ATT Pub 83401
All- Anybody know where to find ATT Pub 83401? Global and ATT don't have it...I'm looking for a place to purchase to document. Thanks, Dwight
scope of EN61000-4-8, EN61000-4-9
Hello Group-- I need information on the scope of EN61000-4-8 and -9. My understanding of these magnetic field immunity standards is that they are used primarily as the basis for testing CRT-type monitors or visual displays. I will be ordering both of these standards soon, but in the meantime where can I look to find details of the scope? From experience, what type of electronic equipment other than Visual Display Units has been found particularly susceptible to power frequency and pulsed magnetic fields? Thank you, Chet Summers Pelco --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: LISN Impedance
Calculate the impedance of 50 uH shunted by 50 Ohms, or just read it off the graph, you're allowed 20% slop, aren't you? on 3/26/02 1:58 PM, Thomas Donnelly at tdonne...@lucent.com wrote: Does anyone have a graph of the ANSI C63.4-2000 LISN impedance characteristic curve that has a reasonable degree of resolution, or perhaps a tabular listing of the values. I am attempting to read the values off the graph presented in the standard and do not believe I can get a reasonably accurate value. Thanks, Tom Donnelly Lucent Technologies tdonne...@lucent.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261 --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
John, I have heard you express these sorts of ideas before. Can I ask you if you have any authority you can quote to back them up? To the best of my knowledge (and that may not be all that good) the only law that can be tried in a UK is UK law (English or Scottish where they are different) The directives are not UK law. Use of the European Convention on Humans Rights was only possible when that was written into UK law. Yet you claim that you could appeal directly to the Directive in a UK court. In an e-mail to me that was not copied to the forum you stated that you could put up a defence of the inadequacy of a harmonised standard if equipment was causing interference despite conformance to the standard saying such a prosecution would be fatally flawed. Yet all the cases I have read about such as the first prosecution in the UK of computer superstores in Cardiff on 8th october 1997 the defendants were accused of contravention of specific regulations of the UK Electromagnetic compatibility regulations 1992. In this case regulations 28 and 33 with a charge of contravening regulation 34 dropped. Certainly you could appeal to a European court if you thought that the UK court had not dealt properly with you and I believe it is possible in principle for an individual to take a country to the European court for improperly applying a directive. However it is the normal principle in a court that you cannot challenge the law itself. The court decides only on the law as it is You can claim that one law that that court has competence to judge has priority over another that is within its competence but as far as I know there is not way in a court that you can challenge the sovereign right of parliament to have cast the law in the way that it did, even if it is treaty bound to implement them in another way. To the best of my knowledge it is simply not within the competence of the UK courts to judge the UK parliament's compliance with international treaties. This must be judged elsewhere If you have case history or can quote any UK statutes to the contrary John I would be very interested to hear them. To George Alspaugh who said I know of no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for IEC/EN 60950. I would say that all of these laws take precedence over the EU Directives in the individual countries because all of them are law in those countries and the EU Directives are not law in any of them Only in the European Courts do the EU directives take precedence and those courts do not prosecute individual cases. (IEC standards by the way have no legal authority anywhere they are purely advisory for those setting standards that do have some legal authority)
Re: IEC 870-2-1:1995
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote (in 83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaaf7e...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com) about 'IEC 870-2-1:1995', on Tue, 26 Mar 2002: Anybody know what this standard is? I'm looking for the title and possibly a place to purchase. Well, it's now called IEC 60870-2-1, Telecontrol equipment and systems - Part 2: Operating conditions - Section 1: Power supply and electromagnetic compatibility, and you can find out all about it, and buy it, at http://www.iec.ch -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
LISN Impedance
Does anyone have a graph of the ANSI C63.4-2000 LISN impedance characteristic curve that has a reasonable degree of resolution, or perhaps a tabular listing of the values. I am attempting to read the values off the graph presented in the standard and do not believe I can get a reasonably accurate value. Thanks, Tom Donnelly Lucent Technologies tdonne...@lucent.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote (in 000401c1d4da$9a8f5bd0$cb3e3...@corp.auspex.com) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Tue, 26 Mar 2002: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. But John, isn't that simply the method for all statutes? Aren't officials allowed to follow the letter of the law OR demand a stricter interpretation (within reasonable limits) rather than a weakened interpretation? I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'statutes' in this context. It is certainly NOT allowed to make the national law overtly more stringent than the Directive, because the whole point is to eliminate national laws that are technical barriers to trade, e.g. the former German EMC requirements, at least partially a legacy of the Adenaur government period, when the Allies wouldn't let Germany have any very usable LF or MF broadcast allocations, and what were allowed were jammed by the eastern powers. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: chassis bonding - star washers enough?
We are users of many types of electro-medical equipment, all of which we subject to basic safety testing before placing into service in our hospital. Our experience is that metal-to-metal is the only relaible means of chassis earth-bonding. We regularly find that equipment delivered to us which has relied upon star-washers or other types of fastening to cut through surface coatings to achieve reliable bonding fails to do so properly, leaving accessible parts at intermediate resistances to earth. (The use of rasping fasteners may produce satisfactory results on the individual device sent for type-testing, but it would appear to be difficult to consistently achieve the same result on the assembly-line) Ged Dean, Nottingham City Hospital, UK. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. NCHT ** --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: IP Rating and EN60950
In my case our equipment is subjected to both UL60950 and UL50 -
enclousures for electronic equipment outdoors - or whatever the title is ('m
out of the office for the moment and don't have the standard. This covers rain
tests along with some other conerns dealing with transients etc.
Beyond that I am subjcting the cabinent to many of the GR-478
requirements - dust driven rain etc. The first set addresses the basic safety
the second set tells me that I can survive out there for a period of time. This
testing looks at seals, windload on doors, the effects of sun loading etc. I
would like not to have to replace or repair these things anymore often than
necessary. I don't do the set I consider site specific - burning hay bails,
gunshot penetration etc. This will probably happen sometime but are not
systemic to the product line. Long term heating and corrosion etc are going to
effect all of that.
When I get done with all of these tests, I can equate these to the IP
designations with the data.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:36 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: IP Rating and EN60950
1.1.2 of EN 60950-1:2001 states requirements additional to those
specified in this standard may be necessary for .. equipment
intended for use where ingress of water is possible; for
guidance on such requirements and on relevant testing, see
annex T. Annex T, which refers to IEC 60529, is informative,
however.
IEC TC74, WG8, has an ad-hoc group working on requirements for
outdoor equipment. I am a member of that group. I have to say
that it will be some time before any new document is published.
The lack of any specific requirements in the standard does not
relieve you from the responsibility of producing a safe product.
For our automated teller machines, I use the UL rain test to show
that we prevent water ingress causing a hazard, rather than the
requirements of IEC 60529, which in my opinion may show that a
sealed box is watertight, but are inadequate for enclosures with
openings where an extended test (one hour) is necessary to
confirm that rain ingress does not cause a problem.
Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is : -
EN 60950 does not normative reference EN 60529 because
EN 60950 is a clone of IEC 60950, which did not normative
reference IEC 60529.
Regards,
John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) ,
NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Discovery Centre,
3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW
E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com
Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. .
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: 20 March 2002 20:00
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: IP Rating and EN60950
I would like someone to explain to me why EN60950 does not normative
reference EN60529. While the latter is referenced in the OJ, the scope of
the standard seems to indicate that it is a basic standard to be referenced
in product standards. The scope says, It will remain the reponsibility of
the individual Technical Committes to decide on the extent and manner in
which the classification is used in their standards and to define
'enclosure' as it applies to their equipment.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
---
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: davehe...@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:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
---
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: davehe...@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:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC Part 68 and prototypes
Greetings All, Thanks to all those who have responded with their comments and advise. This group is worth more than their weight in gold. Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com -Original Message- From: Georgerian, Richard [mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:13 PM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: FCC Part 68 and prototypes Hello All, So far we have only tested our products to Part 68 and have not, until now, been requested to connect prototype telecom devices to the network. Is there a process that the FCC has for such prototypes for a limited amount of time and small number of units (less than 10), before the device is fully certified? The prototype model has either been certified by an earlier older model but is now being upgraded or the prototypes have not been certified yet, but require some field trials at a customer site for evaluation. Thanks in-advance. Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
RE: FCC part 15 section 109
Ghery, you are correct. Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 == Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US@3M-Corporate ntel.com Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/26/2002 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' kristiaan.carpent...@mmm.com 10:06 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 The 108 MHz breakpoint applies to unintentional radiators, as well. From 15.33(b)(1) - Highest Used FrequencyUpper Test Frequency Limit 108 MHz 1 GHz 108 MHz to 500 MHz 2 GHz 500 MHz to 1 GHz 5 GHz 1 GHz5th harmonic or 40 GHz, whichever is lower Ghery S. Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:08 AM To: Pettit, Ghery Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 The 108 MHz is for equipment that are intentional radiators (10th harmonic, see 15.33 (a)(1) and 15.208 (f). For unintentional radiators it is the 5th harmonic (see 15.33 (b)(1)). Be sure and read 15.35 (b) on the use of the proper detectors above 1000 MHz (uses 'average' and 'peak' detectors (not a 'quasi-peak' detector). Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' ntel.com kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/25/2002 cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:50 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 Please respond to Pettit, Ghery Kristiaan, The test procedures of ANSI C63.4-2000 must be used, even when testing to the limits in CISPR 22. The 10 meter test distance is fine, but to the extent that the test methods differ, ANSI C63.4 must be followed. Don't forget that if the product has a clock higher than 108 MHz, testing above 1 GHz will be required to the FCC limits. The upper frequency will depend upon the actual maximum clock speed in the product. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 section 109 Hello group, Part 15, section 109, states that as an alternative to the radiated emission limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, digital devices may be shown to comply with CISPR22 3rd ed. Further-on is stated that the testmethods of part 15 (referring to ANSI C63.4) apply. Question: If a lab performs Part 15 measurements for Class B devices below 1000MHz according to CISPR22:1997 with - the limits of CISPR22 - the procedures of CISPR22 - at a 10 meter distance as per CISPR22, Are these measurements performed in an correct way? Regards, Kris Carpentier File att1.htm not included with reply --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC part 15 section 109
The 108 MHz breakpoint applies to unintentional radiators, as well. From 15.33(b)(1) - Highest Used Frequency Upper Test Frequency Limit 108 MHz1 GHz 108 MHz to 500 MHz 2 GHz 500 MHz to 1 GHz5 GHz 1 GHz 5th harmonic or 40 GHz, whichever is lower Ghery S. Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:08 AM To: Pettit, Ghery Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 The 108 MHz is for equipment that are intentional radiators (10th harmonic, see 15.33 (a)(1) and 15.208 (f). For unintentional radiators it is the 5th harmonic (see 15.33 (b)(1)). Be sure and read 15.35 (b) on the use of the proper detectors above 1000 MHz (uses 'average' and 'peak' detectors (not a 'quasi-peak' detector). Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' ntel.com kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/25/2002 cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:50 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 Please respond to Pettit, Ghery Kristiaan, The test procedures of ANSI C63.4-2000 must be used, even when testing to the limits in CISPR 22. The 10 meter test distance is fine, but to the extent that the test methods differ, ANSI C63.4 must be followed. Don't forget that if the product has a clock higher than 108 MHz, testing above 1 GHz will be required to the FCC limits. The upper frequency will depend upon the actual maximum clock speed in the product. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 section 109 Hello group, Part 15, section 109, states that as an alternative to the radiated emission limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, digital devices may be shown to comply with CISPR22 3rd ed. Further-on is stated that the testmethods of part 15 (referring to ANSI C63.4) apply. Question: If a lab performs Part 15 measurements for Class B devices below 1000MHz according to CISPR22:1997 with - the limits of CISPR22 - the procedures of CISPR22 - at a 10 meter distance as per CISPR22, Are these measurements performed in an correct way? Regards, Kris Carpentier File att1.htm not included with reply --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC part 15 section 109
I think you need to read 15.33 (b) (1) again. For UNINTENTIONAL radiators, the upper frequency of measurement increases to 2 GHz for equipment where highest frequency generated or used is 108-500 MHz. It increases to 5 GHz for highested frequency generated 500-1000 MHz and to the 5th harmonic (or 40 GHz, whichever is greater) for highest frequency generated above 1000 MHz. Jim Hulbert Senior Engineer Pitney Bowes rehel...@mmm.com Sent by: To: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com owner-emc-pstc@majordomcc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' o.ieee.org kristiaan.carpent...@mmm.com Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 03/26/2002 07:08 AM Please respond to reheller The 108 MHz is for equipment that are intentional radiators (10th harmonic, see 15.33 (a)(1) and 15.208 (f). For unintentional radiators it is the 5th harmonic (see 15.33 (b)(1)). Be sure and read 15.35 (b) on the use of the proper detectors above 1000 MHz (uses 'average' and 'peak' detectors (not a 'quasi-peak' detector). Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' ntel.com kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/25/2002 cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:50 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 Please respond to Pettit, Ghery Kristiaan, The test procedures of ANSI C63.4-2000 must be used, even when testing to the limits in CISPR 22. The 10 meter test distance is fine, but to the extent that the test methods differ, ANSI C63.4 must be followed. Don't forget that if the product has a clock higher than 108 MHz, testing above 1 GHz will be required to the FCC limits. The upper frequency will depend upon the actual maximum clock speed in the product. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 section 109 Hello group, Part 15, section 109, states that as an alternative to the radiated emission limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, digital devices may be shown to comply with CISPR22 3rd ed. Further-on is stated that the testmethods of part 15 (referring to ANSI C63.4) apply. Question: If a lab performs Part 15 measurements for Class B devices below 1000MHz according to CISPR22:1997 with - the limits of CISPR22 - the procedures of CISPR22 - at a 10 meter distance as per CISPR22, Are these measurements performed in an correct way? Regards, Kris Carpentier File att1.htm not included with reply --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. But John, isn't that simply the method for all statutes? Aren't officials allowed to follow the letter of the law OR demand a stricter interpretation (within reasonable limits) rather than a weakened interpretation? Regards, Doug McKean --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Medium Voltage Equipment
Is anyone aware of any medium voltage ( 2.2 kV) products on the market other than distribution equipment, switchgear, motor controllers, HVAC chillers and associated components. -- Jody Leber jle...@onebox.com - email (404) 978-1264 x6901 - voicemail/fax --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Nick, Thanks for your comments. However, I like to simplify things to their essential ingredients. Whatever I may fail to understand, I do understand that my products will have no import within EU states if: 1. They are designed with IEC 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. They are third party certified via a CB Report to IEC 60950. 3. Similarly to 1 and 2 above for EMC. 4. A EU DoC is appropriately held within the EU. We do obtain certifications for Germany (GS mark) and Sweden (S mark), not because they are mandatory, but for ease of marketing. I know of no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for IEC/EN 60950. For the U.S. and Canada, one may follow a similar path: 1. Design to UL/CSA 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. Obtain either UL or CSA approval for both countries. 3. Submit EMC data to the U.S. FCC and Canada ICES. 4. No DoC required. A CB Report from a Euro test agency may be used to obtain either the UL or CSA blessing, or conversely, a UL or CSA CB may be used to support the EU DoC. George Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/25/2002 06:28:35 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations George I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. If for instance you had been taken to court in the UK in relation to EMC problems you would not be accused of contravening directive 89/336/EEC, you would be accused of contravening the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 (SI 19992/2372) In Germany the same action will have you in conflict with Gesetz über die elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit von Geräten, (EMVG) In Belgium you will run foul of Royal decree of May 18th 1994 concerning electromagnetic compatibility; and in Greece Ministerial Decision number 94649/8682/ 93/25-8-94 And in each case it is you the manufacturer dealer or user that will be taken to court. It is not the country that will be prosecuted and it is not a matter of allowing entry. Crossing borders as such is not an offence either for an individual or a member state. The offence is placing on the market or taking into service non-compliant equipment at any point in the EU. The fact that you have not had any trouble with any of these national laws is good news, long may it remain so. However this does not change the fact that these are the laws under which manufacturers, dealers and users operate in the various countries and you should beware of the subtle differences between them. Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com Cc: emc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:16 PM Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet
RE: EN60950:1992 vs EN60950:2000
I found the following areas of change that affects our equipment (no TNV). Other sections may have also changed. 1.3.6: equipment orientation clarified 1.5.6: requirements for X1 an X2 caps has changed and Y cap standard added 1.7.1: location of power rating marking revised 2.4.2: limited current circuit capacitance value depends upon voltage Table 2G (pg 83): examples of insulation applications expanded and clarified 2.10.3.1: Annex G provides alternate method for determining clearances 4.2.10: wall and ceiling mounted equipment load test 4.3.8: batteries 4.6.4: openings in transportable equipment 4.7.1: the two methods of reducing risk of fire is clarified - method 2 now says a fire enclosure is not required 4.7.2: cond 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: EN60950:1992 vs EN60950:2000
Hi Duncan, I have the following information, I think I got it from my local KTL lab: EN60950:1992 VS EN60950:2000 Updated Safety Requirements for IT Telecoms Equipment Under the Low Voltage Directive EN 60950:2000 was implemented at a national level on 1st January 2001, replacing EN 60950 : 1992 including amendments: 1,2,3,4 and 11, which will be withdrawn in due course. EN 60950:2000 is a harmonised standard under the Low Voltage Directive and as such compliance with it provides a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the Directive. The European Commission publishes dates for cessation of the presumption of conformity, as shown below: Amendment (A1) EN 60950 : 1992 1st March 2000 (Expired) Amendment (A2) Amendment (A1) 1st March 2000 (Expired) Amendment (A3) Amendment (A2) 1st January 2002 Amendment (A4) Amendment (A3) 1st August 2003 Amendment (A11) Amendment (A4) 1st August 2003 EN 60950 : 2000 Amendment (A11) 1st January 2005 What are the main differences between EN 60950 : 2000 and EN 60950 : 1992 inc amendments ? The most obvious change in the new standard relates to the clause numbering, which has been dramatically re-organised, but there are also a number of amendments and additional requirements as follows: Batteries There is a requirement to consider, and in some cases test, any battery installed in the equipment, (not just lithium batteries as previous). Also manufacturers of equipment powered solely from an internal power source can now use the relaxation under clause 4.4.5.2 covering the need for a fire enclosure. Protective Earthing / Bonding Methods of determining the resistance of earthing conductors and their minimum cross sectional areas have been added or modified. Also tests have been made more onerous for the testing of earth conductors within equipment rated in excess of 16A, and earth bonding conductors must be separated from protective earthing conducters. Opto-Isolators Tests are now specified under clause 2.10.5.1. Also the distance through the insulation for supplementary and reinforced insulation is relaxed under certain circumstances. Alternative Method for Determining Clearance Annex G provides an alternative method of determining clearance. Mains Cords The minimum designation for detachable mains cords is now the same for equipment with a mass up to 3kg, irrespective of the total mass. Also the cross sectional area of mains cords table has been expanded to include higher currents. Wiring Terminals Included in clause 3.3.6 are a number of constructional requirements for the terminal supplied for the connection of permanently connected equipment or equipment with ordinary non-detachable power cords. 10N, Steady Force Test A new test has been added requiring components and parts to be subjected to a 10N force. Wall Ceiling Mounted Equipment A force equal to 3 times the mass of the equipment or 50N (whichever is greater) is now applied when the equipment is mounted on the wall or ceiling, to ensure it does not become unstable. Openings in Transportable Equipment New requirements have been added addressing problems of foreign objects entering equipment, e.g. lap top computers, from any orientation and being subject to movement within the enclosure. Leakage Currents to from the Networks The standard addresses leakage currents to and from the telecommunications networks and also considers hazards which may arise as a result of leakage to or from multiple network connections. Flammability A number of alternative methods of determining flammability have been added, including the Glow Wire Test for components and parts located outside fire enclosures. 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: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN60950:1992 vs EN60950:2000 Group, Does anyone have a list of all the differences between EN60950:1992 and EN60950:2000? If so may I have a copy. Many thanks in advance Duncan Hobbs. -- The contents of this communication are confidential to the normal user of the email address to which it was sent. If you have received this email in error, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If this is the case, please notify the sender and delete this message. -- --- 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,
RE: FCC part 15 section 109
The 108 MHz is for equipment that are intentional radiators (10th harmonic, see 15.33 (a)(1) and 15.208 (f). For unintentional radiators it is the 5th harmonic (see 15.33 (b)(1)). Be sure and read 15.35 (b) on the use of the proper detectors above 1000 MHz (uses 'average' and 'peak' detectors (not a 'quasi-peak' detector). Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' ntel.com kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/25/2002 cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:50 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 Please respond to Pettit, Ghery Kristiaan, The test procedures of ANSI C63.4-2000 must be used, even when testing to the limits in CISPR 22. The 10 meter test distance is fine, but to the extent that the test methods differ, ANSI C63.4 must be followed. Don't forget that if the product has a clock higher than 108 MHz, testing above 1 GHz will be required to the FCC limits. The upper frequency will depend upon the actual maximum clock speed in the product. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 section 109 Hello group, Part 15, section 109, states that as an alternative to the radiated emission limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, digital devices may be shown to comply with CISPR22 3rd ed. Further-on is stated that the testmethods of part 15 (referring to ANSI C63.4) apply. Question: If a lab performs Part 15 measurements for Class B devices below 1000MHz according to CISPR22:1997 with - the limits of CISPR22 - the procedures of CISPR22 - at a 10 meter distance as per CISPR22, Are these measurements performed in an correct way? Regards, Kris Carpentier File att1.htm not included with reply --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC part 15 section 109
The 108 MHz is for equipment that are intentional radiators (10th harmonic, see 15.33 (a)(1) and 15.208 (f). For unintentional radiators it is the 5th harmonic (see 15.33 (b)(1)). Be sure and read 15.35 (b) on the use of the proper detectors above 1000 MHz (uses 'average' and 'peak' detectors (not a 'quasi-peak' detector). Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = Pettit, Ghery ghery.pettit@i To: 'kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be' ntel.com kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 03/25/2002 cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) 11:50 AM Subject: RE: FCC part 15 section 109 Please respond to Pettit, Ghery Kristiaan, The test procedures of ANSI C63.4-2000 must be used, even when testing to the limits in CISPR 22. The 10 meter test distance is fine, but to the extent that the test methods differ, ANSI C63.4 must be followed. Don't forget that if the product has a clock higher than 108 MHz, testing above 1 GHz will be required to the FCC limits. The upper frequency will depend upon the actual maximum clock speed in the product. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 8:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 section 109 Hello group, Part 15, section 109, states that as an alternative to the radiated emission limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, digital devices may be shown to comply with CISPR22 3rd ed. Further-on is stated that the testmethods of part 15 (referring to ANSI C63.4) apply. Question: If a lab performs Part 15 measurements for Class B devices below 1000MHz according to CISPR22:1997 with - the limits of CISPR22 - the procedures of CISPR22 - at a 10 meter distance as per CISPR22, Are these measurements performed in an correct way? Regards, Kris Carpentier File att1.htm not included with reply --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: IP Rating and EN60950
1.1.2 of EN 60950-1:2001 states requirements additional to those specified in this standard may be necessary for .. equipment intended for use where ingress of water is possible; for guidance on such requirements and on relevant testing, see annex T. Annex T, which refers to IEC 60529, is informative, however. IEC TC74, WG8, has an ad-hoc group working on requirements for outdoor equipment. I am a member of that group. I have to say that it will be some time before any new document is published. The lack of any specific requirements in the standard does not relieve you from the responsibility of producing a safe product. For our automated teller machines, I use the UL rain test to show that we prevent water ingress causing a hazard, rather than the requirements of IEC 60529, which in my opinion may show that a sealed box is watertight, but are inadequate for enclosures with openings where an extended test (one hour) is necessary to confirm that rain ingress does not cause a problem. Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is : - EN 60950 does not normative reference EN 60529 because EN 60950 is a clone of IEC 60950, which did not normative reference IEC 60529. Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. . -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: 20 March 2002 20:00 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IP Rating and EN60950 I would like someone to explain to me why EN60950 does not normative reference EN60529. While the latter is referenced in the OJ, the scope of the standard seems to indicate that it is a basic standard to be referenced in product standards. The scope says, It will remain the reponsibility of the individual Technical Committes to decide on the extent and manner in which the classification is used in their standards and to define 'enclosure' as it applies to their equipment. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Reminder - Northeast Product Safety Society Meeting Tomorrow - Wednesday, March 27
There will be a Northeast Product Safety Society meeting tomorrow, March 27, at EMC Corporation's Customer Briefing Center in Hopkinton, MA. A social hour with light refreshments will begin at 7:00 PM and the technical meeting will start at 7:30 PM. Steve Henderson, Senior Product Safety Manager for Curtis Straus LLC, will be presenting this month's technical topic concerning EN 41003 and it's ongoing relevance. Jack Burns, Chairman of the EMC Society IEEE Technical Committee 8, will give his presentation to the IEEE Technical Advisory Board regarding the formation of an independent Product Safety Society. For further information about this meeting and Mr. Henderson, please see the NPSS website at http://www.nepss.org/call/next-mtgmar.html. The 2002 NPSS meeting schedule is available on the NPSS website at http://www.nepss.org/about/npss2002kf.html. The March President's message is now available on the NPSS website at http://www.nepss.org/messagefrompresident/messagepres_030502.html. Further information about the Northeast Product Safety Society and how to become a member is available at http://www.nepss.org. You can also contact one of the NPSS officers via links at http://www.nepss.org/about/officerskf.html. Directions: From Route 495 North or South take exit 21B to South Street. At the first traffic light, turn left (Note: This is on South direction side of Route 495). EMC Corporation is the second driveway on the right. Matt Campanella NPSS Secretary Compliance Engineer Motorola, Inc. Broadband Communications Sector 3 Highwood Drive East Tewksbury, MA 01876 (978) 858-2303 Direct (978) 858-2300 Main (978) 858-2399 Fax matthew.campane...@motorola.com email --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
EN60950:1992 vs EN60950:2000
Group, Does anyone have a list of all the differences between EN60950:1992 and EN60950:2000? If so may I have a copy. Many thanks in advance Duncan Hobbs. -- The contents of this communication are confidential to the normal user of the email address to which it was sent. If you have received this email in error, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If this is the case, please notify the sender and delete this message. -- --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com wrote (in 000f01c1d454$c9b2e390$0c4aacac@nick) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Mon, 25 Mar 2002: I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. Well, you are BOTH right, and the difference is one of 'de facto' versus 'de jure'. If one were to be prosecuted under any of the cited national laws, one *could*, if it was appropriate, present a prima facie defence of compliance with the Directive in question, not with the national law, accompanied by a claim that the national law did not interpret the Directive correctly. This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
ANSI C63.4-2000
Dear all Would like to know if any document came out from FCC to allow test lab to use ANSI C63.4-2000? Thank you KC Chan --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
