Latest position with the draft EMC Directive

[Brian Jones]

Hi everyone

People have been asking me what has happened to the latest draft of the
Directive (EMCD2000.8) which was released back in March this year.  I
thought the group might appreciate an update also.

The intention was for Member State governments to give their comments on
EMCD2000.8 by the end of June.  This was to enable a further revision to be
produced for discussion by the EMC Working Group in the autumn, with a view
to placing the draft before the Council of Ministers and the European
Parliament early in 2002.

The person in the Commission responsible for drafting the revised version
has moved jobs, and a replacement has not yet been appointed.  As a
consequence, there is no one available to deal with the comments, and to
produce a revised document.

It appears that it will be mid 2002 at the earliest before a revised draft
is available (and it is not clear whether this will be made available for
general circulation).  I confirmed this in a discussion with the UK's DTI
yesterday.

So we have a delay in the process of at least six months.

I will keep the group informed of any change.

I will be away for the next week, so will deal with any comments or
questions on my return.

Best wishes

Brian Jones
EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory

Keep up to date with EMC Matters newsletter
e-mail newslet...@brianjones.co.uk for a free sample in .pdf format


---
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: Revised EMC standards and CE Declarations.

[Pettit, Ghery]

Jason,

You are correct.  All products placed on the market in the EU must be tested
to the latest standard once the magic date (DOW)  for the new standard is
reached.  Also, keep in mind that if a product specific standard is
published it takes precedence over the generic standard and the generic
standard no longer applies to the product family.  For example, EN
55024:1998 is the product specific immunity standard for ITE, so EN
50082-1:1997 is not used for these products.

This is one more example of why I refer to the EMC Directive as The EMC
Professionals Employment Act of 1989.

Ghery Pettit, NCE
Intel Corporation


-Original Message-
From: jasonxmall...@netscape.net [mailto:jasonxmall...@netscape.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:10 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Revised EMC standards and CE Declarations. 



Hi all.

EN 50082-1:1992 was replaced by EN 50082-1:1997. According to the
newapproach.org website, from 1/7/2001 the old version no longer allows one
to presume conformity to the EMC Directive. 

Does this mean I need to retest all equipment to the new standard before I
can declare conformance?

My guess is YES. 

Thanks in advance for any confirmation or correction.

-Jason 
Product Safety Consultant




-- 




__
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/


---
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.

Revised EMC standards and CE Declarations.

[jasonxmallory]

Hi all.

EN 50082-1:1992 was replaced by EN 50082-1:1997. According to the 
newapproach.org website, from 1/7/2001 the old version no longer allows one to 
presume conformity to the EMC Directive. 

Does this mean I need to retest all equipment to the new standard before I can 
declare conformance?

My guess is YES. 

Thanks in advance for any confirmation or correction.

-Jason 
Product Safety Consultant




-- 




__
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience 
the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! 
http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at 
http://webmail.netscape.com/


---
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: EN55022/CISPR22 Cable Layout

[CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...]

We have been discussing this topic in NEC1 as the Dutch shadow committee
for CISPR/CENELEC with this standard. The purpose of the clause is to create
a well
defined reproducible situation, and not a worst case situation.
I have always opposed such a scenario, as every EMC engineer knows
cables in reality do not hang as in CISPR, and the fixed length
prescribed in CISPR 22 does create blind spots in the frequency spectrum.
A fixed length cable radiates well (resonance) for a 1/4 lambda length and
every impair multiple of it.  It creates nulls for every pair multiple.
Although the null effect diminishes (so does the resonance)
for lengths that are a large multiple
of 1/4 lambdas (or for higher frequencies: essentially the same) the effect
can be disastrous if your problem frequency is exactly matching the cable
length
as prescribed. At 80 cm cable length  this cable setup resonates at
300/(4x0,8) = just below 100 Mhz in the middle of the FM band.
The first null happens to be at just below 200 Mhz , popular emissions
problem frequency.
Although the quality factor of the resonance and null effect is not very
high, the
differences easily add up to 10-20 dB. This is a large (and systematic)
error in
a system where the measuring receiver is  bound to meet 1 dB accuracy.
By creating a left right symmetrical situation the effect gets accentuated.

My opinion was not shared by the Dutch committee, as they felt
reproducibility
more important then measuring the exact amplitude of the emitted value.
This is what happens if bureaucracy meets technicians.

I strongly support your way of testing, and even want to go further.
I believe that emission of equipment must be essentially independent
of cable length, and cable load. This approach requires low frequency (< 100
Mhz) emission measurements
on cabling to be carried out using CDN's (in addition to the enclosure)
where the contribution of
the emission spectrum by cable CM current must essentially approach
zero (compared to the enclosure emission).

This way we would get rid of prescribed cabling schemes and annihilate
emission spectrum problems
caused by erronic construction or cable routing.
This is very important as f.a. automotive electronics get more and more
dependent of
correct cabling and cabling quality and we can imagine what happens with the
EMC quality
of screening and grounding in a cabling hostile environment as a car.
Recently test were carried out with modern cars that could be easily
sabotaged on
large (hundreds ? m) distances using microwave(?) power transmitters (pulse)
to the point of
getting defective. Imagine this technique in the hand of potential
terrorists on board
of a small lorry or simply on the ground. The tests were not yet carried out
on
commercial air planes while landing or starting. (You will excuse me if I
leave out
specific details about frequency and power on this forum).

Most of these problems could be avoided by decently screening our
electronics
and effectively filtering in- and outputs, to the point of letting no
RF-signals in or
out. For higher frequency data carrying signals appropriate filtering
techniques are available
such as symmetrical data transfer and CM coil constructions.

(But don't rely on the lousy way 100baseT networks are designed; they can be
affected too easily due to their awful CM suppression for even 60Hz, I can
tell you stories about 3COM products and others)

This really gets off topic now so I'll stop.

Regards,

Gert Gremmen, (Ing)

ce-test, qualified testing

===
Web presence  http://www.cetest.nl
CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm
/-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/
===


>>-Original Message-
>>From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Alex McNeil
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:53 PM
>>To: 'emc-pstc'
>>Subject: EN55022/CISPR22 Cable Layout
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>I am not 100% clear on the statement regarding cable layout in Figure 10
>>"Test Configuration: tabletop equipment (radiated measurement)"
>>It says:
>>1. If cables which hang closer than 40cm to the horizontal metal ground
>>plane cannot be shortened to appropriate length, the excess shall
>>be folded
>>back and forth forming a bundle 30cm to 40 cm.
>>
>>What does it mean when it says "...cannot be shortened to appropriate
>>length...? This conflicts with section 8.1 which says you must
>>test with the
>>lengths specified for the product.
>>
>>I bundle various 2m and 3m length cables that are intended to be connected
>>to an EUT peripheral horizontally and those that are intended to be
>>connected to the PSTN, or other external termination point, vertically.
>>Also, PSU's on the floor with an output lead to the EUT is bundled
>>vertically. Normally there are no peripherals, or PSTN, attached but I
>>connect the cables anyhow for worst case. I do not connect
>>similar

FW: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals

[Dan Teninty]

Rich,

After sending you my reply, I thought that I would open it up to the group
for comment. I thought I would pass on the information about the NARTE
certification for Product Safety engineers.

Best regards,

Dan

Daniel E. Teninty, P.E.
Managing Partner
DTEC Associates LLC
Streamlining The Compliance Process
Advancing New Products To Market
http://www.dtec-associates.com
(509) 443-0215
(509) 443-0181 fax

-Original Message-
From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:01 PM
To: Rich Nute
Subject: RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals


Rich,

I don't disagree with your point of view. It seems that there are a lot of
MBA's devoting allot of time to reducing costs. This is how business is run.
The days are gone when, like the founders of your organization, companies
could compete on quality, reliability, features, and perceived value. Now
everything boils down to "how can we shave unit cost another $0.03?" General
Motors has had some high profile cases where this philosophy has led to
injuries and deaths. The world is changing, not always for the better and I
will continue to tilt at windmills. I believe that consumers expect/assume
that products they purchase are "safe" and won't scramble their TV's picture
during the Super Bowl. Quantifying this perception into a benefit that can
be placed into a spread sheet is, I agree, a difficult if not impossible
task, but a good actuary could probably come up with a defensible number.
The point is that the philosophy of corporate management sets the tone for
the rest of the company and if regulatory compliance is not a priority for
management, then it won't be a priority for the compliance department.
Reducing the amount of flame retardant plastic in a product is commendable
if it doesn't compromise the protection it provides. Engineering is about
trade-offs of conflicting requirements. Integrating compliance into a
product should trade off the risk/consequence of non-compliance leading to
an event. Events lead to lawsuits. I've always made a distinction between
standards requirements and safety. Walt Hart at Fluke was an early mentor in
product safety and taught me to differentiate between a requirement for a
wire to be blue and a requirement that 5000 Volts not reach an end user.
Harking back to an earlier thread, there are compliance engineers like
yourself who go far beyond the requirements in the standards and understand
the basic principles involved and how this basic science leads to standards.
Then there are the folks who have compliance thrust upon them and at the
extreme, haven't got a clue.  In the commercial world of putting up
buildings and other public structures there is a requirement that a
registered professional engineer review and sign off on drawings. This is
not a perfect solution and there are bad apples, but there is a minimum
level of competence assumed that does not exist in the product safety world.
EMC engineers have NARTE certification to add to their qualifications and
most of the NARTE certified EMC engineers I've encountered were competent to
say the least. NARTE has just recently, at the EMC meeting in Montreal,
announced a similar certification for product safety engineers. Some will
say this is an attempt at empire building or elitism, but I contend that
raising the bar will benefit society as a whole and perhaps eventually
elevate the status of compliance engineers from, as we were affectionately
known at Fluke, "Those *&%holes downstairs" to respected professionals.

My 2 cents,

Best regards,

Dan

Daniel E. Teninty, P.E.
Managing Partner
DTEC Associates LLC
Streamlining The Compliance Process
Advancing New Products To Market
http://www.dtec-associates.com
(509) 443-0215
(509) 443-0181 fax

-Original Message-
From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:35 AM
To: dteni...@dtec-associates.com
Cc: nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals





Hi Dan:


>   Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive
>   approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance.
With
>   a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate
compliance
>   department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant
>   standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and
deal
>   directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that
>   have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits
to
>   the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products
>   pile, wouldn't you?

I do agree with (and we practice) a pro-active
approach to compliance.

In my experience, though, I am surprised that
a compliance manager would be a VP position
(in a company making "ordinary products" as
compared to a company making medical products
or similar products subject t

Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals

[Rich Nute]

Hi Dan:


>   Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive
>   approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With
>   a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance
>   department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant
>   standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal
>   directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that
>   have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to
>   the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products
>   pile, wouldn't you?

I do agree with (and we practice) a pro-active
approach to compliance.

In my experience, though, I am surprised that
a compliance manager would be a VP position
(in a company making "ordinary products" as
compared to a company making medical products
or similar products subject to a high degree
of regulation).

As you mention, there can be short-term and 
long-term benefits to the compliance activities 
you mention.  However, the benefits must outweigh 
the costs of the activities.  Quantifying and
measuring the benefits of some compliance 
activities is often very difficult. 

Management philosophy of the particular company
is another significant variable in the extent
of compliance activity.  

Some companies believe that safety certification
is sufficient safety.  Others believe that safety
and safety certification are independent although
overlapping activities.

At one time, I knew of a company that addressed 
safety not in the product, but in liability 
avoidance through instruction manuals, through 
insurance, and by passing liability on to its 
suppliers.  Cost effective, yes.  Morally
effective, questionable.

>   Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by
>   cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the
>   short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our
>   clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to
>   NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where
>   there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS compliant
>   products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either
>   left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser
>   positions.

Reducing the cost of compliance does not in any
way imply an adversarial approach to compliance.
Neither does cost reduction imply a reduction in
the compliance performance of the product.

For example, some years ago a R&D engineer came 
to me and said, "The cost of safety is too high."

My immediate response was, "Not if you design in
safety from the start of the project."  

He replied, "No.  I mean that safety requires me 
to use a power switch and a fuse.  These cost 
money.  The switch serves no benefit to the user 
since the unit is left on continuously."  (This 
was back in the days when the plug was not 
considered a disconnect device.)  

So, I started a project to determine alternatives 
to switches and fuses and other safety components
(for the specific products we were building at 
that time).

In terms of EMC compliance, I know one engineer
who keeps track of the number and cost of components
used exclusively for EMC control.  His objective
was to reduce the total cost of EMC control.  This
in no way is cutting corners of compliance, or 
doing the minimum to comply.  The result was still
full compliance -- but at least cost.

>   It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the
>   benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom
>   line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs
>   for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new
>   product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over
>   reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a
>   bargain.

There are two kinds of costs associated with 
compliance.  

The first kind is the cost of compliance in the
product development.  I agree that these costs 
are indeed "in the noise" compared to the overall 
development costs.

The second kind of cost of compliance is the cost 
of labor and components that are installed solely 
for compliance.  For high-volume products, these 
costs are far more important than the costs of 
development because they affect the price 
competitiveness of the product.  A flame-retardant 
plastic costs more than a non-flame-retardant 
plastic.  How can we design a product to minimize 
the use of flame-retardant plastic yet comply with 
the standards as well as being a truly safe product?

For me, this second cost, the per-unit cost of
compliance, is a very significant part of my job.


Best regards,
Rich




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC So

EN55022/CISPR22 Cable Layout

[Alex McNeil]

Hi All,
I am not 100% clear on the statement regarding cable layout in Figure 10
"Test Configuration: tabletop equipment (radiated measurement)"
It says:
1. If cables which hang closer than 40cm to the horizontal metal ground
plane cannot be shortened to appropriate length, the excess shall be folded
back and forth forming a bundle 30cm to 40 cm.

What does it mean when it says "...cannot be shortened to appropriate
length...? This conflicts with section 8.1 which says you must test with the
lengths specified for the product.

I bundle various 2m and 3m length cables that are intended to be connected
to an EUT peripheral horizontally and those that are intended to be
connected to the PSTN, or other external termination point, vertically.
Also, PSU's on the floor with an output lead to the EUT is bundled
vertically. Normally there are no peripherals, or PSTN, attached but I
connect the cables anyhow for worst case. I do not connect similar interface
ports, only one of the same type. It all becomes rather "messy" or "busy"
with lots of bundled cables.
Once I have found the worst case emissions cable setup, I "tape" these in
position to a hanging nonconductive surface and take a photograph. This is
for repeatability in future audit testing.

Am I doing this wrong? It would seem from the diagram that you have the
option to  "shorten to appropriate length" e.g. 1M? Also it looks as if the
vertical cable shown is only 40cm?

I am sure someone out there knows exactly how it should be done or is the
standard not clear?


Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com

 -Original Message-
From:   Mark Pascarelli [mailto:mark...@mupac.com] 
Sent:   Monday, November 26, 2001 4:47 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject:Frame Surge Test



Hi all,

I am trying to re-design our current power supply to meet GR-1089-Core
Specification.
The Power Supply has a -48V input and 5VDC/100W, 5VDC/100W and 12VDC/150W
Output.

Based on current testing, we did not comply with Section 9.10.6 Frame Surge
Test.
This test applies a surge current as defined in IEEE C62.41.  The filter
capacitor was destroyed during this test. The capacitor is rated at 100V.  I
think this capacitor should be replaced with a higher voltage X or Y
capacitor.  Possibly a GDT or TVS is required.

If anyone can help, I will email a portion of the schematic in PDF format. 

Thank you,

Mark Pascarelli
Electrical Engineer
Carlo Gavazzi, Inc.

---
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: Frame Surge Test applicability

[Mark Pascarelli]

David,
Our customer requested that the Power Supply comply to Section
9.10.6 of the GR-1089-Core Specification.

 
Mark Pascarelli
Electrical Engineer
Carlo Gavazzi, Inc.

-Original Message-
From:   David Heald [SMTP:davehe...@mediaone.net]
Sent:   Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:52 AM
To: Mark Pascarelli
Cc: 'emc-pstc'
Subject:Frame Surge Test applicability

Mark,
  Is this section applicable to your product?  Section 9.10 only
applies
to equipment that was formerly installed in an IBN system (now in a
CBN), and newer products rarely fall into this category.  At my last
job, I performed a lot of GR-1089 evaluations and >95% of the
products
were exempt from 9.10.  The only products I saw that fell into this
category was some old 80's era boxes that had new cards to allow
updated
functionality (almost impossible to get them EMI compliant due to
the
initial design for LOW bandwidth & isolated shield grounds, but we
got
it.)  

Best Regards,
Dave

Mark Pascarelli wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am trying to re-design our current power supply to meet
GR-1089-Core
> Specification.
> The Power Supply has a -48V input and 5VDC/100W, 5VDC/100W and
12VDC/150W
> Output.
> 
> Based on current testing, we did not comply with Section 9.10.6
Frame Surge
> Test.
> This test applies a surge current as defined in IEEE C62.41.  The
filter
> capacitor was destroyed during this test. The capacitor is rated
at 100V.  I
> think this capacitor should be replaced with a higher voltage X or
Y
> capacitor.  Possibly a GDT or TVS is required.
> 
> If anyone can help, I will email a portion of the schematic in PDF
format.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mark Pascarelli
> Electrical Engineer
> Carlo Gavazzi, Inc.
> 
> ---
> 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.

Old Australian Safety Standard

[Tony . Reynolds]

Hi,

When testing in the UK was being done to BS5850:1981 (amended 1985) what
was the standard being used in Australia for IT safety.

I hope someone can remember.

Thanks

Tony Reynolds
Principal Compliance Engineer
Pitney Bowes Ltd



---
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: Impedance Stabilization Network

[HALL,KEN (HP-Roseville,ex1)]

Hello,
 
To my knowledge there are no ISN's that meet all the requirements of
CISPR22:1997. CISPR/I/11/CDV has proposes different, less stringent, LCL
requirements that the suppliers (R&S,Schaffner Fischer Custom
communications)stated to the committee they could meet. See IEEE2001 EMC
Symposium Record page 1 " CISPR 22: 1997 Conducted Emission on Telecom Ports
Products Pass/Fail depending on Test Method".
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Ken Hall
 
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Gemma [mailto:paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:10 AM
To: Heffken, Jan
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Impedance Stabilization Network


Rohde schwarz http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/Homepage
  have the ISN
and also Shaffner http://www.schaffner.com/ 
the problem is that the standards are not complete define So it's possible
that the ISN will change in future.
Ciao
Paolo
 At 17:06 11/26/01 -0500, you wrote:



Does anybody know of a source of ISN's as required for Telecom Port
conducted emissions in CISPR 22?

Jan Heffken

Compliance Test Engineer
Applied Innovation Inc.

j...@aiinet.com



---
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.


  _  

Paolo Gemma
Siemens Information and Communication Network spa 
Microwave Networks MW R&D NSA EMC
SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de'Pecchi (MI) Italy
phone +39 02 9526 6587fax +39 02 9526 6203
mobile +39 348 3690185
e-mail paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it

  _  



---
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.

Frame Surge Test applicability

[David Heald]

Mark,
  Is this section applicable to your product?  Section 9.10 only applies
to equipment that was formerly installed in an IBN system (now in a
CBN), and newer products rarely fall into this category.  At my last
job, I performed a lot of GR-1089 evaluations and >95% of the products
were exempt from 9.10.  The only products I saw that fell into this
category was some old 80's era boxes that had new cards to allow updated
functionality (almost impossible to get them EMI compliant due to the
initial design for LOW bandwidth & isolated shield grounds, but we got
it.)  

Best Regards,
Dave

Mark Pascarelli wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am trying to re-design our current power supply to meet GR-1089-Core
> Specification.
> The Power Supply has a -48V input and 5VDC/100W, 5VDC/100W and 12VDC/150W
> Output.
> 
> Based on current testing, we did not comply with Section 9.10.6 Frame Surge
> Test.
> This test applies a surge current as defined in IEEE C62.41.  The filter
> capacitor was destroyed during this test. The capacitor is rated at 100V.  I
> think this capacitor should be replaced with a higher voltage X or Y
> capacitor.  Possibly a GDT or TVS is required.
> 
> If anyone can help, I will email a portion of the schematic in PDF format.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Mark Pascarelli
> Electrical Engineer
> Carlo Gavazzi, Inc.
> 
> ---
> 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: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Dan Teninty 
wrote (in )
about 'Quality Assurance and Product Approvals', on Tue, 27 Nov 2001:
>
>Rich,
>
>Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive
>approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With
>a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance
>department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant
>standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal
>directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that
>have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to
>the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products
>pile, wouldn't you?
>
This is indeed the enlightened view. I started advocating this 30 years
ago. It's been a long struggle.

>Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by
>cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the
>short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our
>clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to
>NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where
>there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS compliant
>products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either
>left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser
>positions.

Compliance with standards is now a regular customer demand, sometimes
carried to excess, usually through lazily or ignorantly attempting to
over-simplify the subject, e.g. 'All equipment used shall comply with
all British, European and International standards'.
>
>It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the
>benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom
>line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs
>for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new
>product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over
>reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a
>bargain.

I regard the cost of compliance as part of the costs of being present in
the market, not as part of the cost of making a product that works.
Seriously non-compliant product can still work. That way, you get to
compare the cost of compliance with, for example, the cost of
advertising or even the cost of participating in exhibitions.
>
>Its not hard to dig up a few good case studies in Product Liability to drive
>home the point.
>
Indeed, and however circumspect everyone is, there is always a finite
probability...
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. 

---
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: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals

[Dan Teninty]

Rich,

Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive
approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With
a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance
department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant
standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal
directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that
have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to
the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products
pile, wouldn't you?

Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by
cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the
short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our
clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to
NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where
there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS compliant
products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either
left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser
positions.

It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the
benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom
line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs
for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new
product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over
reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a
bargain.

Its not hard to dig up a few good case studies in Product Liability to drive
home the point.

Best regards,

Daniel E. Teninty, P.E.
Managing Partner
DTEC Associates LLC
Streamlining The Compliance Process
Advancing New Products To Market
http://www.dtec-associates.com
(509) 443-0215
(509) 443-0181 fax

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:36 PM
To: nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals


Hi Alan:

>   Two questions, does the group see a time when we have a VP Compliance on
>   level terms with VP Finance, VP Marketing etc, or is this already
>   happening in the US.

No.  And not likely to happen in companies with ordinary
products.

As a general rule, "compliance" is seen as a necessary
evil.  It is a cost without an associated revenue (or
customer-recognized need or benefit).  Few companies
want to give VP status (and an empire) to a non-revenue-
generating function.

Many companies measure the product incremental cost for
"compliance."  The objective is to find methods and means
for minimizing these product costs.

Furthermore, few companies recognize the work of "compliance"
folks as prevention of future unanticipated costs such as
failure of sales due to non-compliance, product liability,
or even product recalls.  The reason the work is not
recognized is the difficulty of measuring the future cost of
non-compliance, especially if the company has never had such
an incident.

>   Second Question. Does the group think a formal qualification in
>   Compliance Management & CE Marking would be a good idea.

While we may think this is a good idea, most professional
managers in the field of compliance consider the job as one
interim step in their career.  If "compliance" is a non-
revenue-generating activity, then the step to personal
growth is to measure the cost of compliance for the duration
of one's leadership, and add this to one's CV.  Then, move
on.

Candidates for compliance management might find courses
useful. However, the value of such qualifications is not
for the long term.

Another problem is that upper management doesn't want to be
told that they are restricted by compliance rules insofar as
setting objectives for the products and the company.  They
certainly don't want to feel that the only management folks
qualified for managing a compliance function are those that
are trained and qualified in compliance management.

Formal qualification in compliance management may be seen by
upper management as a power play where the compliance
manager uses his knowledge to gain some degree of control
over other managers.

If "formal qualification" in compliance management is
principally that of methodology for measuring and reducing
cost of compliance, then I would think this would be a
very good idea.


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 

Re: Impedance Stabilization Network

[Paolo Gemma]

Rohde schwarz http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/Homepage have the ISN
and also Shaffner http://www.schaffner.com/   the problem is that the 
standards are not complete define So it's possible that the ISN will change 
in future.

Ciao
Paolo
 At 17:06 11/26/01 -0500, you wrote:


Does anybody know of a source of ISN's as required for Telecom Port
conducted emissions in CISPR 22?

Jan Heffken

Compliance Test Engineer
Applied Innovation Inc.

j...@aiinet.com



---
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.



--
Paolo Gemma
Siemens Information and Communication Network spa
Microwave Networks MW R&D NSA EMC
SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de'Pecchi (MI) Italy
phone +39 02 9526 6587fax +39 02 9526 6203
mobile +39 348 3690185
e-mail paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it

--

Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals

[Alan E Hutley]

Thanks Rich for your very detailed, interesting and thought provoking
answer. I will need to reflect on your comments before responding.
Regards
Alan

- Original Message -
From: "Rich Nute" 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals


>
>
>
> Hi Alan:
>
>
> >   Two questions, does the group see a time when we have a VP Compliance
on
> >   level terms with VP Finance, VP Marketing etc, or is this already
> >   happening in the US.
>
> No.  And not likely to happen in companies with ordinary
> products.
>
> As a general rule, "compliance" is seen as a necessary
> evil.  It is a cost without an associated revenue (or
> customer-recognized need or benefit).  Few companies
> want to give VP status (and an empire) to a non-revenue-
> generating function.
>
> Many companies measure the product incremental cost for
> "compliance."  The objective is to find methods and means
> for minimizing these product costs.
>
> Furthermore, few companies recognize the work of "compliance"
> folks as prevention of future unanticipated costs such as
> failure of sales due to non-compliance, product liability,
> or even product recalls.  The reason the work is not
> recognized is the difficulty of measuring the future cost of
> non-compliance, especially if the company has never had such
> an incident.
>
> >   Second Question. Does the group think a formal qualification in
> >   Compliance Management & CE Marking would be a good idea.
>
> While we may think this is a good idea, most professional
> managers in the field of compliance consider the job as one
> interim step in their career.  If "compliance" is a non-
> revenue-generating activity, then the step to personal
> growth is to measure the cost of compliance for the duration
> of one's leadership, and add this to one's CV.  Then, move
> on.
>
> Candidates for compliance management might find courses
> useful. However, the value of such qualifications is not
> for the long term.
>
> Another problem is that upper management doesn't want to be
> told that they are restricted by compliance rules insofar as
> setting objectives for the products and the company.  They
> certainly don't want to feel that the only management folks
> qualified for managing a compliance function are those that
> are trained and qualified in compliance management.
>
> Formal qualification in compliance management may be seen by
> upper management as a power play where the compliance
> manager uses his knowledge to gain some degree of control
> over other managers.
>
> If "formal qualification" in compliance management is
> principally that of methodology for measuring and reducing
> cost of compliance, then I would think this would be a
> very good idea.
>
>
> 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: Impedance Stabilization Network

[Douglas C. Smith]

Hi All,

I suspect that Fischer Custom Communications should have them. Their
website is:

http://www.fischercc.com/

Doug

"Heffken, Jan" wrote:
> 
> Does anybody know of a source of ISN's as required for Telecom Port
> conducted emissions in CISPR 22?
> 
> Jan Heffken
> 
> Compliance Test Engineer
> Applied Innovation Inc.
> 
> j...@aiinet.com
> 
> ---
> 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.

-- 
---
___  _   Doug Smith
 \  / )  P.O. Box 1457
  =  Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457
   _ / \ / \ _   TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799
 /  /\  \ ] /  /\  \ Mobile:  408-858-4528
|  q-( )  |  o  |Email:   d...@dsmith.org
 \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org
---

---
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: Reliability recommended books

[Carmen.Filimon]

I want to thank all people that give me a feedback about the  reliability
library. I thought a good point to start is this forum to get a more precise
answer to my searching. And I got a clear point to start: read more books in
my spare time ;-).
I would like to get ideas on reliability testing/Accelerating Life Testing
for electronic redundant systems. In order to do reliability testing for an
electronic product, what test sequences/topology we should follow ? Are
there any standards (MIL, IEC) to follow or guide me?

Best regards,
Carmen Filimon



> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Kilkenny [SMTP:mkilke...@opthos.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:57 PM
> To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Reliability recommended books
> 
> 
> 
> First thing is you need to decide what you are trying to accomplish and it
> eventually gets into philosophies about reliability.  If you are trying to
> measure reliability some of the good books are: Pat O'Connor's "Practical
> Reliability Engineering" which is a good intro book; Finn Jensen's
> "Electronic Component Reliability" which is excellent also. "Handbook of
> Reliability Engineering and Management" is a good reference book to have
> on
> the shelf.
> 
> We could spend hours on this discussing the disadvantages of trying to
> measure reliability in the Mil-STD 217 parts count methods and the
> variations of it that are out there, the controversies of the Arrhenius
> equation for temp. aging effect in the parts count method, etc.  Of course
> this isn't the approriate forum. =) 
> 
> Matthew Kilkenny
> Reliability Engineer 
> mkilke...@opthos.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> > ---
> > 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.

---
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 imp

Need test equipment.

[Patrick Webb]

We are currently looking for a 10/1000 module (model E509A) for the
Keytek ECAT system.  If there is anyone out there that may have one of these
that is not needed please contact me.  Please contact me at the address
below and not the post list.  Thank you.

Patrick Webb
Compliance Engineer
patrick.w...@genband.com
General Bandwidth


---
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.