chamber.
Please be specific as to manufacturer and models.

Thanks

Joe Martin
Applied Biosystems


---
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: Test Laboratory/Tests Equipment

[Pryor McGinnis]

I apologise to all.  The correct URL is:

www.ctl-lab.com

  - Original Message - 
  From: Pryor McGinnis 
  To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:39 PM
  Subject: Test Laboratory/Tests Equipment


  Hello All,

  I know that this is not a vehicle for advertising; however, I would like to 
present an opportunity to this group.
   
  Compliance Test Laboratories, a fully functional Accredited (NVLAP, VCCI, FCC,
  BSMI) EMC Test laboratory located in Liberty, SC, is for sale at a bargain 
for the type of business/equipment involved.
   
  Sale of individual assets will be considered.
   
  Owners desire to retire/pursue other careers.
   
  Owner is available for a one year transition period.
   
  Please visit www.ct.-lab.com to view current equipment at various test
  stations and additional information.

  If interested, Please contact me via phone (864) 843-1604; Fax (864) 843-1812;
  or email c...@prodigy.net

  Best Regards,
  Pryor McGinnis
  c...@prodigy.net 
  www.ctl-lab.com

RE: Product Marking

[Gorodetsky, Vitaly]

Joe -

It is the other way around: you can mark your product only if it's NRTL
Listed.  Manufacturers are supposed to obtain Authorization to mark from an
NRTL Lab which performed safety evaluation.   There's no Mutual Agreement
allowing arbitrary mark alternation: you can't use UL mark if, let's say,
you obtained Authorization from ITS (all marks were born equal but some
marks are more equal than others).  Product Listing results in Follow up
Service, it is required for continuous use of the mark. 

Vitaly  Gorodetsky

The suitability of this information for making decision is solely with the
reader


-Original Message-
From:   Joe Finlayson [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:45 PM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject:RE: Product Marking



My understanding of the NRTL marking is that if you don't
mark it,
it is not considered Listed.  It doesn't matter if it has been
tested or
not.  I believe the issue is that if the NRTL is performing a
factory audit,
they will only review marked product.  Therefore, if you do not mark
it, you
can not claim NRTL Listing.

-Original Message-
From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject: Product Marking



Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL
and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for
example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with
having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo
such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which
doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and
CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to
have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
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: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court

[Bandele Adepoju]

Uhmmm ... 
 
This makes me wonder about this display monitor in front of me. Didn't I
read somewhere...
 
Bandele 

-Original Message-
From: kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com [mailto:kazimier_gawrzy...@dell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:28 AM
To: rbus...@es.com; gil...@nortelnetworks.com; peter.tar...@sanmina.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court



Interesting,
 
Guess the power companies will be the next target since the jury still seems
to be out on impacts of low frequency E-H fields.  We already know the
pollution generated by companies (which also fuel the economy) is bad.  Can
I sue?  I can't get away from it unless I buy bottled air...a niche market
of the future no doubt.
 
Does the plaintiff just want a free headset?  The article discusses the use
of headsets with the implication of their use as a method of reduction of
exposure.  Weren't there studies conducted indicating that some headsets on
some phones increased the radiation levels?  Besides, even if supplied, how
do you prove the headset was/was not used?  There's always testimonials I
suppose.

 
Hot dogs.  What do they feed the critters that end up on every child's plate
in the form of a weenie?  Are the critter feeds sprayed with pesticides and
herbicides?  Do the critter-feed pesticides/herbicides bear the warning of
"might be harmful if consumed"?  
 
I wonder how far David will get against goliath?  The legal folks are sure
to benefit and we'll all see yet another  definition of dangerous.
 
My opinion only and not that of my employer.
 

Kaz Gawrzyjal

 -Original Message-
From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:01 AM
To: gil...@nortelnetworks.com; peter.tar...@sanmina.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court


The difference is that everyone knows that a car can be dangerous. IF cell
phones are proven hazardous, most people  would not be aware or understand
the risk. Im not saying that these aligations are valid, but it does make
sense to keep informed.
 
Rick Busche

-Original Message-
From: Mark Gill [mailto:gil...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:33 AM
To: peter.tar...@sanmina.com; 'PSTC - articles 1'
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court



Funny thing - automobile manufacturers are making and selling cars with the
knowledge that they may be dangerous! 

 -Original Message- 
From:   Tarver, Peter [SC1:9031:EXCH]  
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 10:32 AM 
To: PSTC - articles 1 
Subject:Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court 

From the Telecom Digest 

Monty Solomon wrote: 
> 
> Cell Phone Suit Will Get Its Day in Court 
> 
> NEW ORLEANS, La. - In ruling that could shake the cell phone industry, a
federal judge let stand a lawsuit that says companies are making and selling
cell phones with the knowledge that they may be dangerous.

> 
> http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21540,00.html
  
> -- 
> The Telecom Digest is currently mostly robomoderated. Please mail 
> messages to edi...@telecom-digest.org. 

Jan. 19, 2001 EMC/Telco/Product Safety Update Now Available

[Glen Dash]

The Curtis-Straus Update for the week ending Jan. 19, 2001 is now
available at:

http://www.conformity-update.com

This week's headlines are:

AGILENT (HP) EXITS THE EMC BUSINESS.
HEARD THE ONE ABOUT CELL PHONE SAR?
FCC:  MORE SPECTRUM FOR ADVANCED WIRELESS.
PCB MAKERS MAY HAVE TO REPORT LEAD USAGE.
UK AGENCY PUBLISHES STUDY ON TESTING ABOVE 1 GHZ.
UK STEPS INTO THE ULTRA WIDE BAND DEBATE.
EU REGULATORY UPDATE.
WHAT'S C63 UP TO?
STANDARDS UPDATE.
MEETINGS, SEMINARS, ETC

---
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: Product Marking

[Praveen Rao]

This is the symbol (see attached) we were advised to use by CSA for both
Canada and USA.
But no 'UL' to be mentioned anywhere.
The testing was through the CB scheme tested here in Australia.
Praveen


-Original Message-
From: Pham, Tac [mailto:tac.p...@power-one.com]
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:00 AM
To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost
Subject: RE: Product Marking



Courtland,

The NRTL (UL, CSA) would not like the idea that one marked the product with
the word UL or CSA because (their argument) it is misleading. In some cases,
TUV, ETL etc. can certify some products using UL/CSA standards.

Tac,
Power-One TSD


 -Original Message-
From:   Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] 
Sent:   Wednesday, January 24, 2001 1:05 PM
To: emcpost
Subject:Product Marking


Hello group,

I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get
Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example)
on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having
different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL.
This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price
possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't
use UL. Would it be possible to just put "Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA
1950" on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a
logo?

Thanks,

Courtland Thomas
Patton Electronics


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org




CSA NRTL.doc
Description: MS-Word document

RE: Product "Risks"

[Bandele Adepoju]

A subject close to my heart...

Let me add -
 
I once picked up my car from the service shop 
(a simple tire rotation, I thought), drove one 
block and my two rear tires came right off the car.  
The car wobbled and just dropped! It turned out that 
the service person (or should I say "service idiot") 
forgot to screw in wheel nuts. 

I say that if you look deep enough, human error beyond
the driver can be traced to a lot of auto crashes (I
refuse to call them "accidents").

Regards,

Bandele 
Jetstream Communications, Inc.
badep...@jetstream.com



>-Original Message-
>From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:06 PM
>To: private_u...@lexmark.com
>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: Product "Risks"
>
>
>
>My two cents . . .
>
>And many of those related to part failure are still related to 
>human error.
>
>There is some evidence that the Firestone problem is related 
>to under inflated
>tires which is a driver responsibility.
>
>This doesn't even address the faulty maintenance that causes 
>accidents that may
>never be attributed to human error beyond the driver. (i.e. 
>faulty brake jobs,
>missing lug nuts, etc.)
>
>There was a news report recently that showed recording of a 
>State Patrolman's
>car camera.
>While stopped for a traffic accident the camera recorded a car 
>crossing the
>median in a slow rotation and striking a tow truck that was 
>trying to remove the
>first wrecked vehicles.
>The reporter stated that the cause was the bad weather.
>Did the driver have any responsibility for driving too fast on 
>ice covered
>roads?
>
>Besides the litigious culture, we want to blame all of our 
>problem on someone
>else.
>
>I agree that virtually all of the automotive "accidents" are 
>traceable to the
>nut that holds the steering wheel.
>
>OO
>
>
>
>
>"George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com 
>on 01/24/2001
>04:36:15 PM
>
>Please respond to 
>"George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
>
>To:   emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
>cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark)
>Subject:  Product "Risks"
>
>
>
>
>Allow me to make one addendum to my prior note before I get blasted
>by the readers.  I implied that virtually all traffic accidents are
>due to bad drivers.  I overlooked the infamous Firestone tire episode.
>
>However, this does not alter my position.  If you had a pie diagram
>indicating the accidents vs. (1) bad driver choices, and (2) vehicle
>defects, the latter would be a barely discernable sliver.
>
>George
>
>
>
>---
>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