RE: information safe
A jamming device? I never heard of such a th100100100100111001100101101010101010010110110101011011011011011011101 Regards, Alan Brewster Senior Systems Safety Engineer -- From: Lucian [SMTP:y...@ht.rol.cn.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:27 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: information safe Dear Sirs, We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its monitor emit signals always. One method to deal with it is shielding, another method is to place an emitter besides PC emitting signals to interfere with PC's signals. Does anybody know any information about the latter method? Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards, Lucian --- 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: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?
I believe what Ing. Gremmen described is the true spirit of immunity testing - you must tailor the test technique to the characteristics of the test sample. As he noted, however, sometimes you have to modify the method of assessing compliant behavior in order to accomplish the test in a reasonable time period. This is all part of engineering, it is more than just lock-step response to standardized test procedures. -- From: Leslie Bai leslie_...@yahoo.com To: Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl, paul_sc...@mitel.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024? List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2002, 2:37 PM Gert Gremmen wrote: ... prescan with Increase frequency step size ! (watch out for resonances) Modify equipment to decrease fault response time (low pass filters ; software ) Build Specifc test features Write specific test software . I am wondering whoelse out there doing these - Is that not sufficient to demonstrate conformity by follwoing standard procedures? What specific test features, what specific test software, are they specifed in the standards? Is this called compliance testing or engineering verification? Of course you will be violating the standard; Can we do this and declare compliance? Leslie Bai NARTE Certified Engineer (EMC-002112-NE) www.siemic.com http://www.siemic.com Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://sbc.yahoo.com/ from SBC Yahoo! http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://sbc.yahoo.com/
RE: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?
Gert Gremmen wrote: ... prescan with Increase frequency step size ! (watch out for resonances) Modify equipment to decrease fault response time (low pass filters ; software ) Build Specifc test features Write specific test software . I am wondering whoelse out there doing these - Is that not sufficient to demonstrate conformity by follwoing standard procedures? What specific test features, what specific test software, are they specifed in the standards? Is this called compliance testing or engineering verification? Of course you will be violating the standard; Can we do this and declare compliance? Leslie Bai NARTE Certified Engineer (EMC-002112-NE) www.siemic.com - Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo!
Re: Filtering 100 BaseT during immunity
Seems like the obvious solution is to use a grounded feedthrough connector at the bulkhead which terminates the shield 360 degrees to the wall. On the other side a new shield, also grounded to the bulkhead picks up where the other left off. That should stop all currents on the shield from penetrating the bulkhead. A quicker way is to strip back any insulation over the shield as it penetrates the bulkhead and make sure it makes a good bond to the bulkhead. Intermediate between these is the use of a stuffing tube, a metal tube (plumbing pipe) that is jam-nut or otherwise well attached and grounded to the bulkhead. Insulation over the shield is again stripped back, maybe for several inches or the entire length of the shield in the tube, and steel or copper or bronze wool is used to stuff the tube and make a good low impedance bond from shield to tube, and thence to bulkhead. The use of the ferrite cores of course helps with all these techniques. -- From: paul_sc...@mitel.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Filtering 100 BaseT during immunity Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2002, 9:05 AM I want to provide isolation for auxillary equipment while performing radiated/conducted immunity testing on 100BT LAN. Tests are performed in a shielded room, and a bulkhead is used. Right now, cables pass right through the bulkhead (with, of course, split core ferrites of varying materials clamped to the cables on either side of the bulkhead). But this is not good enough. Does anyone have an effective means of keeping the RF energy where it belongs (behind the bulkhead) ? By the way, this is low level testing, no more than 10V/m and 10 Vrms. I have an option of using a fiber link (modem) through the bulkhead, however, I am not sure if this equipment will be susceptible, and no samples are available for test. Thanks in advance. Paul --- 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 --- 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: information safe
If I did know anything about it, I wouldn't be allowed to say so... -- From: Lucian y...@ht.rol.cn.net To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: information safe List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2002, 7:26 AM Dear Sirs, We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its monitor emit signals always. One method to deal with it is shielding, another method is to place an emitter besides PC emitting signals to interfere with PC's signals. Does anybody know any information about the latter method? Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards, Lucian
RE: information safe
-Original Message- From: Lucian [mailto:y...@ht.rol.cn.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:27 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: information safe Dear Sirs, We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its monitor emit signals always. One method to deal with it is shielding, another method is to place an emitter besides PC emitting signals to interfere with PC's signals. Does anybody know any information about the latter method? Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards, Lucian Lucian: You could employ a noise emitter of sufficient ERP to actively destroy the front ends of sensitive listening devices. However, EN FCC compliance will be a problem. Best (End-of-week) Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis
Re: information safe
I read in !emc-pstc that Lucian y...@ht.rol.cn.net wrote (in 001801c26ad8$c3d21340$eef56cca@y7v8g6) about 'information safe' on Thu, 3 Oct 2002: Does anybody know any information about the latter method? Yes, it's illegal in almost all countries. -- 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: New FCC conducted emission limit
KC, You should always use the latest version of the FCC Rules. The September 9 date refers to when this change took effect. For now, you have the option of using the new limits (which are the same as CISPR 22) or the old FCC limits for power line conducted emissions. The FCC Rules don't have a separate listing of applicable standards. The limits are built into the Rules and the test methods (for ITE anyway) are called out in the Rules, but are typically separate documents (like ANSI C63.4). The Rules aren't always up to date on such things, however. The Rules still call out ANSI C63.4-1992, but ANSI C63.4-2000 is acceptable to the FCC (per a message from Art Wall a while back). Right now we are in a transition period from the old PLC limits to the new ones as spelled out in the section of the Rules that you quote. By July 10, 2005 all products, old or new, must be in compliance with the new limits. Hope this helps. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: KC CHAN [PDD] [mailto:kcc...@hkpc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:39 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: New FCC conducted emission limit Hi all I know that FCC has changed the conducted emission limits for FCC part 15 and 18, and I do see changes in the latest FCC part 15. The copy I have is as of July 22 2002. In section 15.37(j), as follows. All radio frequency devices that are authorized under the certification, verification or declaration of conformity procedures on or after July 10, 2004, shall comply with the conducted limits specified in section 15.107 or section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate. All radio frequency devices that are manufactured or imported on or after July 10, 2005, shall comply with the conducted limits specified in section 15.107 or section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate. Equipment authorized, imported or manufactured prior to these dates shall comply with the conducted limits specified in Section 15.107 or Section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate, or with the conducted limits that were in effect immediately prior to September 9, 2002. 1) What does the date September 9, 2002 in the last sentence for? 2) FCC always updated the FCC part 15. Is there any document to tell that which version we need to follow? Like EMC in EU, we use the standards that are listed in OJ. Best Regards KC --- 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 --- 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: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?
I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote (in oleokfnbajjejfkplbbmienmcdaa.g.grem...@cetest.nl) about 'Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?' on Thu, 3 Oct 2002: The test will give you only PRESUMPTION of compliance anyway. It is extremely misleading to cast continual doubt on the standards route to compliance simply through hints about this word 'presumption'. The acceptance of a standard by CENELEC, by the Commission's EMC consultant and by the Commissioner's own staff, authorizing its notification in the OJEC, signifies that these experts consider that the standard IS SATISFACTORY for manufacturers to rely on, i.e. that it gives dependable evidence that the essential requirements are met. Wording in CENELEC and Commission documents that appear to 'water this down' are almost all covert (why?) references to the fact that adopted CISPR product-family standards deal only with emissions above 9 kHz, **and that EN61000-3-2, -3-, -11 (and -12 when it is published) that deal with emissions below 9 kHz**, have to be applied as well. It is extremely unfortunate that these words have been interpreted (sometimes for monetary gain) to mean that manufacturers have a duty to trawl though ALL published EMC standards, whether their scopes include the product in question or not, looking for additional tests and limits to apply. In the case of CISPR 14-1, the absence of limits for emissions in the UHF TV bands appears to be a serious defect, which should be dealt with under Article 8 of the Directive. It certainly seems surprising that no cases of, for example, small kitchen machines with commutator motors producing UHF TV interference, have been reported over the many years since CISPR14/EN55014 has been in place. Interference from such sources was the subject of the little-known (outside Europe) first EMC Directive, before the present one. -- 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: preplated steel
-Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:23 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: preplated steel I read in !emc-pstc that Ted Rook t...@crestaudio.com wrote (in sd9b1823@peavey.com) about 'preplated steel' on Wed, 2 Oct 2002: I believe that if you want edges that don't corrode you can get the right material by coordination between your engineers and purchasing people. The stuff that would protect sheared edges was 'Terneplate' in UK. The plating is an alloy (tin/lead?) and the process is not all that cheap, IIRC. But the overall cost can be at least competitive with post-plating and is perhaps more environmentally-friendly. It may be that lead-free platings are now used, and these may be less effective at protecting sheared edges. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Terne plated steel is cold-rolled steel that has a thick layer of 92% lead / 8% tin. I think the process is a continuous hot-dip technique, not electro-plating. The lead/tin coating allows the steel to be deformed or stamped without the coating breaking. The plating also lubricates the forming equipment, allowing for less tool wear and more extreme formations of the steel sheet. The most common use in the USA is the making of vehicular fuel tanks. The terne coating provides an excellent barrier to prevent the gasoline or diesel oil from contacting the steel. All that said, I don't think terne is desirable for electronic work. The high-lead alloy looks dingy, and the lead rubs off onto your fingers. Also, the process doesn't do anything for the cut edges of the steel sheet. You would still have to use something like a folded joint (for mechanical strength) and then reflow the plating in a soldering operation, to wet and re-plate the exposed surfaces. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Can a Haefely EM-101 Coupling Clamp Serve as an Absorbing Clamp?
I read in !emc-pstc that John Barnes jrbar...@iglou.com wrote (in 3d9c46aa.7...@iglou.com) about 'Can a Haefely EM-101 Coupling Clamp Serve as an Absorbing Clamp?' on Thu, 3 Oct 2002: John, You are correct-- The EN 61000-4-6 coupling clamp (EN 61000-4-6 Annex A, and Figure A.3) is a whole different beast than an EN 55014-1 absorbing clamp (CISPR 16-1:1993 Annex K, Figure 38, and Figure 39). I'll look around some more. The *goal* of the EN 55014-1 30-300MHz disturbance-power test is to protect against excessive radiated emissions. Would it be valid to do a CISPR Class B Radiated Emissions test at 10m instead, to meet the spirit of the standard? I think there is 'for' and 'against'. Someone here may know what degree of correlation is usual between measurements with the clamp and OATS results - I don't. You might pass on the OATS but not with the clamp. OTOH, considering the famous recent prosecution, you had better measure on the OATS at least up to 865 MHz to check for possible interference with UHF TV. You can't do that with the clamp. -- 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
Filtering 100 BaseT during immunity
I want to provide isolation for auxillary equipment while performing radiated/conducted immunity testing on 100BT LAN. Tests are performed in a shielded room, and a bulkhead is used. Right now, cables pass right through the bulkhead (with, of course, split core ferrites of varying materials clamped to the cables on either side of the bulkhead). But this is not good enough. Does anyone have an effective means of keeping the RF energy where it belongs (behind the bulkhead) ? By the way, this is low level testing, no more than 10V/m and 10 Vrms. I have an option of using a fiber link (modem) through the bulkhead, however, I am not sure if this equipment will be susceptible, and no samples are available for test. Thanks in advance. Paul --- 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: Can a Haefely EM-101 Coupling Clamp Serve as an Absorbing Clamp?
John, You are correct-- The EN 61000-4-6 coupling clamp (EN 61000-4-6 Annex A, and Figure A.3) is a whole different beast than an EN 55014-1 absorbing clamp (CISPR 16-1:1993 Annex K, Figure 38, and Figure 39). I'll look around some more. The *goal* of the EN 55014-1 30-300MHz disturbance-power test is to protect against excessive radiated emissions. Would it be valid to do a CISPR Class B Radiated Emissions test at 10m instead, to meet the spirit of the standard? Thanks! John Barnes KS4GL dBi Corporation http://www.dbicorporation.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
information safe
Dear Sirs, We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its monitor emit signals always. One method to deal with it is shielding, another method is to place an emitter besides PC emitting signals to interfere with PC's signals. Does anybody know any information about the latter method? Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards, Lucian
Re: Use of pre-plated steel.
John, Sharp edges of pre-plate can be a real problem. And deburring can cause the pre-plate to rust. I'm told you can't run a deburring process on pre-plate - for that reason. I've also been told that a sharp tool will leave less sharp edges on the finished piece, and I'm not only skeptical of that - but even if it is true, concerned also of how long the tool will remain as sharp as it is then dependent upon. Some years ago I bought a sharp edge tester, because all of our bandaged fingers and bloody prototype chassis' were not enough to convince a particular mechanical engineer on that first pre-plate project of the problem at hand. I do admit that we have in some instances allowed the use of pre-plate since - because in those instances it met our criteria - I'm not certain I recall what they changed to achieve that, but I do keep an eye on it. Best regards, Stephen At 11:33 AM 10/2/2002, Crabb, John wrote: Has anyone encountered problems in the use of pre-plated sheet steel in IT equipment metalwork ? Typically such material is cheaper to use than having to plate parts after they have been produced, but there may be issues with sharp edges produced when the material is punched out, and with rust on the edges which are not protected. 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. --- 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: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?
Hi Paul, By reading your explanation it seems as if you miss the point of what immunity testing is about. Testing Immunity ! Your explanation makes me think you want to exercise the standard to the letter. That's probably not the case, but one should also take the following into account: Besides stpping/sweeping over the frequency range one needs to allow time to prove that the EUT does not respond unwantedly. This means that before even reading the standard, you need to know the equipment, define the equipments function (in terms of what immunity testing is about), define criteria of pass/fail and make an estimation of the required dwell time per step. This often leads to unrealistic long test times , because the required dwell time may be very long for some equipment. Then one should take measures to reduce test time to within the equipments life time. prescan with Increase frequency step size !(watch out for resonances) Modify equipment to decrease fault response time (low pass filters ; software ) Build Specifc test features Write specific test software . Of course you will be violating the standard; but if it's for Europe, no one cares, as you will prove to exercise due diligence The test will give you only PRESUMPTION of compliance anyway. Gert Gremmen ce-test, qualified testing -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of paul_sc...@mitel.com Sent: donderdag 3 oktober 2002 00:54 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024? Greetings, Problem: What is the correct dwell time to be used for radiated and conducted immunity for 61000-4-3/61000-4-6 under EN55024? My thoughts; Section 8 of IEC 61000-4-3 (I have 1995): The rate of sweep shall not exceed 1.5 x 10 -3 decades/s. I understand we shall not exceed a 1 % step size unles (as laid out in EN55024) we are prepared to increase our field strength. (We are not.) 1.5 milli decades per second = 667 seconds per decade. At 1% step size, there are 232 steps per decade. 667 seconds/232 steps = 2.87 seconds per step. Are there flaws in the above? Thanks in advance, Paul Scott --- 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 --- 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
RMCEMC October Meeting
To all interested parties: The RMCEMC Society's October meeting will be: Computer Simulation for System Level EMC Design by Dr Fred German of Flomerics. Go to our website: http://www.ieee.org/rmcemc for full details Best Regards Charles Grasso Vice-Chair --- 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
New FCC conducted emission limit
Hi all I know that FCC has changed the conducted emission limits for FCC part 15 and 18, and I do see changes in the latest FCC part 15. The copy I have is as of July 22 2002. In section 15.37(j), as follows. All radio frequency devices that are authorized under the certification, verification or declaration of conformity procedures on or after July 10, 2004, shall comply with the conducted limits specified in section 15.107 or section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate. All radio frequency devices that are manufactured or imported on or after July 10, 2005, shall comply with the conducted limits specified in section 15.107 or section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate. Equipment authorized, imported or manufactured prior to these dates shall comply with the conducted limits specified in Section 15.107 or Section 15.207 of this part, as appropriate, or with the conducted limits that were in effect immediately prior to September 9, 2002. 1) What does the date September 9, 2002 in the last sentence for? 2) FCC always updated the FCC part 15. Is there any document to tell that which version we need to follow? Like EMC in EU, we use the standards that are listed in OJ. Best Regards KC --- 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
Dwell time for Immunity under EN55024?
Greetings, Problem: What is the correct dwell time to be used for radiated and conducted immunity for 61000-4-3/61000-4-6 under EN55024? My thoughts; Section 8 of IEC 61000-4-3 (I have 1995): The rate of sweep shall not exceed 1.5 x 10 -3 decades/s. I understand we shall not exceed a 1 % step size unles (as laid out in EN55024) we are prepared to increase our field strength. (We are not.) 1.5 milli decades per second = 667 seconds per decade. At 1% step size, there are 232 steps per decade. 667 seconds/232 steps = 2.87 seconds per step. Are there flaws in the above? Thanks in advance, Paul Scott --- 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: preplated steel
I read in !emc-pstc that Ted Rook t...@crestaudio.com wrote (in sd9b1823@peavey.com) about 'preplated steel' on Wed, 2 Oct 2002: I believe that if you want edges that don't corrode you can get the right material by coordination between your engineers and purchasing people. The stuff that would protect sheared edges was 'Terneplate' in UK. The plating is an alloy (tin/lead?) and the process is not all that cheap, IIRC. But the overall cost can be at least competitive with post-plating and is perhaps more environmentally-friendly. It may be that lead-free platings are now used, and these may be less effective at protecting sheared edges. -- 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: FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe, In effect, nothing changed. To comply with the RTTE directive, you must meet Safety EN 60950 and EMC standards in the OJ. The same is true to meet the EMC and LVD directives. However, if the RTTE directive does not apply to your equipment and it's source power is 60VDC or lower, then you are not required to meet the LVD. Only the RTTE directive calls for no voltage limit applying in Article 3, 1. (a). The definition in the thread seems to fit your equipment and so, is your equipment actually TTE? Does the Plexus 9000 enable communication using an E1 interface? Is it connected directly or indirectly by any means to interfaces (like E1) of public telecom networks? If the directive does not include Network Equipment, why is Network Equipment not excluded in the Annex 1 list? What is Network Equipment that Mark refers to? Does he mean Database storage equipment and other Data Center type equipment, that obviously is not intended to be used for Telecommunications enabling of links or interfaces. Regards, Gary Raper Hardware Compliance Engineering Joe Finlayson jfinlay...@telica.com@world.std.com on 10/03/2002 09:16:44 AM Please respond to n...@world.std.com Sent by:nebs-appro...@world.std.com To:'EMC PSTC' emc-p...@ieee.org, 'TREG Newsgroup' t...@world.std.com, 'NEBS Newsgroup' n...@world.std.com cc: Subject:FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface All, Below is a response from Mark Bogers reinforcing my, as well as other's, position on the applicability of Network Equipment under the RTTE Directive. Based on this response, it is clear that the intent of the directive was not to include Network Equipment. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Mark Bogers [mailto:mark.bog...@skynet.be] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:45 AM To: 'jfinlay...@telica.com'; mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Network equipment isn't covered by the RTTE Directive. It is only covered by the EMC and LVD Directives and you need to ensure compliance with those. Please note, you might still have a problem in Italy as they retained an approval system for such equipment. My understanding is that that regulation will however be removed in the near future. Further information can be found on our website. Central entry point to those of the mentioned 3 Directives is on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise. Mark Bogers -Original Message- From: jfinlay...@telica.com [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: woensdag 2 oktober 2002 20:07 To: mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject:FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hello Mark, Roger Magnuson recommended I run this situation by you as you are, in his words, the contact point for RTTE issues. You could follow the thread, but I'll try to summarize the question instead. My company, Telica, Inc., would like to sell our Plexus 9000 in the EU. The Plexus 9000 does provide E1 as well as OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces although they are not intended to be offered to the General Public for sale. This product is classified as SELV per IEC 60950 and in destined only for the Central Office. As this product is Network Equipment, has no physical capability of connecting to a PSTN E1 port, etc. (our E1 cards accommodate 28 E1's per card and the connection scheme is a 60-pin telco connector) and will not be placed on the EU market for general availability (Network Operators only), does this product fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive? The general consensus seems to be no although there are some who feel it does. I would like to get an official ruling on the intent of the RTTE Directive to ensure we meet the full intent of the EU Directives. Regards, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case
FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
All, Below is a response from Mark Bogers reinforcing my, as well as other's, position on the applicability of Network Equipment under the RTTE Directive. Based on this response, it is clear that the intent of the directive was not to include Network Equipment. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Mark Bogers [mailto:mark.bog...@skynet.be] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:45 AM To: 'jfinlay...@telica.com'; mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Network equipment isn't covered by the RTTE Directive. It is only covered by the EMC and LVD Directives and you need to ensure compliance with those. Please note, you might still have a problem in Italy as they retained an approval system for such equipment. My understanding is that that regulation will however be removed in the near future. Further information can be found on our website. Central entry point to those of the mentioned 3 Directives is on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise. Mark Bogers -Original Message- From: jfinlay...@telica.com [SMTP:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: woensdag 2 oktober 2002 20:07 To: mark.bog...@cec.eu.int Subject:FW: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hello Mark, Roger Magnuson recommended I run this situation by you as you are, in his words, the contact point for RTTE issues. You could follow the thread, but I'll try to summarize the question instead. My company, Telica, Inc., would like to sell our Plexus 9000 in the EU. The Plexus 9000 does provide E1 as well as OC-3 and OC-12 interfaces although they are not intended to be offered to the General Public for sale. This product is classified as SELV per IEC 60950 and in destined only for the Central Office. As this product is Network Equipment, has no physical capability of connecting to a PSTN E1 port, etc. (our E1 cards accommodate 28 E1's per card and the connection scheme is a 60-pin telco connector) and will not be placed on the EU market for general availability (Network Operators only), does this product fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive? The general consensus seems to be no although there are some who feel it does. I would like to get an official ruling on the intent of the RTTE Directive to ensure we meet the full intent of the EU Directives. Regards, Joe *** Joe Finlayson Manager, Compliance Engineering Telica, Inc. 734 Forest Street, Bldg. G, Suite 100 Marlboro, MA 01752 Tel: (508) 804-8212 Fax: (508) 480-0922 Email: jfinlay...@telica.com -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Paul, I agree with your statements below. I also agree that test reports to the applicable interface standards may be required in other countries. I further agree that certain network operators within the European Union may require said test reports as part of their procurement requirements. My charter is to advise management of the *legal* requirements to ship a product into a particular region. However, spending money and allocating resources prematurely under the current market conditions would be frowned upon at my company. I have non doubt that I will end up testing to ETSI TBR's although we would rather delay project until it is necessary. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:34 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The situation is sublimely simple really. If the equipment will ever be sold as 'Terminal Equipment' (the RTTED definition has already been given in this thread), it falls within the scope of the RTTED. If it will only ever be sold direct to the public network operators within the EU/EFTA countries, and used internal to the network, it is outside of the scope of the RTTED. (NB: Network Operators will have there own 'procurement requirements'). As per my post on the 2nd Oct: E1 equipment designed for connection to a public telecom network service (i.e. as terminal equipment), must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable (harmonised) standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Regarding your question: Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? For what it's worth, I have lectured on the application of the RTTED at least 1/2 a dozen times with Mark Bogers in attendance, as well as run seminars on the application of the RTTED within CEE 'Accession Countries' on behalf of the European Commission, in conjunction with Stewart Davidson (RTTED Committee Secretary). I'm not a betting man, but hope the above provides further clarity :-). A further note: Whilst the choice of standards under the RTTED is 'voluntary', compliance with the specified 'harmonised standards' provides a legal 'presumption of conformity', which simply means that the responsible person placing the equipment on the market has no need to provide further evidence of compliance. Hence there is a legal benefit in using 'harmonised standards', plus a commercial benefit as the usual EMC and Safety standards may be used in many countries outside of the EU. There is no need to use an accredited lab for compliance with the EMC/LVD or RTTE Directives. Although reports from 'recognised labs' are beneficial for many other markets. - Hence a rational compliance strategy is always advisable, giving due consideration to all potential markets. Best regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Compliance Management Dept. Tel: +44 (0) 1482 801801 Fax: +44 (0) 1482 801806 Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Alain et al, Looking on this web site (http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/index.html) I found the following exception: Equipment exempt from certification according to Article 4 of the Regulations for certification of information and communication equipment and Article 2 of the Enforcement Guidelines for the Certification of Information and communication are as following; 4. Equipment, requiring type approval, to be used (including installed by it's end-users) by common carriers, and transmission network operators (in the case of special category telecommunications service providers, terminal equipment and it's accompaniment are exempt) I think I'll try this first. Cheers, Colin. -Original Message- From: alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw [mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:20 To: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dear Colin, TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry decree: 1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone communication network. 2- Equipment not directly connected to a demarcation point of backbone communication network, and which can cause harm to the backbone communication network: 2.1) TTE which can be used separately without the system. (if the TTE has to be bundle to the system, then has to be approved as part as the system's type approval) 2.2) TTE for Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) 2.3) Digital communications devices directly connected to Channel Service Units (CSU) 3- TTE directly connected to the demarcation point of a transmission network All these 3 points are explained at the RRL website: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/sec01_02_1.html The text of the decrees are at: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/erow1.html So I believe the point of the dicussion is to precise at which point(s) only can your equipement be used (intentionally or unintentionally). Hope this helps Alain Sam-Lai Gigabyte Technolgy mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:32 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi Colin, I'd try another test lab, and if possible, ask your customer (they may want it to make them feel good). I did not do any telco testing on our E1 boards that use SS7 (C.O. location) and did not have a problem with the RRL. You will still need to do EMC and safety . Of course, rules do change. ;o) John Czyzewicz NMS Communications colin_mcgeechan@a gilent.com To: t...@world.std.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, Sent by: n...@world.std.com treg-approval@worcc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com ld.std.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface 10/03/2002 06:31 AM Please respond to colin_mcgeechan Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear Colin, TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry decree: 1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone communication network. 2- Equipment not directly connected to a demarcation point of backbone communication network, and which can cause harm to the backbone communication network: 2.1) TTE which can be used separately without the system. (if the TTE has to be bundle to the system, then has to be approved as part as the system's type approval) 2.2) TTE for Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) 2.3) Digital communications devices directly connected to Channel Service Units (CSU) 3- TTE directly connected to the demarcation point of a transmission network All these 3 points are explained at the RRL website: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/sec01_02_1.html The text of the decrees are at: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/erow1.html So I believe the point of the dicussion is to precise at which point(s) only can your equipement be used (intentionally or unintentionally). Hope this helps Alain Sam-Lai Gigabyte Technolgy mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:32 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Colin, You have to be carefull about what Korea RRL is stating by telecom type approval. We have experience with VPN product without connections to the Public Network and they have requested telecom approval tests. Mainly the tests consist of EMI/EMC tests I hope this help Pierre-Marie Andre Sophia Certification and Environmental Labs Intel Corp.Senior Approval Engineer Tel : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 13 Fax : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 01 http://www.intel.fr/ -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: jeudi 3 octobre 2002 12:32 To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009
