RE: Applying the appropriate ENs
Rich, I agree with you with your statement rather than address products, safety standards need to address hazards. However, the hazard standards must be made taking into consideration the environment in which the product is used light industry, heavy industry, medical, office, outdoor, home, etc.. For example, a product's leakage current should be stricter if product is used in outdoor non-protected envieonments or as medical equipment. Similarly, a product's mechanical hazards should be guarded more if used by ordinary persons and less if product is used by professionally trained persons. PETER S. MERGUERIAN -Original Message- From: Rich Nute To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: 9/26/01 7:01 PM Subject: Re: Applying the appropriate ENs It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s) required. Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on the part of standards organizations that standards should be per product has created problems that most of us would like to avoid. Consider product safety. The safeguards required for protection against electric shock, for example, are independent of the product. Although we have product standards for hair dryers and for computers, the requirements for safety are common. Rather than address products, safety standards need to address hazards. While the products I deal with are computer peripherals, I had the opportunity the other day to attend a seminar on insulation diagrams used for medical products. The interesting fact is that the seminar did not address anything unique to medical products. Rather, it addressed a tool -- insulation diagrams -- that is equally applicable to my products and all other products where protection against electric shock is required. Indeed, the insulation diagrams of some of my products are identical to the medical product insulation diagrams presented in the seminar! (For the purposes of electric shock, the only differences between a computer peripheral and a medical product are the limit values used for the various parts of the equipment.) I would like to see safety standards based on the hazards. I would like to see separate, independent safety standards for electric shock, electrically- caused fire, thermal injury, moving parts (kinetic energy), etc. (Note that the USA and Canada already have independent safety standards for x-radiation and electromagnetic radiations. These standards are based on the hazard, not on the product.) Doing this job is not easy. If you compare product safety standards, you will find much in common, but you will also find differences. It is these differences that cause difficulties in writing a generic safety standard. Committees are reluctant to discard any requirement on the basis that products built to the standard have a good record. Likewise, committees are reluctant to introduce a new requirement because it may cost manufacturers more money in the product design, and products built to existing requirements have a good record. Virtually no one is willing to invest in research in product safety in order to make decisions on whether or not a safety requirement is an effective safety requirement. There are a few -- very few -- exceptions. The basis of IEC 664 (dimensioning of insulation) is research. More recently, the CES has published research data on TV fires. Our EMC colleagues don't appear to be so hampered. They have peer-reviewed journals, and annual symposia reporting on the results of research. A bunch of IEEE folks are doing their best to set up an IEEE Product Safety Society. I would hope that this society will serve to improve product safety, to bring it to the same level as EMC. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael
RE: Steel Balls vs. Chickens
The sign at China Lake: WHAT YOU SEE HERE, SAY HERE, DO HERE, STAYS HERE! JOHN E. STUCKEY EMC Engineer NCT EMC 002047
RE: Applying the appropriate ENs
This is a natural reaction - and even an 'Enforcement Officer' in the UK has produced a book suggesting that you can do a safety review and apply the CE Marking for safety using only ONE template (which happens to be his book!!!). Consider the number of PRODUCT standards written - these reflect the accepted degree of protection (Operator or User) for each product under specified operating conditions and accepted uses. Simplistically USE will change safety. (Indoor - Outdoor and Underwater lights). Using the SAME STANDARD approach there is a VERY REAL risk of over design being forced upon manufacturers and product costs soaring. More subtle situations exist. We have recently obtained a UL Listing for a UK product (The First Pocket CDR) - the test lab suggested '065 but I insisted upon '950 because (amongst other things, the Creepage and clearance distances between the two standards is not compatible and as a result '950 provides a higher level of protection for the user). There is no issue when two '950 products are interconnected, but the user safety of the '950 product MAY BE REDUCED if a non'950 product is connected. AGAIN - consider SHORT CIRCUIT protection and investigation. for a domestic product the issues are simple - does the fuse blow before the cable melts and catches fire.. For SWITCH GEAR the issues are significantly different. Do the busbar fixings survive the stresses caused by adiabatic heating or do the bus bars rip themselves out of the enclosure and beat the operator to death???!! It is for these and many other reasons that there are SO MANY STANDARDS. What I have tried to do in my training courses and material is to teach engineers, not to generalize, but to think laterally of the potential problems and issues - that is how to develop the probing - enquiring and disbelieving mind necessary to become expert in the world of product safety. Best regards Gregg -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:02 PM To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: Re: Applying the appropriate ENs It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s) required. Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on the part of standards organizations that standards should be per product has created problems that most of us would like to avoid. Consider product safety. The safeguards required for protection against electric shock, for example, are independent of the product. Although we have product standards for hair dryers and for computers, the requirements for safety are common. Rather than address products, safety standards need to address hazards. While the products I deal with are computer peripherals, I had the opportunity the other day to attend a seminar on insulation diagrams used for medical products. The interesting fact is that the seminar did not address anything unique to medical products. Rather, it addressed a tool -- insulation diagrams -- that is equally applicable to my products and all other products where protection against electric shock is required. Indeed, the insulation diagrams of some of my products are identical to the medical product insulation diagrams presented in the seminar! (For the purposes of electric shock, the only differences between a computer peripheral and a medical product are the limit values used for the various parts of the equipment.) I would like to see safety standards based on the hazards. I would like to see separate, independent safety standards for electric shock, electrically- caused fire, thermal injury, moving parts (kinetic energy), etc. (Note that the USA and Canada already have independent safety standards for x-radiation and electromagnetic radiations. These standards are based on the hazard, not on the product.) Doing this job is not easy. If you compare product safety standards, you will find much in common, but you will also find differences. It is these differences that cause difficulties in writing a generic safety standard. Committees are reluctant to discard any requirement on the basis that products built to the standard have a good record. Likewise, committees are reluctant to introduce a new requirement because it may cost manufacturers more money in the product design, and products built to existing requirements have a good record. Virtually no one is willing to invest in research in product safety in order to make decisions on whether or not a safety requirement is an effective safety requirement. There are a few -- very few -- exceptions. The basis of IEC 664 (dimensioning of insulation) is research. More recently, the CES has published research data on TV fires. Our EMC colleagues don't appear to be so hampered. They have peer-reviewed journals, and annual symposia reporting on the results of research. A bunch of IEEE folks
RE: Thin Insulation (Electrical) Material
I like a material called 'Formex GK' polypropylene because is is not hygroscopic like nomex and has acceptable flame rating. I dont know if they offer it in clear. Model GK-17BK comes in a 24 inch by 1000 foot roll and is 0.017 thick black sheet. UL listed CCN: QMFZ2 file # E121855 Try: ITW Fastex, Div. of Illinois Tool Works, inc. U.S.A. 847-299- Cheers, Kyle Ehler KCOIQE mailto:kyle.eh...@lsil.com Assistant Design Engineer LSI Logic Storage Systems Div. 3718 N. Rock Road U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 Ph. 316 636 8657 Fax 316 636 8321 -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:16 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Thin Insulation (Electrical) Material Hi, I am looking for source/names/information on thin electrical insulation material - preferrably in the UK please. I have a small metal housing, which needs additional insulation. My first prototype used polyester tape, as used for transformer windings. Tape is not an ideal solution due to the size of the area to be covered. So far I have come up with: Nomex Aramid Paper (RS cat. no:) 349-9712 Phenolic Fabric (RS cat no:) 374-395 Ideally I would like to use a clear plastic film, but have yet to find any. Any suggestions appreciated. Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel Balls vs. Chickens
A really trick cannon was used at China Lake-NWTC Edwards-AFB to test the impact resistance on All Weather Aircraft wind screens canopy's. Fresh Frozen chickens were defrosted the day before and shot out of a high pressure tube at the subject wind screens canopy's simulating bird impact in flight. At the end of the test you could not imagine the carnage unless you saw it. What a mess. Many times I wished I was able to photograph the scene - but no cameras allowed. Michael Taylor. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:51 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Steel Balls vs. Chickens In the late 1960's I was working on what became IBM's first copier. We made frequent use of NESA glass, a PPG product. This consisted of an ultra-thin gold layer deposited on glass sheets. We could perform photoconductor light-discharge experiments by coating the PC on the gold surface, and expose from the opposite side. I was told that the NESA glass concept was developed during WWII to defrost bomber windshields. These were typically made of plexi-glass, and would not thermally conduct sufficient heat from within the cockpit to defrost the exterior. The gold coating was placed on the outside of the windshield, and DC current passed across the surface to create enough heat to melt frost. The question of durability of the gold coating to birds striking the surface was established by firing dead chickens at test surfaces. I often kidded one of my mechanical engineering friends that he could and should design a top-of-the-line chicken cannon, with variable muzzle velocity, variable bores for using birds of different sizes, etc. As you know, jet airplane engines are still tested for their resiliency to birds both small (near airport ground level) and large (those ecountered at high altitudes) by similar methods. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Steel Balls vs. Chickens
In the late 1960's I was working on what became IBM's first copier. We made frequent use of NESA glass, a PPG product. This consisted of an ultra-thin gold layer deposited on glass sheets. We could perform photoconductor light-discharge experiments by coating the PC on the gold surface, and expose from the opposite side. I was told that the NESA glass concept was developed during WWII to defrost bomber windshields. These were typically made of plexi-glass, and would not thermally conduct sufficient heat from within the cockpit to defrost the exterior. The gold coating was placed on the outside of the windshield, and DC current passed across the surface to create enough heat to melt frost. The question of durability of the gold coating to birds striking the surface was established by firing dead chickens at test surfaces. I often kidded one of my mechanical engineering friends that he could and should design a top-of-the-line chicken cannon, with variable muzzle velocity, variable bores for using birds of different sizes, etc. As you know, jet airplane engines are still tested for their resiliency to birds both small (near airport ground level) and large (those ecountered at high altitudes) by similar methods. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s) required. Unfortunately, this archaic and provincial view on the part of standards organizations that standards should be per product has created problems that most of us would like to avoid. Consider product safety. The safeguards required for protection against electric shock, for example, are independent of the product. Although we have product standards for hair dryers and for computers, the requirements for safety are common. Rather than address products, safety standards need to address hazards. While the products I deal with are computer peripherals, I had the opportunity the other day to attend a seminar on insulation diagrams used for medical products. The interesting fact is that the seminar did not address anything unique to medical products. Rather, it addressed a tool -- insulation diagrams -- that is equally applicable to my products and all other products where protection against electric shock is required. Indeed, the insulation diagrams of some of my products are identical to the medical product insulation diagrams presented in the seminar! (For the purposes of electric shock, the only differences between a computer peripheral and a medical product are the limit values used for the various parts of the equipment.) I would like to see safety standards based on the hazards. I would like to see separate, independent safety standards for electric shock, electrically- caused fire, thermal injury, moving parts (kinetic energy), etc. (Note that the USA and Canada already have independent safety standards for x-radiation and electromagnetic radiations. These standards are based on the hazard, not on the product.) Doing this job is not easy. If you compare product safety standards, you will find much in common, but you will also find differences. It is these differences that cause difficulties in writing a generic safety standard. Committees are reluctant to discard any requirement on the basis that products built to the standard have a good record. Likewise, committees are reluctant to introduce a new requirement because it may cost manufacturers more money in the product design, and products built to existing requirements have a good record. Virtually no one is willing to invest in research in product safety in order to make decisions on whether or not a safety requirement is an effective safety requirement. There are a few -- very few -- exceptions. The basis of IEC 664 (dimensioning of insulation) is research. More recently, the CES has published research data on TV fires. Our EMC colleagues don't appear to be so hampered. They have peer-reviewed journals, and annual symposia reporting on the results of research. A bunch of IEEE folks are doing their best to set up an IEEE Product Safety Society. I would hope that this society will serve to improve product safety, to bring it to the same level as EMC. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
I read in !emc-pstc that wo...@sensormatic.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A43A3B3@flbocexu05) about 'Applying the appropriate ENs', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001: Assume a product is primarily intended for a particular use (example: CCTV for surveillance use) and the appropriate ENs are applied for that intended use and a Declaration of Conformity is issued listing the applied standard. Now assume that the product is marketed and sold for a secondary intended use (example: professional audio/video) where the same essential requirements apply but other ENs exist for that application. Is it legally required to also apply the other ENs and list them on the Declaration? In principle, yes, because it is assumed that different applications are likely to involve different EMC environments, especially in respect of what other equipment in the vicinity might be sensitive (e.g. radio microphones in the professional audio/video application). In practice, you apply the more severe requirement (which, for immunity, would be the security application standard in most cases) and document exactly what you did in your technical file (the 'optional' one, associated with applying the standards, not a 'Technical File Route' file). You then cite all the relevant standards in your DOC. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Applying the appropriate ENs
It is the primary end use of the product that dictates the standard(s) required. If a product is sold as X, but then used by the user as Y, the manufacturer/etc only has to apply X relevant standards. But if the product is sold/marketed as Y, then Y standards must be applied. As a manufacturer/etc you choose the end use, and therefore the required standards. In reality it is easier to apply all intended standards during the design stage then let the marketing dept sell it without further work required on the DoC etc. Enci Assume a product is primarily intended for a particular use (example: CCTV for surveillance use) and the appropriate ENs are applied for that intended use and a Declaration of Conformity is issued listing the applied standard. Now assume that the product is marketed and sold for a secondary intended use (example: professional audio/video) where the same essential requirements apply but other ENs exist for that application. Is it legally required to also apply the other ENs and list them on the Declaration? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Steel ball for impact tests
I read in !emc-pstc that umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F84BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A21967C@flbocexu05) about 'Steel ball for impact tests', on Wed, 26 Sep 2001: Searching for a new sport, Check aircraft cockpit windows for resistance to bird strike by projecting chicken carcasses at them. Don't forget to defrost the carcasses! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Thin Insulation (Electrical) Material
Hi, I am looking for source/names/information on thin electrical insulation material - preferrably in the UK please. I have a small metal housing, which needs additional insulation. My first prototype used polyester tape, as used for transformer windings. Tape is not an ideal solution due to the size of the area to be covered. So far I have come up with: Nomex Aramid Paper (RS cat. no:) 349-9712 Phenolic Fabric (RS cat no:) 374-395 Ideally I would like to use a clear plastic film, but have yet to find any. Any suggestions appreciated. Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel ball for impact tests
Don's message brings up a key consideration for any type of test that is performed - repeatability. If you can't repeat the results, you need to re-evaluate your methodology. For instance, in the event you had a failure, it would be difficult to determine if your fix actually worked. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; sco...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests Scott, You had indicated that A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. . . I also used to test bombs away, somewhat as a sport to see how close I could come to the desired spot. We had an interesting experienced that permanently changed our approach. We had a device with a plastic enclosure with re-enforcing ribs in various locations. When we eyeballed the drop, we would miss critical spots by 1/2. Didn't seem like much at the time, until we discovered that with the tube, we could hit exactly the critical spot and observed that the enclosure failed unsafely (and repeatably), i.e., hazardous voltages were exposed. This is something you want to discover prior to having a NRTL witness or perform the test. Searching for a new sport, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: Scott Lacey[SMTP:sco...@world.std.com] Reply To: Scott Lacey Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests To the group: Having monitored some of the discussion on this thread, I thought that I would weigh in with some of my experience with this test. The purpose of the test is to subject the E.U.T. to a specific force of impact from a hard steel impactor (ball) of known radius. The surface should be smooth to avoid subjecting the E.U.T. to additional point stress (the center punch effect). Anything else is frosting on the cake. It does not matter whether the ball is dropped or swung, as long as the force is consistent and the E.U.T. is firmly mounted. A ball bearing is perfect for the job. A typical chrome steel ball is more than hard enough to meet the specification. If the weight is a little off just raise or lower the drop height to compensate. An eyebolt is nice but not really needed. The reason the official balls cost so much is the difficulty of machining the ball for the bolt, and the fact that these are very low volume items. A trailer hitch ball will also work without modification. Just weigh it, calculate the drop height, hold it by the threaded bit and bombs away. A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched up. If you really must have an eyebolt and don't want to spend the money thread a flanged nut onto an eyebolt and epoxy it onto the ball with a steel-filled epoxy (common at auto parts stores). It may break off occasionally but you can just re-epoxy it. Just degrease all the parts before gluing and it works surprisingly well. Have Fun Scott Lacey --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Test lab in the Vancouver, BC/ Seattle, WA area
Good morning Terry, I know of a testing and engineering service lab in Vancouver; Celltech, a division of Globus Wireless. I do not know if they have all the capacities you require because I dealt with them only on the radio certification side of their business but you may contact them. Here are their coordinates are: Celltech Shawn McMillen General Manager 1955 Moss court Kelowna, BC Canada V1Y 9L3 tel: 250-860-3130 fax: 250-860-3110 shawn.mcmil...@globuswireless.com Hope it will help you, Jean-Claude Brien Director EMC and Consultation Industry Canada -Original Message- From: Terry Meck [mailto:tjm...@accusort.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:59 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Test lab in the Vancouver, BC/ Seattle, WA area Hi all! I need to contact a EMC test lab in the Vancouver, BC or Seattle, WA area to do a field emissions test in Vancouver. Does anyone have any recommendations or references to a lab(s) in that area that have the capability to do this? Best regards, Terry J. Meck Senior Compliance/Test Engineer Phone:215-721-5280 Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy; Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC tjm...@accusort.com Accu-Sort Systems Inc. 511 School House Rd. Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel ball for impact tests
Scott, You had indicated that A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. . . I also used to test bombs away, somewhat as a sport to see how close I could come to the desired spot. We had an interesting experienced that permanently changed our approach. We had a device with a plastic enclosure with re-enforcing ribs in various locations. When we eyeballed the drop, we would miss critical spots by 1/2. Didn't seem like much at the time, until we discovered that with the tube, we could hit exactly the critical spot and observed that the enclosure failed unsafely (and repeatably), i.e., hazardous voltages were exposed. This is something you want to discover prior to having a NRTL witness or perform the test. Searching for a new sport, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: Scott Lacey[SMTP:sco...@world.std.com] Reply To: Scott Lacey Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests To the group: Having monitored some of the discussion on this thread, I thought that I would weigh in with some of my experience with this test. The purpose of the test is to subject the E.U.T. to a specific force of impact from a hard steel impactor (ball) of known radius. The surface should be smooth to avoid subjecting the E.U.T. to additional point stress (the center punch effect). Anything else is frosting on the cake. It does not matter whether the ball is dropped or swung, as long as the force is consistent and the E.U.T. is firmly mounted. A ball bearing is perfect for the job. A typical chrome steel ball is more than hard enough to meet the specification. If the weight is a little off just raise or lower the drop height to compensate. An eyebolt is nice but not really needed. The reason the official balls cost so much is the difficulty of machining the ball for the bolt, and the fact that these are very low volume items. A trailer hitch ball will also work without modification. Just weigh it, calculate the drop height, hold it by the threaded bit and bombs away. A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched up. If you really must have an eyebolt and don't want to spend the money thread a flanged nut onto an eyebolt and epoxy it onto the ball with a steel-filled epoxy (common at auto parts stores). It may break off occasionally but you can just re-epoxy it. Just degrease all the parts before gluing and it works surprisingly well. Have Fun Scott Lacey --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel ball for impact tests
Just don't let your ESH people see you standing on a chair to perform this test. ; ) Scott Lacey scottl%world.std@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/25/2001 05:38:44 PM Please respond to Scott Lacey scottl%world.std@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests To the group: Having monitored some of the discussion on this thread, I thought that I would weigh in with some of my experience with this test. The purpose of the test is to subject the E.U.T. to a specific force of impact from a hard steel impactor (ball) of known radius. The surface should be smooth to avoid subjecting the E.U.T. to additional point stress (the center punch effect). Anything else is frosting on the cake. It does not matter whether the ball is dropped or swung, as long as the force is consistent and the E.U.T. is firmly mounted. A ball bearing is perfect for the job. A typical chrome steel ball is more than hard enough to meet the specification. If the weight is a little off just raise or lower the drop height to compensate. An eyebolt is nice but not really needed. The reason the official balls cost so much is the difficulty of machining the ball for the bolt, and the fact that these are very low volume items. A trailer hitch ball will also work without modification. Just weigh it, calculate the drop height, hold it by the threaded bit and bombs away. A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched up. If you really must have an eyebolt and don't want to spend the money thread a flanged nut onto an eyebolt and epoxy it onto the ball with a steel-filled epoxy (common at auto parts stores). It may break off occasionally but you can just re-epoxy it. Just degrease all the parts before gluing and it works surprisingly well. Have Fun Scott Lacey To the group: Having monitored some of the discussion on this thread, I thought that I would weigh inwith some of my experience with this test. The purpose of the test is to subject the E.U.T. to a specific force of impact from a hard steel impactor (ball) of known radius. The surface should be smooth to avoid subjecting the E.U.T. to additional point stress (the "center punch" effect). Anything else is frosting on the cake. It does not matter whether the ball is dropped or swung, as long as the force is consistent and the E.U.T. is firmly mounted. A ball bearing is perfect for the job. A typical chrome steel ball is more than hard enough to meet the specification. If the weight is a little off just raise or lower the drop height to compensate. An eyebolt is nice but not really needed. The reason the "official" balls cost so much is the difficulty of machining the ball for the bolt, and the fact that these are very low volume items. A trailer hitch ball will also work without modification. Just weigh it, calculate the drop height, hold it by the threaded bit and "bombs away". A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched up. If you really must have an eyebolt and don't want to spend the money thread a flanged nut onto an eyebolt and epoxy it onto the ball with a steel-filled epoxy (common at auto parts stores). It may break off occasionally but you can just re-epoxy it. Just degrease all the parts before gluing and it works surprisingly well. Have Fun Scott Lacey
Applying the appropriate ENs
Assume a product is primarily intended for a particular use (example: CCTV for surveillance use) and the appropriate ENs are applied for that intended use and a Declaration of Conformity is issued listing the applied standard. Now assume that the product is marketed and sold for a secondary intended use (example: professional audio/video) where the same essential requirements apply but other ENs exist for that application. Is it legally required to also apply the other ENs and list them on the Declaration? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Photo Sensitive Epilepsy. (PSE)
I assisted in developing a tester for brain damage a long time ago. The device created flicker at various rates and the rate was lowered until the patient first noted the flicker. It seems that a person with brain damage is able to notice flicker at a higher rate than a healthy person. Richard Woods -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:17 PM To: Crabb, John Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Photo Sensitive Epilepsy. (PSE) John, I can't answer your question directly, but we did some research into PSE just over a year ago, and were told the following by a consultant pediatric neurologist at Sheffield children's hospital: - Teenagers and adolescents are most susceptible. - Small percentage of people susceptible, effect can vary from funny feeling to trance or seizure which subsides when stimulus is removed - There is no lasting damage from such an episode, there is no causal link to full epilepsy. - Greatest danger is from falling over or onto objects during seizure - More likely in low background light levels. - Closing one eye reduces effect this can be useful preventive measure for sufferers knowing of condition - Distress could be caused to observers I also have a word document with a summary of the replies I received when I made a similar enquiry to this mailing list at the time. Please let me know if you'd like me to send it to you. Nick. At 16:03 +0100 25/9/2001, Crabb, John wrote: Would anyone have any guidelines on how to design computer graphics in such a way to avoid inducing Photo Sensitive Epilepsy in anyone who suffers from that complaint ? Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Active loop antenna overload
I think we may be assuming this overload is caused by the EUT. But this is just as likely to be caused by something else. Medium Wave and Long Wave broadcasting produces powerful fields at some distance from an antenna. This has a fix. If you place a narrowly resonant loop antenna, with feed point shorted, in close proximity to the wideband loop used for measurements, it will reduce pickup at the resonant frequency to a small fraction of the normal amount, and you will be able to at least SEE signals front-end overload may have prevented you from being able to notice. At frequencies far from the secondary loop's resonance, the measuring loop antenna factor will not be much affected, and you will even be able to get a useful idea of the fields you are seeing from the EUT. If you wish, you can have your loop recalibrated with the resonant loop permanently attached, which will restore the ability to make acceptable measurements. Cortland --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Active loop antenna overload
Assuming that moving the antenna away from the source is not a palatable solution, here is a more complex answer. The loop is electrostatically shielded, which means there is a small air gap somewhere around the loop shield, usually at the top or at the base. If you do a poor job of jumpering across that gap, you will decrease the loop sensitivity. You will have to recalibrate a new antenna factor of course. If you have or build a Helmholtz coil this is very easily done. -- From: Wan Juang Foo f...@np.edu.sg To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Active loop antenna overload Date: Tue, Sep 25, 2001, 8:39 PM Hi, I have some questions. What are the dimension of your loop? Are you measuring a static field? If so, I suggest you use a Hall-effect type sensor, I have had good results at powerline frequencies. If you are measuring the H-field component for anything in the 30 MHz or so region, I would be more careful about moving away from the source because of the extremely complex (nonlinear and usually unpredictable) field patterns in the near-field. Redesigning the input circuit would help but that would mean that the new setup have to be calibrated. :-) Just my 2 cents worth. Tim Foo, (or just call me 'Tim') E-mail: f...@np.edu.sg ECE, School of Engineering, http://www.np.edu.sg/ece/ Tel: + 65 460 6143 Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Fax: + 65 467 1730 535 Clementi Road, Singapore 599489 Robert Macy m...@california.com To: KC CHAN [PDD] kcc...@hkpc.org, Sent by: cc: (bcc: Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/npnet) owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: Re: Active loop antenna overload o.ieee.org 09/24/01 03:45 PM Please respond to Robert Macy Move the antenna further away. then use correction factors to calculate what it would have been at the original distance. Magnetic fields decrease as the inverse cube of the distance. So just apply a correction factor to boost the amplitude back up. For example, twice the distance away means the signal will look 1/8 as much or around 18dB smaller. Of course, that assumes the source is a magnetic dipole AND your original measurement distance is at least 3 diameters (diameters of the sensing loop AND diameters of the source loop) away to begin with. [ Also, conductive surfaces and magnetic materials need to be out of the field of interest. Make certain the minimum distance to such interference is at least 3 times the distance between what you're measuring and your sensing loop. ] If the above assumptions don't hold, come back at me. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: KC CHAN [PDD] kcc...@hkpc.org To: emc-p...@ieee.org Date: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: Active loop antenna overload Dear All When doing the magnetic field measurement by a active loop antenna, what we can do if we find the loop antenna is saturated/overloaded? Is there any ways that we can do to overcome this? Best Regards KC Chan snip --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings
Re: Active loop antenna overload
Hi, I have some questions. What are the dimension of your loop? Are you measuring a static field? If so, I suggest you use a Hall-effect type sensor, I have had good results at powerline frequencies. If you are measuring the H-field component for anything in the 30 MHz or so region, I would be more careful about moving away from the source because of the extremely complex (nonlinear and usually unpredictable) field patterns in the near-field. Redesigning the input circuit would help but that would mean that the new setup have to be calibrated. :-) Just my 2 cents worth. Tim Foo, (or just call me 'Tim') E-mail: f...@np.edu.sg ECE, School of Engineering, http://www.np.edu.sg/ece/ Tel: + 65 460 6143 Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Fax: + 65 467 1730 535 Clementi Road, Singapore 599489 Robert Macy m...@california.com To: KC CHAN [PDD] kcc...@hkpc.org, Sent by: cc: (bcc: Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/npnet) owner-emc-pstc@majordomSubject: Re: Active loop antenna overload o.ieee.org 09/24/01 03:45 PM Please respond to Robert Macy Move the antenna further away. then use correction factors to calculate what it would have been at the original distance. Magnetic fields decrease as the inverse cube of the distance. So just apply a correction factor to boost the amplitude back up. For example, twice the distance away means the signal will look 1/8 as much or around 18dB smaller. Of course, that assumes the source is a magnetic dipole AND your original measurement distance is at least 3 diameters (diameters of the sensing loop AND diameters of the source loop) away to begin with. [ Also, conductive surfaces and magnetic materials need to be out of the field of interest. Make certain the minimum distance to such interference is at least 3 times the distance between what you're measuring and your sensing loop. ] If the above assumptions don't hold, come back at me. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112 -Original Message- From: KC CHAN [PDD] kcc...@hkpc.org To: emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: Active loop antenna overload Dear All When doing the magnetic field measurement by a active loop antenna, what we can do if we find the loop antenna is saturated/overloaded? Is there any ways that we can do to overcome this? Best Regards KC Chan snip --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel ball for impact tests
PLEASE NOTE THAT IT IS 500gms +- 25gms Best regards Gregg -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Scott Lacey Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:39 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests threaded bit and bombs away. A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched
Re: Photo Sensitive Epilepsy. (PSE)
John, I can't answer your question directly, but we did some research into PSE just over a year ago, and were told the following by a consultant pediatric neurologist at Sheffield children's hospital: - Teenagers and adolescents are most susceptible. - Small percentage of people susceptible, effect can vary from funny feeling to trance or seizure which subsides when stimulus is removed - There is no lasting damage from such an episode, there is no causal link to full epilepsy. - Greatest danger is from falling over or onto objects during seizure - More likely in low background light levels. - Closing one eye reduces effect this can be useful preventive measure for sufferers knowing of condition - Distress could be caused to observers I also have a word document with a summary of the replies I received when I made a similar enquiry to this mailing list at the time. Please let me know if you'd like me to send it to you. Nick. At 16:03 +0100 25/9/2001, Crabb, John wrote: Would anyone have any guidelines on how to design computer graphics in such a way to avoid inducing Photo Sensitive Epilepsy in anyone who suffers from that complaint ? Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Kingsway West, Dundee, Scotland. DD2 3XX E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
