Hipot and Ground Bond tester for Production

[ChengWee Lai]

Hello All,

I need to find one that is cheap and reliable, but have too many option in
my hand right now. My requirement: minimum 1500VAC or 2100VDC, measure
ground bond resistance down to 0.1ohm. Do you have any good or bad
experience with the following brand and model? 

1. Associated research Hypot III, 3665
2. QuadTech Sentry 20
3. Vitrek V50
4. ED&D HP2000

Thanks in advance

Chengwee Lai
Senior Compliance Engineer
Netscreen Technologies, Inc
Tel: +1-408-543-4126
email: c...@netscreen.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Approvals Matrix

[j...@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/5/2003, Alex McNeil writes:




I have started an Approvals matrix for Europe, North America and Australasia
for typical low power ITE office products. I would be extremely grateful if
those experts amongst you could comment on the validity and indeed add to it.





Hi Alex:

Just a technicality, but TBR 21 is no longer a regulatory requirement for
analog PSTN equipment in the EU.  It was formally withdrawn on April 8, 2000
when the RTTE directive was adopted.  Under the RTTE directive, analog PSTN
products are only subject to the applicable safety and EMC requirements.

Many manufacturers have been uncomfortable with having no regulations
whatsoever for the parameters formerly covered by TBR 21, so they have
continued to self-impose TBR 21 compliance.  However, TBR 21 has no regulatory
significance.

You may be interested to know that last month ETSI issued an updated document
that is intended to replace TBR 21 as an "advisory" standard.  The document
number is TS 103 021, and it is available for download on the ETSI site (in
three parts).  In this document, some of the TBR 21 requirements have been
revised and some new requirements have been added.  Thus, if you want to show
an "advisory" standard in your matrix, you should probably list TS 103 021
instead of TBR 21.

The current analog PSTN spec for Australia is AS/ACIF S002:2001.  For New
Zealand the current spec is PTC 200 (1997).

The safety requirements for all of the countries in your chart are based on
IEC 60950, but each country has their own version with its own name.  In
Europe it is EN 60950, in the USA and Canada it is a binational standard often
referred to as UL/CSA 60950 (but technically UL 60950 and CAN/CSA-C22.2 No.
60950-00), and in Australia I believe it is (finally) AS/NZS 60950.



Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com

RE: Approvals Matrix

[Lothar Schmidt]

Alex 

I modified some parts but I am sure not to be complete.

GSM is our special area and there are differences between regulatory testing
and testing needed to get the access to the carrier networks. This testing
is not covered for US and Canada in the table and the device has to be
approved by the PTCRB before the carriers start their own testing.

This structure is to complicated to be explained by a short email. If you
need more information their, I am sure our GSM experts can help you.

Regards

Lothar Schmidt
BQB & Technical Manager 
EMC/Radio/SAR

CETECOM Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road 
Milpitas, CA 95035

' +1 408 586 6214
7 +1 408 586 6299






From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:23 AM
To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Subject: Approvals Matrix


Hi Group,

I have started an Approvals matrix for Europe, North America and Australasia
for typical low power ITE office products. I would be extremely grateful if
those experts amongst you could comment on the validity and indeed add to
it.

Thanks in anticipation of your usual response.

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer







>>> Download free spam killer at http://eliminatespam.com
 << File: Approval Synthesis w336.xls >> 


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Anybody out there gasoline (okay Petrol if I must) pumps for service stations?

[drcuthb...@micron.com]

Gary,
 
the first thing that comes to mind is high RF fields from mobile radios as
well as cell phones held close to the pump. Cell phones can achieve 50 V/m
very near the antenna. And imagine the RF field from a ham running 100 watts
on 80 meters parked next to the pump! Or 100 watts on 2 meters. I did a quick
and dirty NEC simulation and came up with 2000 V/m at 2 meters from the 80
meter whip antenna. The parameters are an 8 foot whip with a radiation
efficiency of 2%. The 2 meter situation (a better simulation) produced 300V/m
2 meters away from a whip antenna.
 
Another RF source would be a military vehicle. I can run a more accurate
simulation on Monday. An automobile test house would be the place to go for
testing. Pre-compliance could be done with standard ham equipment. I can think
of things like unintentional gasoline flow as being an issue. 
 
 Dave Cuthbert
 Micron Technology
 
   
 
 

From: GARY MCINTURFF [mailto:mcinturff3...@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 4:44 PM
To: emc-pstc
Subject: Anybody out there gasoline (okay Petrol if I must) pumps for service
stations?


I'd like to pick your brains about safety standards and customer expectations. 
Thanks Gary

RE: Digital signatures (was Software and Safety)

[Peter L. Tarver]

Hans -

I cannot attest to just how secure it is, but Adobe Acrobat
4.0 and up (I have 5.0) supports digital signatures and will
not allow modification of the document, other than applying
other (or new) signatures, without a password (once set).

I've received a number of document forms in Adobe Acrobat
format that have certain input fields secured, with others
not secured, allowing input of needed information.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


> From: Hans Mellberg
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:16 AM
>
> On a slightly off-topic subject (but may be of
> interest to many) I am
> exploring digital signatures that are difficult
> to forge or copy or
> replicate without authorization. As an example,
> signing a test document or
> approving a test plan, all electronically. Are
> there any easy to use secure
> digital signature s/w that listers have experience with?
>
> Hans Mellberg
> Engineering Manager
> BACL
> 230 Commercial Street
> Sunnyvale CA 94085 USA
> 408-732-9162 x38
> 408-732-9164 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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: UL & CSA standards date of expiry

[Peter L. Tarver]

repost


> From: Peter L. Tarver
> [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 7:58 AM
> To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: UL & CSA standards date of expiry
>
>
> Sylvia, Chris, et al -
>
> I note that the dates on the web page differ from
> those proposed by UL in their 28DEC2001 UL60950
> STP meeting agenda and those identified in the
> Preface to UL60950-1.  Specifically, products
> evaluated to older standards may continue to be
> manufactured indefinitely, without requiring an
> update in the certification, provided no
> "significant" changes are made to the products.
> As I understand the case, "significance" will be
> judged on an individual (and hopefully consistent) basis.
>
> I believe it is likely UL's intent to have
> end-product requirements drive component updates,
> especially for power supplies and the like.
>
> As mentioned in my early JUL2003 posting, CSA has
> recently taken a different approach in their
> 1APR2003 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRICAL
> BUSINESS EQUIPMENT NO. 11 (Supersedes CSA Informs
> “Information Technology and Electrical Business
> Equipment No. 10”).  This document indicates CSA
> intends to go through with their file review,
> requiring manufacturers to upgrade their
> certifications or allow them to lapse.
>
> UL and CSA are presently discussing better
> coordination of their effective/obsolescence
> dates.  It is uncertain what the outcome will be.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter L. Tarver, PE
> Product Safety Manager
> Homologation Services
> Sanmina-SCI Corp.
> San Jose, CA
> peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
>
>
> > From: Sylvia Toma
> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 3:30 PM
> >
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > Try this link.  It should give you the
> > information that you're looking
> > for.
> >
> > http://www.ul.com/ite/dates.html
> >
> > Rgds,
> > Sylvia
> >
> >
> > At 02:37 PM 8/20/2003 +0100, Colgan Christopher
> > [Soundcraft UK] wrote:
> >
> > >Greetings
> > >
> > >Can anyone direct me to a website that gives the
> > >date of expiry or
> > >withdrawal of UL and CSA standards?
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Chris Colgan
>



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Approvals Matrix

[Alex McNeil]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hi Group,

I have started an Approvals matrix for Europe, North America and Australasia
for typical low power ITE office products. I would be extremely grateful if
those experts amongst you could comment on the validity and indeed add to
it.

Thanks in anticipation of your usual response.

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer



Title: Approvals Matrix






Hi Group,


I have started an Approvals matrix for Europe, North America and Australasia

for typical low power ITE office products. I would be extremely grateful if

those experts amongst you could comment on the validity and indeed add to

it.


Thanks in anticipation of your usual response.


Kind Regards

Alex McNeil

Principal Engineer







Approval Synthesis w336.xls
Description: Binary data

RE: 508kHz Intentional Radiator FCC

[drcuthb...@micron.com]

Eric,

sounds similar to AM BC testing. It is common to use a magnetic loop antenna
and then convert the A/m measurement into V/m. T

Dave


From: Eric Penne [mailto:epe...@olug.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:53 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: 508kHz Intentional Radiator FCC



I'm trying to find the test equipment requirements for testing a 508kHz
intentional transmitter.  More specifically I'm trying to find out if the
FCC wants to use a loop or rod antenna.  This is a large unknown to me and
I am trying to research it right now.  I was hoping that some of list
members may be able to give me some more information and anything
"gotchas" that I should be looking for.

Thanks
Eric Penne
epe...@olug.org




This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: 508kHz Intentional Radiator FCC

[Ken Javor]

I can't quote chapter and verse, but common sense says you would use a
measurement antenna that measures what the transmitter is transmitting.
Unless you are in the far field, which isn't going to happen, the field will
be either dominantly electric or magnetic, depending on whether a rod or
loop transmitting device is used.  The measurement device should mirror the
transmit device at the transmit frequency.  If you are making out-of-band
measurements, say in the AM band, then it is trickier.  Your test antenna
should model the presumed victim antenna.  But automobiles use an
electrically short rod, and most portable radios use a magnetic device.
What you use will depend (standard requirements aside) on what the victim of
interest happens to be.

> From: "Eric Penne" 
> Reply-To: "Eric Penne" 
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
> To: 
> Subject: 508kHz Intentional Radiator FCC
> 
> 
> I'm trying to find the test equipment requirements for testing a 508kHz
> intentional transmitter.  More specifically I'm trying to find out if the
> FCC wants to use a loop or rod antenna.  This is a large unknown to me and
> I am trying to research it right now.  I was hoping that some of list
> members may be able to give me some more information and anything
> "gotchas" that I should be looking for.
> 
> Thanks
> Eric Penne
> epe...@olug.org
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
> 
> Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
> 
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
> 
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
> Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> 
> Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
> 



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator

[Jim Bacher]

Use of another battery pack sounds simple enough, however it may not be.
NiCad's can dump a lot of current and are a energy and fire hazard.  You
should make sure the replacement pack was enclosed in a fire enclosure and
had the proper fuse/thermal protection in it. An off brand may not have the
proper protection in them.

You could build your own, but soldering to the cells hurts their performance
and causes a miss match of the cells, which intern will hurt the life of the
battery pack. If the cells are not matched, the cells can reverse charge
other cells towards the end of each cycle. To get max performance you want
to make sure the cells are from the same batch.

Jim

Jim Bacher,  Senior Engineer
Paxar Americas, Inc.
e-mail: jim.bac...@paxar.com 


From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:48 PM
To: 'emc-pstc'
Subject: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator



Folks, we have a need for a second battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD
simulator.

Other than Schaffner (which is a bit pricey), is there anyone else out there
who makes these battery packs?

Regards,
Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com  )
307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8
613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445
E-mail: nsh...@catena.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

508kHz Intentional Radiator FCC

[Eric Penne]

I'm trying to find the test equipment requirements for testing a 508kHz
intentional transmitter.  More specifically I'm trying to find out if the
FCC wants to use a loop or rod antenna.  This is a large unknown to me and
I am trying to research it right now.  I was hoping that some of list
members may be able to give me some more information and anything
"gotchas" that I should be looking for.

Thanks
Eric Penne
epe...@olug.org




This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Question on Chinese agency testing for local flammability requirements in lieu of UL recognition

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Paul,
 I don't know about an equivalency, but if you don't find it that doesn't mean
you can't use the material. Keep in mind that nothing has to be approved by
UL. You still have the ability to have it tested to meet your needs. Generally
speaking a few samples of the material in its thinnest cross section will be
sent off for aging, flame, and maybe impact test. Its not all the expensive or
time consuming because you are testing only for your product and your
configuration. The main drawback is the trace ability during factory
inspections and the requirement to submit samples on a  yearly basis for a
flame test and maybe an impact test. I've had to use plastics in this manner
in the past. I much prefer to use UL recognized plastics because I know the
vendor isn't changing the material on me for cost savings - a very real
problem in my opinion with Chinese manufacturers - so you have to stay on top
of vendor. On the other hand the if you really need these vendors for some
reason the hassle of going the testing route isn't insurmountable. If its cost
savings you are after,  you would have to deduct the test, retest, and  your
monitoring processes from the savings. 
Gary
 
 
Original Message - 

From: Smith Paul J.   
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 8:02 AM
Subject: Question on Chinese agency testing for local flammability
requirements in lieu of UL recognition




Good morning,

Does anyone have info or a possible contact that can provide details on the
possible equivalency of the China Agency testing and the related UL
recognition flammability rating program? A proposed alternate insulation
foam being considered for local sourcing in China does not currently have a
UL flammability recognition. It was tested by a Chinese agency with passing
results noted in their report. 

The Supplier has a Test Report according to China state Plastic Standard
GB10800-89 , which was issued by State Fire Protection Equipment Quality
Administration & Examination Centre in China. Our local contact was told
the level 1 flame resistance of GB10800-89 is equivalent to UL94 HF-1. 

Also, he was told that the China non-electrical suppliers, such as plastics,
foam, rubber suppliers etc, mainly still use China State Standard for
quality control. And that their product qualities are usually tested by
Government Quality Administration & Examination Department instead of 3rd
party. The tests are conducted according to State Standard instead of 3rd
party standard.

Chinese agency used the test standards GB 8333-87, "Hard foam burning
performance test method- Vertical burning method" and  China state Plastic
Standard GB10800-89.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks,

Regards,

Paul J. Smith
Standards Engineer 
Thermo Electron Corporation
Bioscience Technologies Div.





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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Question on Chinese agency testing for local flammability requir ements in lieu of UL recognition

[Smith Paul J.]

Good morning,

Does anyone have info or a possible contact that can provide details on the
possible equivalency of the China Agency testing and the related UL
recognition flammability rating program? A proposed alternate insulation
foam being considered for local sourcing in China does not currently have a
UL flammability recognition. It was tested by a Chinese agency with passing
results noted in their report. 

The Supplier has a Test Report according to China state Plastic Standard
GB10800-89 , which was issued by State Fire Protection Equipment Quality
Administration & Examination Centre in China. Our local contact was told
the level 1 flame resistance of GB10800-89 is equivalent to UL94 HF-1. 

Also, he was told that the China non-electrical suppliers, such as plastics,
foam, rubber suppliers etc, mainly still use China State Standard for
quality control. And that their product qualities are usually tested by
Government Quality Administration & Examination Department instead of 3rd
party. The tests are conducted according to State Standard instead of 3rd
party standard.

Chinese agency used the test standards GB 8333-87, "Hard foam burning
performance test method- Vertical burning method" and  China state Plastic
Standard GB10800-89.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks,

Regards,

Paul J. Smith
Standards Engineer 
Thermo Electron Corporation
Bioscience Technologies Div.





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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

AS/NZS 3548 => AS/NZS CISPR 22:2002

[Carpentier Kristiaan]

Hello Group,

>From Jan 2004, the ACA in Australia will require compliance with the
standard AS/NZS CISPR 2002 for telecom products i.s.o. AS/NZS 3548.
I understand this new standard is a copy of CISPR22:1998 incl. A1.
Compliance with EN55022:1998 incl. A1 will also be acceptable.

Taken into account the shift of the DOW of EN55022:1994 to Aug. 2005 because
of the technical issues in the 1998 +A1 version, is anyone aware of the
actual position taken by Australia ? Shall a mftr have to test its product
twice, to the 1994 and 1998+A1 version?

Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations,

Kristiaan Carpentier
Regulatory and Approval Engineer
Thomson multimedia Broadband Belgium N.V., S.A.
Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium
Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632
e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net
www.speedtouch.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: UL & CSA standards date of expiry

[Peter L. Tarver]

Sylvia, Chris, et al -

I note that the dates on the web page differ from those
proposed by UL in their 28DEC2001 UL60950 STP meeting agenda
and those identified in the Preface to UL60950-1.
Specifically, products evaluated to older standards may
continue to be manufactured indefinitely, without requiring
an update in the certification, provided no "significant"
changes are made to the products.  As I understand the case,
"significance" will be judged on an individual (and
hopefully consistent) basis.

I believe it is likely UL's intent to have end-product
requirements drive component updates, especially for power
supplies and the like.

As mentioned in my early JUL2003 posting, CSA has recently
taken a different approach in their 1APR2003 INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRICAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT NO. 11
(Supersedes CSA Informs “Information Technology and
Electrical Business Equipment No. 10”).  This document
indicates CSA intends to go through with their file review,
requiring manufacturers to upgrade their certifications or
allow them to lapse.

UL and CSA are presently discussing better coordination of
their effective/obsolescence dates.  It is uncertain what
the outcome will be.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


> From: Sylvia Toma
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 3:30 PM
>
> Hello Chris,
>
> Try this link.  It should give you the
> information that you're looking
> for.
>
> http://www.ul.com/ite/dates.html
>
> Rgds,
> Sylvia
>
>
> At 02:37 PM 8/20/2003 +0100, Colgan Christopher
> [Soundcraft UK] wrote:
>
> >Greetings
> >
> >Can anyone direct me to a website that gives the
> >date of expiry or
> >withdrawal of UL and CSA standards?
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Chris Colgan



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc