RE: Cell Phone field strength

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Calculation by itself doesn't make it inaccurate it's the near field to
distance relation which makes it invalid.

Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc. 
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
emaillothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review
or distribution of this e-mail by any party other than the intended
recipient or that person's agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete all copies and immediately contact the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.



From: Conway, Patrick R (Houston) [mailto:p.con...@hp.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:08 PM
To: Lothar Schmidt; Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

That was my thinking too, that they are calculated.
But that does not necessarily make them inaccurate.
They could be accurate by luck, we need more data in order to support
either position.

Does anyone have contact info for the two authors?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:57 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel;
emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

If you look to these numbers they are certainly calculated and are certainly
not accurate in the near field.

Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
emaillothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review or distribution
of this e-mail by any party other than the intended recipient or that person's
agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete all copies and immediately contact the sender. You must not, directly
or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this
message if you are not the intended recipient.



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

Thanks for the pointer to the Conformity article.

The table, Table 2, does not seem to have a reference of footnote describing
the source of the data.
Does anyone know the source of that data?
Is the data measured or calculated?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Peyzner
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:59 PM
To: Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength

RF Field depends on cell phone type.

Check Table 2 in Ron Brewer and Dawn Trout article in Confirmity, July 1,
2007
http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/article_204.shtml

Regards,
Eugene.



From: "Frank Krozel" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength


> John, it has been a long time ago, but... I recall measuring
> 800Mhz/analog at about 12V/m at 1cm.
>
> Don't have any knowledge of newer ones.
>
> Regards, Frank Krozel
> http://www.electronicinstrument.com
> Tel: 630-924-1600
> PO Box 6487 
> Bloomingdale, IL 60108
> Fax: 630-477-0321
> Serving the Midwest since 1971
> EMC MiniSymposium - http://www.emcchicago.org/sectfiles/events.htm
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:17 AM
> Subject: Cell Phone field strength
>
>
>> Does anyone have good numbers for the RF Field strength from a hand
>> held Cell Phone at 1 cm distance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> John Merrill
>> Product Safety Engineer
>> Schneider Automation
>>
>> -
>> 
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
>> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald: 

RE: Cell Phone field strength

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Never mind about the request for contact info- found them at the bottom of the
article...


Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: Conway, Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 2:08 PM
To: 'Lothar Schmidt'; Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

That was my thinking too, that they are calculated.
But that does not necessarily make them inaccurate.
They could be accurate by luck, we need more data in order to support
either position.

Does anyone have contact info for the two authors?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:57 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel;
emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

If you look to these numbers they are certainly calculated and are certainly
not accurate in the near field.

Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
emaillothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review or distribution
of this e-mail by any party other than the intended recipient or that person's
agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete all copies and immediately contact the sender. You must not, directly
or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this
message if you are not the intended recipient.



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

Thanks for the pointer to the Conformity article.

The table, Table 2, does not seem to have a reference of footnote describing
the source of the data.
Does anyone know the source of that data?
Is the data measured or calculated?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Peyzner
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:59 PM
To: Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength

RF Field depends on cell phone type.

Check Table 2 in Ron Brewer and Dawn Trout article in Confirmity, July 1,
2007
http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/article_204.shtml

Regards,
Eugene.



From: "Frank Krozel" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength


> John, it has been a long time ago, but... I recall measuring
> 800Mhz/analog at about 12V/m at 1cm.
>
> Don't have any knowledge of newer ones.
>
> Regards, Frank Krozel
> http://www.electronicinstrument.com
> Tel: 630-924-1600
> PO Box 6487 
> Bloomingdale, IL 60108
> Fax: 630-477-0321
> Serving the Midwest since 1971
> EMC MiniSymposium - http://www.emcchicago.org/sectfiles/events.htm
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:17 AM
> Subject: Cell Phone field strength
>
>
>> Does anyone have good numbers for the RF Field strength from a hand
>> held Cell Phone at 1 cm distance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> John Merrill
>> Product Safety Engineer
>> Schneider Automation
>>
>> -
>> 
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
>> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>
>>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>
> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>
> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send 

RE: Cell Phone field strength

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

That was my thinking too, that they are calculated.
But that does not necessarily make them inaccurate.
They could be accurate by luck, we need more data in order to support
either position.

Does anyone have contact info for the two authors?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: Lothar Schmidt [mailto:lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:57 PM
To: Conway, Patrick R (Houston); Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel;
emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

If you look to these numbers they are certainly calculated and are certainly
not accurate in the near field.

Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
emaillothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review or distribution
of this e-mail by any party other than the intended recipient or that person's
agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete all copies and immediately contact the sender. You must not, directly
or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this
message if you are not the intended recipient.



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

Thanks for the pointer to the Conformity article.

The table, Table 2, does not seem to have a reference of footnote describing
the source of the data.
Does anyone know the source of that data?
Is the data measured or calculated?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Peyzner
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:59 PM
To: Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength

RF Field depends on cell phone type.

Check Table 2 in Ron Brewer and Dawn Trout article in Confirmity, July 1,
2007
http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/article_204.shtml

Regards,
Eugene.



From: "Frank Krozel" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength


> John, it has been a long time ago, but... I recall measuring
> 800Mhz/analog at about 12V/m at 1cm.
>
> Don't have any knowledge of newer ones.
>
> Regards, Frank Krozel
> http://www.electronicinstrument.com
> Tel: 630-924-1600
> PO Box 6487 
> Bloomingdale, IL 60108
> Fax: 630-477-0321
> Serving the Midwest since 1971
> EMC MiniSymposium - http://www.emcchicago.org/sectfiles/events.htm
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:17 AM
> Subject: Cell Phone field strength
>
>
>> Does anyone have good numbers for the RF Field strength from a hand
>> held Cell Phone at 1 cm distance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> John Merrill
>> Product Safety Engineer
>> Schneider Automation
>>
>> -
>> 
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
>> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>
>>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>
> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>
> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>
> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>
>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <004f01c8885e$4d6a61e0$0500a8c0@Pete97219Compaq>, dated Mon, 
17 Mar 2008, Pete Perkins  writes:

>    Further, standards keep moving to a performance based set of 
>requirements rather than a construction based set. 

Yes. For example, the IEC 60335-1 provision doesn't include a riveted 
attachment.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Cell Phone field strength

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

If you look to these numbers they are certainly calculated and are certainly
not accurate in the near field.

Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc. 
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
emaillothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review
or distribution of this e-mail by any party other than the intended
recipient or that person's agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete all copies and immediately contact the
sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute,
print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient.



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Conway,
Patrick R (Houston)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:10 AM
To: Eugene Peyzner; Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org;
john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: RE: Cell Phone field strength

Thanks for the pointer to the Conformity article.

The table, Table 2, does not seem to have a reference of footnote describing
the source of the data.
Does anyone know the source of that data?
Is the data measured or calculated?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Peyzner
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:59 PM
To: Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength

RF Field depends on cell phone type.

Check Table 2 in Ron Brewer and Dawn Trout article in Confirmity, July 1,
2007
http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/article_204.shtml

Regards,
Eugene.



From: "Frank Krozel" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength


> John, it has been a long time ago, but... I recall measuring
> 800Mhz/analog at about 12V/m at 1cm.
>
> Don't have any knowledge of newer ones.
>
> Regards, Frank Krozel
> http://www.electronicinstrument.com
> Tel: 630-924-1600
> PO Box 6487 
> Bloomingdale, IL 60108
> Fax: 630-477-0321
> Serving the Midwest since 1971
> EMC MiniSymposium - http://www.emcchicago.org/sectfiles/events.htm
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:17 AM
> Subject: Cell Phone field strength
>
>
>> Does anyone have good numbers for the RF Field strength from a hand
>> held Cell Phone at 1 cm distance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> John Merrill
>> Product Safety Engineer
>> Schneider Automation
>>
>> -
>> 
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
>> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>
>>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>
> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>
> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>
> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>
>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunit

RE: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Joel, et al,
 
Many great comments have been made in this discussion so far; thanx to the
PSNet folks experience being shared here.  
 
From an operational point of view equipment either depends upon earthing
(the second level of protection after the basic insulation) or double
insulation for protection from electric shock.  We have come to learn from our
lengthy discussions in developing the new Hazard Based standard that there are
conditions which are outside the control of the equipment manufacturer and,
when they occur, are abnormal situations.  The availability of earth is one of
these; it may not be properly connected in some situations or it may not be
provided (such as in Japan or Netherlands or Norway) because of the local
electrical system codes and practice.  In either case our standards limit the
current in the earthing conductor to prevent hazardous electric shock. The
connection within the equipment must be robust and not accidentally defeated
during maintenance or repair.  The use of a single earthing connection for the
principle ground is appropriate here.  The use of lockwahsers and double nuts
is another good practice for additional connections where they cannot be
independently done.  
 
Further, standards keep moving to a performance based set of requirements
rather than a construction based set.  This makes it difficult to pass good
practice along in our business.  So we need to listen to the experienced
practitioners and carry these good practices along.  This is not as satisfying
as being able to point out the specific wording in your standard, but it makes
good sense solutions for many cases.  
 

:>) br, Pete

Peter E Perkins,

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201 fone/fax

p.perk...@ieee.org

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 


For help, send mail to the list administrators: 


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 


http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

RE: Cell Phone field strength

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Thanks for the pointer to the Conformity article.

The table, Table 2, does not seem to have a reference of footnote describing
the source of the data.
Does anyone know the source of that data?
Is the data measured or calculated?



Best Regards,

Patrick.
p.con...@hp.com



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Peyzner
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:59 PM
To: Frank Krozel; emc-p...@ieee.org; john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength

RF Field depends on cell phone type.

Check Table 2 in Ron Brewer and Dawn Trout article in Confirmity, July 1,
2007
http://www.conformity.com/artman/publish/article_204.shtml

Regards,
Eugene.



From: "Frank Krozel" 
To: ; 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Cell Phone field strength


> John, it has been a long time ago, but... I recall measuring
> 800Mhz/analog at about 12V/m at 1cm.
>
> Don't have any knowledge of newer ones.
>
> Regards, Frank Krozel
> http://www.electronicinstrument.com
> Tel: 630-924-1600
> PO Box 6487 
> Bloomingdale, IL 60108
> Fax: 630-477-0321
> Serving the Midwest since 1971
> EMC MiniSymposium - http://www.emcchicago.org/sectfiles/events.htm
> - Original Message -
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:17 AM
> Subject: Cell Phone field strength
>
>
>> Does anyone have good numbers for the RF Field strength from a hand
>> held Cell Phone at 1 cm distance?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> John Merrill
>> Product Safety Engineer
>> Schneider Automation
>>
>> -
>> 
>> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>>
>> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>>
>> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>>
>> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>>
>> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
>> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>>
>> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>>
>> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>>
>>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
>
> -
> 
> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
> emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
>
> To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
>
> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>
> Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
> Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>
> Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>
>http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

> From: Joel Sandberg
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:37 PM
> 
> Many of us have learned that there needs to be locking 
> washers and nuts between each ring lug.  But where is this 
> actually called out and required?

Good morning, Joel.

While it isn't obvious from the wording, IEC 60950-1:2005 contains the
requirement in Subclause 2.6.4.3.  It took a committee to begin with a very
simple idea and come up with this text.

There doesn't appear to be a similar requirement in IEC 60601-1:1998.

While not addressing a single piece of medical electrical equipment, IEC
60601-1:2005, Subclause 16.9.2.2 contains very simple verbiage for medical
electrical system protective earthing connections, that conveys the concept,
as it might be applied to a single piece of equipment.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Manager - Product Safety
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
2000 Ringwood Ave.
San Jose, CA  95131-1723
V: +1-408-904-2081
F: +1-408-904-2095
M: +1-408-234-3529

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail
message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any
copies of this email and any prints thereof.
ABSENT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT TO THE CONTRARY HEREINABOVE, THIS E-MAIL IS NOT
INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING.  Notwithstanding the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar
substance and effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove,
this e-mail message its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended
to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not
otherwise intended to bind the sender, Sanmina-SCI Corporation (or any of its
subsidiaries), or any other person or entity.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hello Chris

To fulfill requirements of risk management according to ISO 14971, you have to
identify all the hazard situations whhich could turn a hazard into harm. This
means identifying all the foreseeable sequence or combinations of events that
could led to the hazard situation. 

Three points here:

First: sometimes people think that they only have to identify the hazard (for
example, electrical shock). But there are a lot of situations (probabilities)
in which this hazard could arise, and there are a lot of outcomes (severities)
if the hazard turn into harm. So you have to determine the risks of each
hazard situation, not only of the more "general" hazard.

Second point: Foreseeable. It means that, although theoretically there are an
infinite number of hazard situations, you still have to limit it to some
number to keep it manageable. In fact, "where to stop" really depends on
manufacturer. It should be noted that there are some technoques for doing
this, for example, taking into consideration the intented use and reasonably
foreseeable misuse as initial parameters.

Third: although IEC safety product standard (in which the IEC 60601 series are
an example of) follow the single fault philosophy, ISO 14971 is not restricted
to single faults. So yes, there could have doube or triple faults on your risk
management (but try to use just the foreseeable ones, please:-)). Also, it´s
always toog to keep in mind that the single fault philosophy in IEC 60601 can
only be applied if the situation falls under some specific boundaries (these
boundaries are explanied in the examplanation to 4.7 in Annex A). If the
situation are outside these boundaries, then the single fault philosophy
cannot be aplied. For more on this interaction i suggest the following paper:
R.G. Mellish, "The single fault philosophy: How it fits with risk.
management,"presented at ACOS Workshop VI, Safety of Electromedical
Equipment—An Integrated Approach through IEC Standards, Toronto, May 6–7,
1998.

Cheers!

Best regards

Marcelo Antunes
Regulatory strategy consultant
SQR Consulting - Safety and quality through risk management
http://www.sqrconsulting.com.br   

Electromedicalinfo
http://www.electromedicalinfo.com  

Gtalk: mmantu...@gmail.com
MSN: marcelo_antu...@hotmail.com
- Show quoted text -






Chris.Dupres@elek
ta.com
   To
03/17/2008 09:06  ted.eck...@apcc.com
AM cc
  emc-p...@ieee.org
  Subject
  Re: Protective Earthing Terminal
  Construction Requirements










Ted Ekert said:



This makes sense of course, but (going off track a little bit) this implies
that the equipment has TWO faults, and the premise at the moment seems to
be  'Safety under SINGLE FAULT conditions'.

I guess I'm asking for opinions, in view of the latest standards leaning or
Risk Analysis etc., (e.g. IEC 60601-1 Rev 3) is..  "How many stacked risks
should we take into account?" when defining 'Risk'.

I mean, it's perfectly feasible to lose a ground connection on a case (1
fault), and for a live wire to come loose and touch the case (2 fault).  Do
we have to take ALL scenario's like that into account?  In other words,
ensure the design is safe under double, or even triple fault conditions?

I'm reminded of a mains plug on a piece of UK equipment, where the lead was
tugged, the Earth wire pulled out and ended up on the Live wire.   Of
course the whole case became live.This was found because a secretary felt a
'tingle' when she touched the case.  I guess her plastic high heels saved
her that time.  One event, but two faults.

So how many levels of fault should we take into account in order to fulfil
the Risk Analysis requirements?

Regards,

Chris.

Chris Duprés
Compliance Engineer
Elekta Limited
Linac House
Fleming Way
Crawley
West Sussex
RH10 9RR

www.elekta.com
tel:  +44 (0) 1293 654311
fax:  +44 (0) 1293 654260


***Internet Email Confidentiality Footer***
The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) are
confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the
recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in
error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message
>from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by
someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Elekta Limited is a company registered in England and Wales whose
registered number is 3244454 and whose registered address is Linac House,
Fleming Way, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9RR

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Saf

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
, 
dated Mon, 17 Mar 2008, ted.eck...@apcc.com writes:

> The loss of the ground connection  is treated differently because it 
>is virtually undetectable under normal conditions of use.

It isn't the only undetectable fault, either.

>I agree that a single fault has occurred, but the user doesn't know it. 
>The product could be used for years in this state until there is a 
>second fault which could then energize the chassis can cause injury.

Yes.

> The product is used as if no fault has occurred, so I would treat the 
>next fault that happens as a single fault.

I don't think that is logical, and it makes explaining the situation 
virtually impossible. I tried to get a statement about 'persistent 
undetectable fault' and 'subsequent unrelated fault' into IEC 60065, but 
there was not enough support. It's difficult to write about it without 
verging on scaremongering.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Ted et al,

 

In the case of a Class I product with Y-caps present for EMI suppression (very
common) and with the loss of its earth connection (single fault), the
product’s metal chassis/enclosure would then become energized (Y caps become
a voltage divider to approx half of the AC mains voltage at normally earthed
metal surfaces). I have witnessed this fault in products and also in branch
circuits over the years and have experienced the result of this fault
first-hand more than once, and I can assure you that parts so energized are
quite objectionable to touch. If the exposed energized surfaces were not
touched under such conditions in normal use, the fault would indeed be
virtually undetectable, but the loss of ground fault would become very
detectable if these surfaces were touched, but may not be reported. However, a
loss of earth connection would not otherwise produce a degradation of product
function making the fault noticeable to the user, which is what I believe you
were referring to.

 

Comments?

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard

RPQ Consulting

7372 West Luke Avenue

Glendale, AZ 85303

+623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax

rpick...@rpqconsulting.com

www.rpqconsulting.com  

 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
ted.eck...@apcc.com
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:37 AM
To: chris.dup...@elekta.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

 

Hello Chris,

 

The general rule is to test under single fault conditions.  However, the

loss of a ground connection is different from most other faults.  The

ground can be lost without any normal means of detection for the user.

Most other faults will trip a fuse or render the product at least partially

inoperable.  When the ground wire is lost, the product will likely continue

to be used as if there were no fault at all.  The loss of the ground

connection  is treated differently because it is virtually undetectable

under normal conditions of use.  I agree that a single fault has occurred,

but the user doesn't know it.  The product could be used for years in this

state until there is a second fault which could then energize the chassis

can cause injury.  The product is used as if no fault has occurred, so I

would treat the next fault that happens as a single fault.

 

Ted Eckert

American Power Conversion/MGE

http://www.apc.com/

 

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the

writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer

is not speaking in an official capacity for APC-MGE or Schneider Electric.

The speaker does not represent APC-MGE's or Schneider Electric's official

position on any matter.

 

 

   

 Chris.Dupres@elek 

 ta.com

To 

 03/17/2008 09:06  ted.eck...@apcc.com 

 AM cc 

   emc-p...@ieee.org   

   Subject 

   Re: Protective Earthing Terminal

   Construction Requirements   

   

   

   

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

Ted Ekert said:

 



 

This makes sense of course, but (going off track a little bit) this implies

that the equipment has TWO faults, and the premise at the moment seems to

be  'Safety under SINGLE FAULT conditions'.

 

I guess I'm asking for opinions, in view of the latest standards leaning or

Risk Analysis etc., (e.g. IEC 60601-1 Rev 3) is..  "How many stacked risks

should we take into account?" when defining 'Risk'.

 

I mean, it's perfectly feasible to lose a ground connection on a case (1

fault), and for a live wire to come loose and touch the case (2 fault).  Do

we have to take ALL scenario's like that into account?  In other words,

ensure the design is safe under double, or even triple fault conditions?

 

I'm reminded of a mains plug on a piece of UK equipment, where the lead was

tugged, the Earth wire pulled out and ended up on the Live wire.   Of

course the whole case became live.This was found because a secretary felt a

'tingle' when she

Job opening

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

A great opportunity opened up for an experienced EMC / Radio engineer with
experience with the FCC part 22, 24 15. 247 15.407, 25 the FCC filing system
and the European part of the testing.

 

We have a great work environment and a nice team.

 

Please contact me offline if you are interested.

Best Regards

Lothar Schmidt
Director Regulatory & Antenna Services

CETECOM Inc. 
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035

Phone +1 (408) 586 6214
Fax   +1 (408) 586 6299
email  lothar.schm...@cetecomusa.com

This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information
for the sole use of the named intended recipient.  Any review or distribution
of this e-mail by any party other than the intended recipient or that person's
agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete all copies and immediately contact the sender. You must not, directly
or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this
message if you are not the intended recipient.

 

-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 


For help, send mail to the list administrators: 


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 


http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
, 
dated Mon, 17 Mar 2008, chris.dup...@elekta.com writes:

>So how many levels of fault should we take into account in order to 
>fulfil the Risk Analysis requirements?

This is one of those questions that no-one wants to answer. So I'll try.

The reason that there isn't any 'official' answer is that with more than 
one simultaneous fault, chosen from all possible faults, nothing could 
ever be considered 'safe'. So, what you have to do is consider the 
consequences. If a fault creates a 'high risk' condition, then take care 
that its probability is very low. This is the case for the protective 
conductor connection of Class I equipment.

However, it is a principle of standardization that specification of 
performance is much preferred to specifying design or construction. IEC 
60335 has specified construction in this respect for a very long time, 
probably since before the above principle was recognized. Also, many 
household appliances generate their own vibration, which other products 
don't, so the need for a secure fixing is particularly great.

Yet again, household appliances are still repairable items, so the 
service technician should not be easily able to forget to replace 
protective conductor connections. But ICT and multimedia equipment are 
less likely to be repaired these days, and technician training is better 
anyway, so the probability of an omitted connection is less.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hello Chris,

The general rule is to test under single fault conditions.  However, the
loss of a ground connection is different from most other faults.  The
ground can be lost without any normal means of detection for the user.
Most other faults will trip a fuse or render the product at least partially
inoperable.  When the ground wire is lost, the product will likely continue
to be used as if there were no fault at all.  The loss of the ground
connection  is treated differently because it is virtually undetectable
under normal conditions of use.  I agree that a single fault has occurred,
but the user doesn't know it.  The product could be used for years in this
state until there is a second fault which could then energize the chassis
can cause injury.  The product is used as if no fault has occurred, so I
would treat the next fault that happens as a single fault.

Ted Eckert
American Power Conversion/MGE
http://www.apc.com/

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC-MGE or Schneider Electric.
The speaker does not represent APC-MGE's or Schneider Electric's official
position on any matter.


   
 Chris.Dupres@elek 
 ta.com
To 
 03/17/2008 09:06  ted.eck...@apcc.com 
 AM cc 
   emc-p...@ieee.org   
   Subject 
   Re: Protective Earthing Terminal
   Construction Requirements   
   
   
   
   
   
   




Ted Ekert said:



This makes sense of course, but (going off track a little bit) this implies
that the equipment has TWO faults, and the premise at the moment seems to
be  'Safety under SINGLE FAULT conditions'.

I guess I'm asking for opinions, in view of the latest standards leaning or
Risk Analysis etc., (e.g. IEC 60601-1 Rev 3) is..  "How many stacked risks
should we take into account?" when defining 'Risk'.

I mean, it's perfectly feasible to lose a ground connection on a case (1
fault), and for a live wire to come loose and touch the case (2 fault).  Do
we have to take ALL scenario's like that into account?  In other words,
ensure the design is safe under double, or even triple fault conditions?

I'm reminded of a mains plug on a piece of UK equipment, where the lead was
tugged, the Earth wire pulled out and ended up on the Live wire.   Of
course the whole case became live.This was found because a secretary felt a
'tingle' when she touched the case.  I guess her plastic high heels saved
her that time.  One event, but two faults.

So how many levels of fault should we take into account in order to fulfil
the Risk Analysis requirements?

Regards,

Chris.

Chris Duprés
Compliance Engineer
Elekta Limited
Linac House
Fleming Way
Crawley
West Sussex
RH10 9RR

www.elekta.com
tel:  +44 (0) 1293 654311
fax:  +44 (0) 1293 654260


***Internet Email Confidentiality Footer***
The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) are
confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the
recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in
error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message
>from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by
someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Elekta Limited is a company registered in England and Wales whose
registered number is 3244454 and whose registered address is Linac House,
Fleming Way, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9RR

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Ted Ekert said:



This makes sense of course, but (going off track a little bit) this implies
that the equipment has TWO faults, and the premise at the moment seems to
be  'Safety under SINGLE FAULT conditions'.

I guess I'm asking for opinions, in view of the latest standards leaning or
Risk Analysis etc., (e.g. IEC 60601-1 Rev 3) is..  "How many stacked risks
should we take into account?" when defining 'Risk'.

I mean, it's perfectly feasible to lose a ground connection on a case (1
fault), and for a live wire to come loose and touch the case (2 fault).  Do
we have to take ALL scenario's like that into account?  In other words,
ensure the design is safe under double, or even triple fault conditions?

I'm reminded of a mains plug on a piece of UK equipment, where the lead was
tugged, the Earth wire pulled out and ended up on the Live wire.   Of
course the whole case became live.This was found because a secretary felt a
'tingle' when she touched the case.  I guess her plastic high heels saved
her that time.  One event, but two faults.

So how many levels of fault should we take into account in order to fulfil
the Risk Analysis requirements?

Regards,

Chris.

Chris Duprés
Compliance Engineer
Elekta Limited
Linac House
Fleming Way
Crawley
West Sussex
RH10 9RR

www.elekta.com
tel:  +44 (0) 1293 654311
fax:  +44 (0) 1293 654260


***Internet Email Confidentiality Footer***
The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) are
confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the
recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in
error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message
>from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by
someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Elekta Limited is a company registered in England and Wales whose
registered number is 3244454 and whose registered address is Linac House,
Fleming Way, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9RR

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Hurricane Winds Test Facility

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Reginald
Henry
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:02 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Hurricane Winds Test Facility


 
All,

I have a product that requires testing under Hurricane Winds condition,
therefore I need to find a Lab that has Wind Tunnel Capabilities and
that is also with the NVLAP .

Generally it needs to be able to provide

**Winds of 110 mph with wind gusts up to 30%**


*** BTW , I have already checked with Dayton T. and  Cox  & Company,
they could not provide this service.


Thanks for any help you might provide.
 
Best Regards,
Reg Henry
Reginald Henry
Electrical Engineer
 


Reg:

There is an old Convair wind tunnel that was acquired by the San Diego
Air & Space Museum, located next to the airport in San Diego, CA. Looks
like they have expanded out into sports and clothing design in addition
to traditional airframe testing. See:

http://www.lswt.com/

There is also another old NASA wind tunnel, IIRC, located in Newport
News, VA. It was acquired by University of Virginia. Sorry, no links for
that site.

Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780 (Voice)
858-505-1583 (FAX)
Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hello Joel,

The ground connection is treated differently from other terminals because
of what happens if it fails.

If a line connection comes loose, there should be some indication of a
problem.  The equipment will likely not operate properly or it will operate
at a reduced capacity of some type.  The earthed chassis of Class I
equipment, or the double insulation of Class II equipment will protect the
user from this failure.  The indication of the problem should prompt the
user to remove the product from service for repair.  I realize that this
doesn't always happen, but at least the user has been given some indication
that there is a problem and it is now up to them to take action.

If a ground connection fails, there will be no indication of a problem to
the user.  The product will likely continue to operate perfectly normally.
A second failure, such as a loose line wire, could lead to the sudden and
unexpected energizing of exposed metal.  The product has now become
hazardous without warning.

I know that this is a generalization and we don't live in an ideal world.
However, it is based on the concept of risk reduction.  Adding a
supplementary retention method to a ground connection can provide an
additional level of safety.

Ted Eckert
American Power Conversion/MGE
http://www.apc.com/

The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the
writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer
is not speaking in an official capacity for APC-MGE or Schneider Electric.
The speaker does not represent APC-MGE's or Schneider Electric's official
position on any matter.


   
 Joel Sandberg 
   To 
 Sent by:  emc-p...@ieee.org   
 emc-p...@ieee.org  cc 
   
   Subject 
 03/16/2008 09:36  Protective Earthing Terminal
 PMConstruction Requirements   
   
   
   
   
   
   




To Members of the Product Safety Group;

I am trying to find the construction requirements, and the standards that
set these requirements, for a protective earth(ing) terminal.

Many of us have learned that there needs to be locking washers and nuts
between each ring lug.  But where is this actually called out and required?

I am trying to show the engineering department were I work which parts of
this "good practice" are actually requirements of the requirements we will
be claiming to meet.

I have found a diagram at www.phihong/html/grounding.html (Phihong.com)
that shows reasonable grounding technique.  But this web site does not site
any standard as a basis for the technique.

I have searched 60601-1:1988 and 60950:95 looking for requirements and a
diagram.  I have found resistance requirements, 0.1 ohm max in 60601-1,
section 18 f), but I can not find construction explicit requirements.

Does anyone know if any standard includes explicit construction
requirements for a protective earth terminal and for connections to a PE
terminal?

Thank you.

Joel Sandberg
Lake Worth, FL





 Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/


To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html


For help, send mail to the list administrators:


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org


For policy questions, send mail to:


Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:


http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, se

RE: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

This message has been converted via the evaluation version of
Transend Migrator. Use beyond the trial period specified in
your Software Evaluation Agreement is prohibited. Please contact
Transend Corporation at (650) 324-5370 or sales.i...@transend.com
to obtain a license suitable for use in a production environment.
Thank you.

-
Hello Joel,
 
IEC/EN 60335-1 has a diagram (figure 10) indicating ‘example’ parts of an
earthing terminal.  It distinguishes parts providing earthing continuity from
parts providing or transmitting contact pressure.
 
Generally most product safety standards (including 60335) do not specify
‘explicit’ construction requirements for protective earthing connections
only that certain requirements shall be met.
 
An issue that can sometimes be overlooked is that of not double fixing when
crimping a connector onto an earth wire – ideally the conductor AND the
insulation should be fixed.  I have never seen this explicitly stated but it
goes with the ‘spirit’ of most product safety standards and good
engineering practice.  
 
I will see if I can extract the diagram.
 
Best regards,
 
___
 
Steve Richardson
 
Blackwood Compliance Laboratories
Unit 8 Woodfieldside Business Park
Pontllanfraith
Blackwood
NP12 2DG
United Kingdom
Tel: +44(0)1495 229219
Fax: +44(0)1495 228331
www.blackwood-labs.co.uk  
 
Limited places available *** EMC seminar - Millennium Stadium Cardiff *** 
  Click here or visit 

www.blackwood-labs.co.uk/trainingcourses
 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Joel Sandberg
Sent: 17 March 2008 02:37
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements
 
To Members of the Product Safety Group;

I am trying to find the construction requirements, and the standards that set
these requirements, for a protective earth(ing) terminal.

Many of us have learned that there needs to be locking washers and nuts
between each ring lug.  But where is this actually called out and required?

I am trying to show the engineering department were I work which parts of this
"good practice" are actually requirements of the requirements we will be
claiming to meet.

I have found a diagram at www.phihong/html/grounding.html (Phihong.com) that
shows reasonable grounding technique.  But this web site does not site any
standard as a basis for the technique.

I have searched 60601-1:1988 and 60950:95 looking for requirements and a
diagram.  I have found resistance requirements, 0.1 ohm max in 60601-1,
section 18 f), but I can not find construction explicit requirements.  

Does anyone know if any standard includes explicit construction requirements
for a protective earth terminal and for connections to a PE terminal?

Thank you.

Joel Sandberg
Lake Worth, FL



  
  _  

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find
  them fast
with Yahoo! Search. - -
-- This message is from the IEEE
Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to: 
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 

Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 

Re: Industrial ultrasonic cleaners emissions limits

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

This message has been converted via the evaluation version of
Transend Migrator. Use beyond the trial period specified in
your Software Evaluation Agreement is prohibited. Please contact
Transend Corporation at (650) 324-5370 or sales.i...@transend.com
to obtain a license suitable for use in a production environment.
Thank you.

-
In message <47dde91f.5030...@aol.com>, dated Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Derek 
Walton  writes:

>I'm looking at the suitability of a large ( about the size of a large 
>desk ) Ultrasonic cleaner thats complaint to Part 18 here in the USA.
>
>I was curious to know if there was any specific EN published for 
>equipments of this type. Meeting 40 dBuV/m is proving tough when it's 
>running at 4kW.

CISPR 11/EN 55011. Please make sure you look at the current edition.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Protective Earthing Terminal Construction Requirements

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

This message has been converted via the evaluation version of
Transend Migrator. Use beyond the trial period specified in
your Software Evaluation Agreement is prohibited. Please contact
Transend Corporation at (650) 324-5370 or sales.i...@transend.com
to obtain a license suitable for use in a production environment.
Thank you.

-
In message <558320.76575...@web35403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, dated Sun, 16 
Mar 2008, Joel Sandberg  writes:

>I have searched 60601-1:1988 and 60950:95 looking for requirements and 
>a diagram. 

Both of those are VERY out-of-date. For example, in IEC 60950-1:2002, 
see clauses 2.6.4 and 3.3.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
For very important information, please turn over.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc