RE: Company close down due to EMC phenomena
Hello , I think we are missing the point here. CISPR 22 is an emission standard not an RF standard. CISPR 22 limits do not apply to the intentional radio frequencies. As this is an intentional radiator the product falls under the RTTE directive. That will also mean that notification must be given. If a particular country refuses your product then they must provide written reasons to Brussels. I think they would have a problem denying a radio access to their market based on it's transmit frequency exceeding the permitted power level for emissions in CISPR 22 :) How about another argument on a completely different tack? If one uses CISPR 22 then I noticed you quoted a peak measurement for the transmission. Assuming this is not a typo then the measurement is taken incorrectly. Pressing peak hold on a SA doesn't cut it for this measurement. It must be quasi peak and average measurements. If one ignores the problem of even capturing the transmission properly, then consider the following. As CE bus transmissions :jitter over a wide band you may pass when you consider the settling time of the detectors, the measurement bandwidth and the apparent bandwidth of the transmission and the shortness of your transmission. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:53 PM To: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Company close down due to EMC phenomena A technical response from an American. I sympathize with the viewpoint that the duty cycle is very low and the on-time is very low and the potential for mischief is near nil. I would add a further argument. 55022 CE limits protect AM radio reception. In the USA there is no AM broadcast below 530 kHz. In the EU there is some LW broadcasting from I believe 150 - 300 kHz, and then MW picks up again at 530 kHz. So the potential for rfi is limited. That officials would even consider banning such a product is an argument against anyone having such power. -- From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Company close down due to EMC phenomena Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 2:17 PM Well, this might be the reality in a case I have been introduced to lately. Case: A company are manufacturing PowerLine Communication products. They communicate via the power lines and a typical link is between a consumer residence and the nearest power station. The products can of course also communicate inside the consumers residence. The communication protocol is called CEBus http://www.cebus.org/which and make use of the frequency band 100kHz-400kHz and the amplitude is approximate 2-5V. A typical length of a transmission is 25ms and occurs approximate one time pr hour. First of all, AFAIK PowerLine Communication and PowerLine Transmission (broadband 1.6MHz-30MHz) are now coming will full force in EU and CENELEC/ETSI are working together regulate this type of transmission path and also coming up with standards. The problem for the manufacturer is the conducted emission requirements in EU. According to the EN55022B levels the maximum quasi-peak emission is 66dBuV@150kHz, and a typical PLC (under transmission) which has been measured, showed the value of 120dBuV (peak). With no transmission it had a margin of 10dB (quasi-peak) and 30dB (average). The radiated emission had a margin of 10dB. Well, conducted emission is the problem when transmitting. But, as I said, the transmission occurs only 25ms/hour. The national authority will not allowed this product to be placed into the marked because it do not fulfil the EN55022B limits (100kHz-400kHz) under transmission mode. No way. Other national authorities have other approaches on this case, they say as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. They also say install it even if it does not fulfil EN550022B, but we will remove it if it disturb others. Two completely different approaches as you see. Questions: 1. Is it possible to have different approaches within EU ? 2. Since PLC/PLT is quite new technology and since we do not have any EU product standard (no standard for whose who are using 100kHz-400kHz band), I like the approach as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. What is your opinion about this? 3. The transmission occurs very seldom. 25ms/hour, that is 7e-6 and approximate 0,001% transmission rate. Can this seldom transmission rate be an argument to not test the PLC product under continuous transmission ? I would say yes, but which rate is acceptable / reasonable ? So, why should the company close
Chicago IEEE EMC Society Meeting Tonight CANCELLED!
Please be advised that the Chicago IEEE EMC SOCIETY meeting is cancelled for tonight, due to weather conditions in the Chicago area Spread the word to all that you may feel would be attending tonight's Chicago Chapter IEEE EMC Society meeting... FYI, the website will be updated accordingly, as soon as we have new information... The Chapter website is... http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/chicago/ Please call me if you have any questions Regards Frank Frank Krozel TEL: 630-924-1600 FAX: 630-924-1668 MOBILE: 630-890-5421 (24/7) TEL: 630-653-9090 Home Electronic Instrument Associates-Central, Inc. Serving the Midwest with Electrical Engineers Since 1971 Website: http://www.electronicinstrument.com 123 East Lake St. Suite 300 Bloomingdale, IL 60108
Re: Solid State Amplifiers
I recall that AR was selling solid-state amps above 1 GHz in the 10 W category. I may be out of date, but I thought TWTAs were the amp of choice at 50 W or above. -- From: Barbara Judge bju...@ccsemc.com To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Solid State Amplifiers Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 3:29 PM Hello Again, We are looking for a broadband linear power amplifier ~50W covering a minimum frequency range of 1GHz - 2.5GHz, a broader range would be fine. RF Input Signal Format capability: CW/AM/FM/PM/Pulse. If anyone out there has or knows of any used equipment, or specific recommendations based on experience with new equipment, please contact me. Thanks in advance for the help. Best Regards, Barbara ___ Barbara L. Judge Vice President Compliance Certification Services Designated TCB and CAB 561F Monterey Road Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408-463-0885 ext.104 Fax: 408-463-0888 e-mail: bju...@ccsemc.com http://www.ccsemc.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.
Re: Company close down due to EMC phenomena
Hi Amund: I suggest you and your client and the regulatory authority meet to address the situation. Here are the issues as I understand them from your message: 1. In idle mode, the emissions are comfortably below the maximum allowed emissions. 2. In transmit mode, the emissions exceed the maximum allowed emissions. The duration of the transmission is 25 ms. The repetition rate of the transmission is about 1/hour. 3. The emission level is probably related to the nature of the system, i.e., transmission via the power distribution network. I feel that 25 ms/hour is the important parameter. I suspect that most motor-starting events exceed the emission level, and for more than 25 ms. Like- wise, I suspect most igniter events also exceed the emission level and for more than 25 ms. Does your regulatory authority permit such emissions? Set up the system for normal operation. Ask the regulatory authority to measure the emissions. The emissions will be in compliance for 1 hour. The regulatory authority must be observing the emissions at the moment of the 25 ms transmission in order to determine if the emissions exceed the allowed level. I suspect this is a difficult measurement. The receiver or SA must be tuned to the transmit frequency during the 25 ms transmit interval. This probably requires advance knowledge of the transmit frequency, and therefore the measurment is not an agnostic measurement. (If you were submitting the equipment to the regulatory authority, do you have an obligation to inform them of expected performance of the unit, especially the specifics of the transmit mode?) And, there must be some means of capturing the data during the event. Short of staring at the SA screen for an hour or more, I'm not sure this can be done except with exceptional effort and additional equipment. The preceding paragraph is something of a game to play with the regulatory authority. So, why should the company close down ? Because if the national authority gets what they want, there will be one sale. Logical, but is it a correct prohibition the authority call? The company SHOULD have known that its product would exceed conducted emissions. The company SHOULD have taken appropriate steps with the regulatory authority to know whether or not its product would be approved BEFORE it invested in the product development. This is not a fault of the regulatory authority, but a fault of the company to not understand the regulations BEFORE it developed the product. 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: date of publication relevance
I read in !emc-pstc that Brian O'Connell boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote (in f7e9180f6f7f5840858d3db815e4f7ad1f2...@cms21.t-yuden.com) about 'date of publication relevance', on Wed, 16 Jan 2002: The safety agency engineer, doing the CB report, says that he cannot use EN61010-1:2001 because it is not yet recognized. As the DOP = 01 Nov 2001, I do not understand. Can someone please educate me Presumably, it hasn't yet been 'notified'; in the Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC). But it almost certainly will be. So, if you can wait, do so until it is 'notified'. If you can't wait, conformity with the 2001 edition probably guarantees also conformity with the previous edition, so negotiate with your safety agency engineer on that basis. -- 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: Company close down due to EMC phenomena
A technical response from an American. I sympathize with the viewpoint that the duty cycle is very low and the on-time is very low and the potential for mischief is near nil. I would add a further argument. 55022 CE limits protect AM radio reception. In the USA there is no AM broadcast below 530 kHz. In the EU there is some LW broadcasting from I believe 150 - 300 kHz, and then MW picks up again at 530 kHz. So the potential for rfi is limited. That officials would even consider banning such a product is an argument against anyone having such power. -- From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Company close down due to EMC phenomena Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 2:17 PM Well, this might be the reality in a case I have been introduced to lately. Case: A company are manufacturing PowerLine Communication products. They communicate via the power lines and a typical link is between a consumer residence and the nearest power station. The products can of course also communicate inside the consumers residence. The communication protocol is called CEBus http://www.cebus.org/which and make use of the frequency band 100kHz-400kHz and the amplitude is approximate 2-5V. A typical length of a transmission is 25ms and occurs approximate one time pr hour. First of all, AFAIK PowerLine Communication and PowerLine Transmission (broadband 1.6MHz-30MHz) are now coming will full force in EU and CENELEC/ETSI are working together regulate this type of transmission path and also coming up with standards. The problem for the manufacturer is the conducted emission requirements in EU. According to the EN55022B levels the maximum quasi-peak emission is 66dBuV@150kHz, and a typical PLC (under transmission) which has been measured, showed the value of 120dBuV (peak). With no transmission it had a margin of 10dB (quasi-peak) and 30dB (average). The radiated emission had a margin of 10dB. Well, conducted emission is the problem when transmitting. But, as I said, the transmission occurs only 25ms/hour. The national authority will not allowed this product to be placed into the marked because it do not fulfil the EN55022B limits (100kHz-400kHz) under transmission mode. No way. Other national authorities have other approaches on this case, they say as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. They also say install it even if it does not fulfil EN550022B, but we will remove it if it disturb others. Two completely different approaches as you see. Questions: 1. Is it possible to have different approaches within EU ? 2. Since PLC/PLT is quite new technology and since we do not have any EU product standard (no standard for whose who are using 100kHz-400kHz band), I like the approach as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. What is your opinion about this? 3. The transmission occurs very seldom. 25ms/hour, that is 7e-6 and approximate 0,001% transmission rate. Can this seldom transmission rate be an argument to not test the PLC product under continuous transmission ? I would say yes, but which rate is acceptable / reasonable ? So, why should the company close down ? Because if the national authority gets what they want, there will be one sale. Logical, but is it a correct prohibition the authority call? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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
Solid State Amplifiers
Hello Again, We are looking for a broadband linear power amplifier ~50W covering a minimum frequency range of 1GHz - 2.5GHz, a broader range would be fine. RF Input Signal Format capability: CW/AM/FM/PM/Pulse. If anyone out there has or knows of any used equipment, or specific recommendations based on experience with new equipment, please contact me. Thanks in advance for the help. Best Regards, Barbara ___ Barbara L. Judge Vice President Compliance Certification Services Designated TCB and CAB 561F Monterey Road Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408-463-0885 ext.104 Fax: 408-463-0888 e-mail: bju...@ccsemc.com http://www.ccsemc.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.
EMC Engineer or Super Technician
Hi Folks, CCS is seeking the services of an RF/EMC Engineer or Technician with experience in testing wireless devices as well as ITE, TM, etc. to international standards. This is a permanent, full-time staff position; competitive salary commensurate with knowledge and experience. CCS is an accredited test facility as well as a designated Telecommunications Certification Body and Conformity Assessment Body, located in Silicon Valley. Please visit our website to learn more about us. Best Regards, Barbara ___ Barbara L. Judge Vice President Compliance Certification Services Designated TCB and CAB 561F Monterey Road Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408-463-0885 ext.104 Fax: 408-463-0888 e-mail: bju...@ccsemc.com http://www.ccsemc.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: SV: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6
Currently under vote the prA2:2001 on EN 50130-4 -Immunitytesting to 2000 MHz -replace ENV 50141:1993 reference by EN 61000-4-6 (no date). 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 am...@westin-emission.no Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:03 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: SV: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 See attached file. From this document I feel that CENELEC from now on, want us to use EN61000-4-6 instead of ENV50141. or have I misunderstood the phrase Superseded ? Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av John Woodgate Sendt: 15. januar 2002 07:40 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: Re: SV: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin-emission.no wrote (in LFENJLPMMJB mhpeibnilaeclccaa.am...@westin-emission.no) about 'SV: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6', on Mon, 14 Jan 2002: When CELELEC tells us that EN61000-4-6 (which also is a CENELEC document) replaces ENV50141, I can't see why we still should use it. When and where did CENELEC tell us that? OK, CENELEC have been busy with other things instead of upgrading EN50130-4. The procedure is very simple, and eliminating outdated references is not a low-priority activity. -- 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. attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf
Company close down due to EMC phenomena
Well, this might be the reality in a case I have been introduced to lately. Case: A company are manufacturing PowerLine Communication products. They communicate via the power lines and a typical link is between a consumer residence and the nearest power station. The products can of course also communicate inside the consumers residence. The communication protocol is called CEBus http://www.cebus.org/which and make use of the frequency band 100kHz-400kHz and the amplitude is approximate 2-5V. A typical length of a transmission is 25ms and occurs approximate one time pr hour. First of all, AFAIK PowerLine Communication and PowerLine Transmission (broadband 1.6MHz-30MHz) are now coming will full force in EU and CENELEC/ETSI are working together regulate this type of transmission path and also coming up with standards. The problem for the manufacturer is the conducted emission requirements in EU. According to the EN55022B levels the maximum quasi-peak emission is 66dBuV@150kHz, and a typical PLC (under transmission) which has been measured, showed the value of 120dBuV (peak). With no transmission it had a margin of 10dB (quasi-peak) and 30dB (average). The radiated emission had a margin of 10dB. Well, conducted emission is the problem when transmitting. But, as I said, the transmission occurs only 25ms/hour. The national authority will not allowed this product to be placed into the marked because it do not fulfil the EN55022B limits (100kHz-400kHz) under transmission mode. No way. Other national authorities have other approaches on this case, they say as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. They also say install it even if it does not fulfil EN550022B, but we will remove it if it disturb others. Two completely different approaches as you see. Questions: 1. Is it possible to have different approaches within EU ? 2. Since PLC/PLT is quite new technology and since we do not have any EU product standard (no standard for whose who are using 100kHz-400kHz band), I like the approach as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. What is your opinion about this? 3. The transmission occurs very seldom. 25ms/hour, that is 7e-6 and approximate 0,001% transmission rate. Can this seldom transmission rate be an argument to not test the PLC product under continuous transmission ? I would say yes, but which rate is acceptable / reasonable ? So, why should the company close down ? Because if the national authority gets what they want, there will be one sale. Logical, but is it a correct prohibition the authority call? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: date of publication relevance
Brian, Perhaps he was referring to the fact that the standard has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Attached is the url for you to check. It will provide you with the list of all harmonized standards that have been published in the Journal in support of the LVD. I hope that you find it helpful. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist/lvd.html Best Regards, Barbara ___ Barbara L. Judge Vice President Compliance Certification Services Designated TCB and CAB 561F Monterey Road Morgan Hill, CA 95037 408-463-0885 ext.104 Fax: 408-463-0888 e-mail: bju...@ccsemc.com http://www.ccsemc.com -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: date of publication relevance Good people of the PSTC The safety agency engineer, doing the CB report, says that he cannot use EN61010-1:2001 because it is not yet recognized. As the DOP = 01 Nov 2001, I do not understand. Can someone please educate me R/S, Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), 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: Orange County EMC Society Presentation
CORRECTION! January 24th is a THURSDAY, NOT a Wednesday as the original email indicated! The Meeting is on Thursday, January 24th! Please except my apologies for the error. - Randy Flinders -Original Message- From: Flinders, Randall Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:50 AM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Orange County EMC Society Presentation Greetings EMC Professionals! You are invited to the January 24 presentation of the Orange County IEEE EMC Society technical presentation on Bluetooth! The meetings are free and food is served, so come on down and join us. Specific Information on the presentation follows: --- Topic: Bluetooth - What is it and how do you test it? A presentation introducing Bluetooth wireless technology. An informal discussion that will center on answering the question: What do I do when my company has added Bluetooth capability to our products? Topics will include the Bluetooth Qualification Program with its novel test regime and the FCC authorization of Bluetooth devices (unexpectedly complex!). Speaker: James Cunningham, 7 layers, Inc. James is General Manager of 7 layers, Inc. in Irvine, California. Mr. Cunningham was a European Competent Body for five years with RFI in England and presented three papers in previous IEEE EMC Symposiums. Currently, James is an active Bluetooth Qualification Body (BQB) having personally qualified nearly 40 Bluetooth products. At CKC Laboratories in Brea Located in Small Shopping Center 110 North Olinda Place Brea, CA 92823 714-337-1133 Office: 714-993-6112 Thursday , Jan. 24, 2001 6:00 pm - Social Hour - Beverages Served 6:30 pm - Sandwiches Served 7:00 pm - Presentation Begins MEETINGS ARE NOW FREE FREE! for IEEE Members and Students with Valid Student ID Card FREE! for non-IEEE Members Reservations requested by 10AM on Tuesday, January 23rd. --- For more info or to RSVP, contact: Robert Tozier Chairman, Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society Direct 714-337-1133 Office 714-993-6112 Regards, Randy Flinders Vice-Chairman, Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society Direct: (714) 513-8012 Fax: (714) 513-8265 Email:r.flind...@ieee.org mailto:r.flind...@ieee.org
Orange County EMC Society Presentation
Greetings EMC Professionals! You are invited to the January 24 presentation of the Orange County IEEE EMC Society technical presentation on Bluetooth! The meetings are free and food is served, so come on down and join us. Specific Information on the presentation follows: --- Topic: Bluetooth - What is it and how do you test it? A presentation introducing Bluetooth wireless technology. An informal discussion that will center on answering the question: What do I do when my company has added Bluetooth capability to our products? Topics will include the Bluetooth Qualification Program with its novel test regime and the FCC authorization of Bluetooth devices (unexpectedly complex!). Speaker: James Cunningham, 7 layers, Inc. James is General Manager of 7 layers, Inc. in Irvine, California. Mr. Cunningham was a European Competent Body for five years with RFI in England and presented three papers in previous IEEE EMC Symposiums. Currently, James is an active Bluetooth Qualification Body (BQB) having personally qualified nearly 40 Bluetooth products. At CKC Laboratories in Brea Located in Small Shopping Center 110 North Olinda Place Brea, CA 92823 714-337-1133 Office: 714-993-6112 Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2001 6:00 pm - Social Hour - Beverages Served 6:30 pm - Sandwiches Served 7:00 pm - Presentation Begins MEETINGS ARE NOW FREE FREE! for IEEE Members and Students with Valid Student ID Card FREE! for non-IEEE Members Reservations requested by 10AM on Tuesday, January 23rd. --- For more info or to RSVP, contact: Robert Tozier Chairman, Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society Direct 714-337-1133 Office 714-993-6112 Regards, Randy Flinders Vice-Chairman, Orange County Chapter IEEE EMC Society Direct: (714) 513-8012 Fax: (714) 513-8265 Email:r.flind...@ieee.org mailto:r.flind...@ieee.org
RE: Surge Applications
Sorry, I forgot to mention that the receiver is also subject to the appropriate ETSI spectrum managment standard. Parameters may include adjacent channel selectivity, blocking and spurious emissions. For example, there are three standards for Short Range Devices: EN300220, EN300330 and EN 300440. There are a large number of other standards that apply to other types of receivers. Good luck! Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:49 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Surge Applications David, this may be some bad news for you. Receivers are subject to the the requirements of RTTE Directive (see the note in clause 3.1 of EN55022). Your product may also be subject to the appropriate ETSI EMC standard per clause 3.1 of EN55022. If so, the standards would be EN301489-1 plus the particular part that applies to your product. However, if the particular part does not exist, you would use ETS300683. These standards are available for free download at the ETSI web site. Note that these standards also reference EN 61000-4-5, but you have to follow the levels and acceptance criteria specified in the ETSI standard. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Spencer, David H [mailto:david.spen...@usa.xerox.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Surge Applications Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995 and EN55024:1998. I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable). Is the EUT's antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024? Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. This cable does that. Table 2's title is Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports I feel that an antenna fits under this category. If so (moving on from EN55024) How do I perform the test? Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded lines. However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1. In that case the testing is relatively straight forward. If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check. If I'm incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction. Thanks best regards David Spencer --- 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: Surge Applications
David, this may be some bad news for you. Receivers are subject to the the requirements of RTTE Directive (see the note in clause 3.1 of EN55022). Your product may also be subject to the appropriate ETSI EMC standard per clause 3.1 of EN55022. If so, the standards would be EN301489-1 plus the particular part that applies to your product. However, if the particular part does not exist, you would use ETS300683. These standards are available for free download at the ETSI web site. Note that these standards also reference EN 61000-4-5, but you have to follow the levels and acceptance criteria specified in the ETSI standard. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Spencer, David H [mailto:david.spen...@usa.xerox.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Surge Applications Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995 and EN55024:1998. I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable). Is the EUT's antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024? Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. This cable does that. Table 2's title is Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports I feel that an antenna fits under this category. If so (moving on from EN55024) How do I perform the test? Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded lines. However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1. In that case the testing is relatively straight forward. If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check. If I'm incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction. Thanks best regards David Spencer --- 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: Surge Applications
I read in !emc-pstc that Spencer, David H david.spen...@usa.xerox.com wrote (in 8992668F1C5ED211B4420008C74C364905234D88@USA0200MS1) about 'Surge Applications', on Wed, 16 Jan 2002: Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995 and EN55024:1998. I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable). Is the EUT's antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024? Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. This cable does that. Table 2's title is Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports I feel that an antenna fits under this category. If so (moving on from EN55024) How do I perform the test? Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded lines. However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1. In that case the testing is relatively straight forward. I consider that to be correct; the antenna is EUT 2. If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check. If I'm incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction. I think what you may have missed is that the IEC61000-4-5 surge test may not be appropriate for application to an antenna port. I would look at some ETSI immunity standards to see what tests are applied to antenna ports. -- 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.
What about 480 VAC in Europe? RE: 2 Phases in North America
High all: I have been away form the forum, very busy, and a quick review notes you have been discussing Power distribution in USA. What about Europe? We have an application needing 480 VAC here in USA. How compatible will 480 VAC be in Europe? Someone told me 390 VAC is more real in Europe. !?! How do you see this 480 VAC being impacted by the EN 61000-3-3 harmonic standard? Thanks for any input in advance! Best regards, Terry J. Meck Senior Compliance/Test Engineer tjm...@accusort.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: Surge Applications
Dave, Everything seems reasonable and right to me. I would do it just as you have stated but I have never worked with a system of this sort (RF port and antenna). Dan Kinney Horner APG -Original Message- From: Spencer, David H [SMTP:david.spen...@usa.xerox.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Surge Applications Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995 and EN55024:1998. I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable). Is the EUT's antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024? Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. This cable does that. Table 2's title is Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports I feel that an antenna fits under this category. If so (moving on from EN55024) How do I perform the test? Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded lines. However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1. In that case the testing is relatively straight forward. If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check. If I'm incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction. Thanks best regards David Spencer --- 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.
date of publication relevance
Good people of the PSTC The safety agency engineer, doing the CB report, says that he cannot use EN61010-1:2001 because it is not yet recognized. As the DOP = 01 Nov 2001, I do not understand. Can someone please educate me R/S, Brian O'Connell Taiyo Yuden (USA), 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.
Re: Mains cords
John, A statement in the product's site prep guide to say Installation by a locally licensed electrician is required. Electrical installation must conform to local jurisdiction electrical code. would be helpful. By including this statement the local licensed electrician must used the proper cordset and plug cap as mandated by local code regardless of the country location. Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston the above opinion is my own and not that of my employer. John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk@majordomo.ieee.org on 01/15/2002 11:05:36 PM Please respond to John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Sent by: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: Re: Mains cords I read in !emc-pstc that rob.humph...@reuters.com wrote (in T58779cc7bc c407b706...@reuters.com) about 'Mains cords', on Tue, 15 Jan 2002: Can anyone tell me if equipment supplied as compliant to IEC60950 and has an IEC mains inlet plug has to be supplied with its mains cord if it is not supplied to an end user? To which country/ies is it to be supplied? -- 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. --- 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.
Surge Applications
Using the following references: IEC 61000-4-5:1995 and EN55024:1998. I have to test a piece of ITE equipment which has an receive antenna (the antenna is connected to the EUT using 50 ohm coaxial cable). Is the EUT's antenna cable subject to surge test per table 2 of EN55024? Note 2 specifies only cables which connect to outdoor cables. This cable does that. Table 2's title is Immunity, signal ports and telecommunications ports I feel that an antenna fits under this category. If so (moving on from EN55024) How do I perform the test? Figures 13 and 14 in IEC61000-4-5 illustrates the test set up for shielded lines. However, there really only seems to be one EUT. I suspect I could consider the antenna as EUT 2 and the actual unit as EUT 1. In that case the testing is relatively straight forward. If this all sounds correct, then this is just a sanity check. If I'm incorrect or missed something...could you point me in the right direction. Thanks best regards David Spencer --- 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: which standard have I just tested to?
I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclaren.com wrote (in AE0F4BD08FEAD211895900805FE67B1F01090ECA@CAT) about 'which standard have I just tested to?', on Wed, 16 Jan 2002: I have just tested a product for mains harmonics. I am preparing the Declaration of Conformity. My new copy of EN61000-3-2 declares at the top of the cover page it is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A12:1996 + A13:1997 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 However if I read the reflist of harmonised standards for the EMC Directive on the Europa website correctly it tells me that A13:1997 was superseded by A1:1998. No mention is made of A12:1996 (withdrawn perhaps?) so the reference standard is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 Any ideas what I put on my DoC? Are you not using the BS EN? If so, cite what it says on the front cover, which avoids your difficulty. I wouldn't worry about A12, if I were you. (;-) -- 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.
which standard have I just tested to?
I have just tested a product for mains harmonics. I am preparing the Declaration of Conformity. My new copy of EN61000-3-2 declares at the top of the cover page it is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A12:1996 + A13:1997 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 However if I read the reflist of harmonised standards for the EMC Directive on the Europa website correctly it tells me that A13:1997 was superseded by A1:1998. No mention is made of A12:1996 (withdrawn perhaps?) so the reference standard is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 Any ideas what I put on my DoC? Cheers Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.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.
