RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Lauren, If the PSU is being supplied as a spare to repair a product not in scope then the spare can be rohs or non-rohs so there would be no need to prove it is RoHS. Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25 To: Nick Williams Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at the following location: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct on.do?reference=IP/08/1878format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en Nick. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules:
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Lauren, Please elaborate or what you mean by Yep, you gotta do REACH too. Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25 To: Nick Williams Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives I'm sure many readers here will be interested in the information at the following location: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct on.do?reference=IP/08/1878format=HTMLaged=0language=ENguiLanguage=en Nick. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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
EMC Eduction and Training
Hello All I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to widen the debate. EMC Education and Training Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised product industry together with consultants and soothsayers. Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude? Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons. Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer? Did you? I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators, Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions. Thank you. Alan E Hutley The EMC Journal www.theemcjournal.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 dhe...@gmail.com
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Chris,
Is that your read of the current RoHS or the revision proposal? My question is
related to the revision proposal. This is what I see
Original RoHS said
This Directive does not apply to: spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse,
of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.
[Art 2.3]
Proposed Change says
This Directive does not apply to:
(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests
of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material
intended for specifically military purposes ;
(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of
equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can
fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment;
(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit.
[Art 2.3]
So getting exemption here depends on
* clearly understanding can fulfill its function only if is part of that
equipment - It seems a PSU can still fulfill its function of providing power,
in or out of a printing press.
OR
* demonstrating that the PSU is not being placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit - but what exactly is meant by single
functional unit or commercial unit? No defs. are provided.
Further, later in the proposal it is stated
Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or
its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex
IV {the big 6}. [Art 4.1]
With some exceptions
4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse
of the following:
(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.
(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014.
(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st
January 2016.
(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January
2014.
(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before
1st January 2017.
(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before
that exemption expired.
So the PSU which might be considered a monitoring and control instrument in
its own right, is a spare part for the printing press (a electrical tool) and
so may only benefit from (a), but if the particular printing press being
repaired was placed on the market this year, there is no available exemption.
Regards,
Lauren
- external use -
Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail.
James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk
12/15/2008 03:14 AM To
Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT
cc
emc-p...@ieee.org, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk
Subject
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Lauren,
If the PSU is being supplied as a spare to repair a product not in scope then
the spare can be rohs or non-rohs so there would be no need to prove it is
RoHS.
Chris
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lauren_cr...@amat.com
Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25
To: Nick Williams
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Nick,
Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting.
Some of what I see;
* RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been
pulled into RoHS.
* For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope.
* The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three
scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope
equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and
equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or
commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much
guidance and source much debate.
* RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from
spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1)
* There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing
linkage
of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7
* RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh)
* RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers
(regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU).
* Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also
from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted).
* The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS.
* WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS.
* Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say
Yep, you gotta do REACH too.
* Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Chris, Elaboration -- It is frustrating how many laws in general in a country, and the EU specifically (though not a country), affect similar classes of products but do not reference each other. For example, a small aerosol can of specialized oil for a machine might be within scope of the EU Narcotics Precursor Regulation, the REACH Regulation, the Dangerous Preparations Directive, the Aerosol Dispensers Directive and the Prepackaged Products directive, but the laws do not always cross reference each other (though there is some). In this same way, EEE within scope of RoHS could easily contain materials relevant to the restrictions of REACH (Annex XVII) or the Candidate List materials of REACH. It is nice to see the RoHS directive explicitly mention REACH (see the following) and to say it applies even though RoHS might also. REACH, of course, is the acronym for Regulation 1907/2006. Reference to REACH - This Directive shall apply without prejudice to requirements of Community legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 as well as of specific Community waste management legislation. Hope that helps Lauren - external use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk 12/15/2008 03:35 AM To Lauren Crane/APPLIED MATERIALS@AMAT cc emc-p...@ieee.org, Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Subject RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Lauren, Please elaborate or what you mean by Yep, you gotta do REACH too. Chris From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of lauren_cr...@amat.com Sent: 12 December 2008 16:25 To: Nick Williams Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives Nick, Yes. These proposed revisions to WEEE and RoHS are very interesting. Some of what I see; * RoHS has its own scope now. Essentially the Annex from WEEE has been pulled into RoHS. * For WEEE the situation is reversed - It now points to RoHS for scope. * The RoHS spare parts exemption is changed and, I think, eroded. Three scenarios provide exemption- military equipment; components of out-of-scope equipment that fulfills its function only if part of that equipment; and equipment not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit - all rather vague concepts that will, no doubt, require much guidance and source much debate. * RoHS contains a new criteria prohibiting the big 6 RoHS materials from spare parts for the repair or reuse of EEE (ref art. 4.1) * There is a new Annex III with 4 materials list and a very confusing linkage of these materials to risk assessment and the REACH candidate list in Art. 4.7 * RoHS is now a CE Marking directive (sigh) * RoHS takes steps to make it clear that importers are manufacturers (regardless of whether there is an OEM external to the EU). * Use exemptions in RoHS annex V and VI are extended to be exemptions also from REACH authorization criteria (once any get crafted). * The definition of homogeneous material is now defined in RoHS. * WEEE has exemptions similar to RoHS. * Both directives now kindly give a nod towards REACH and essentially say Yep, you gotta do REACH too. * Scope of WEEE is now explicitly on waste from private households or users other than private households (this seems to be all users). I guess WEEE was just silent on this point prior. * EN 50419 is now the reference for the ex-bin symbol (one of the few cases where a directive mandates the use of a standard). === I am particularly interested in how RoHS's new treatment of integrated parts would apply in the following scenario A large scale stationary industrial tool (LSIT), say a printing press, is imported to the EU. It might be considered an electrical tool but is exempt because of the LSIT exemption in Annex I.6. The printing press has a power supply in it. The power supply manufacturer also happens to market their supply in the EU as a single commercial unit. The printing press manufacturer has no intention of marketing the power supply as a separate commercial unit, but they do provide it as a spare part in their support supply chain. Must the printing press company ensure the power supply is RoHS compliant as an industrial control instrument (controlling voltage)? Regards, Lauren Crane Product Regulatory Analyst Corporate Product EHS Lead Applied Materials Inc. Austin, TX 512 272-6540 [#922 26540] - External Use - Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Nick Williams nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 12/12/2008 04:38 AM To emc-p...@ieee.org cc Subject Revision of the
RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
My reply was in respect of the proposed amendments. If the original equipment
supplied is not in scope then spares do not have to be in scope, period. If
someone deems to take the supply out the printer and use it for another
purpose then that is their “folly”. Think what would happen if you applied
your rationale; every nut bolt in the machine could be said to be useable
outside the original equipment.
What you really need to consider is what constitutes large scale stationary
industrial tools as there are printers and printers... if the
installation is a purpose built print mill then it would almost certainly
qualify but if it’s just a large floor standing print press then almost
certainly not.
The UK enforcer FAQ defines LSSIT as:
http://www.rohs.gov.uk/FAQs.aspx#11
* Consist of a combination of equipment, systems, products and/or
components (therefore not a singe discrete tool such as a small or medium
scale lathe, milling machine or pillar drill)
* Be a tool and not be covered under any other category
* Be required to be fixed to operate safely or within specification
* Be of ‘large-scale’
* Require professional installation
* Only be used in an industrial environment
* Be built to perform a specific task
See also inserts below
Chris
From: lauren_cr...@amat.com [mailto:lauren_cr...@amat.com]
Sent: 15 December 2008 15:36
To: James, Chris
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; Nick Williams
Subject: RE: Revision of the WEEE and RoHS directives
Chris,
Is that your read of the current RoHS or the revision proposal? My question is
related to the revision proposal. This is what I see
Original RoHS said
This Directive does not apply to: spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse,
of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.
[Art 2.3]
Proposed Change says
This Directive does not apply to:
(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests
of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material
intended for specifically military purposes ;
(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of
equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can
fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment;
(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit.
[Art 2.3]
[James, Chris] these merely clarify already given or understood interpretation
of the existing directive.
So getting exemption here depends on
[James, Chris] you are not “getting” an exemption, it is already given.
* clearly understanding can fulfill its function only if is part of that
equipment - It seems a PSU can still fulfill its function of providing power,
in or out of a printing press.
[James, Chris] as above, so can a screw of nut but if the product is not in
scope then neither are it components.
OR
* demonstrating that the PSU is not being placed on the market as a single
functional or commercial unit - but what exactly is meant by single
functional unit or commercial unit? No defs. are provided.
[James, Chris] agreeably this is vague, but again you are looking at the scope
which applies to the finished product not the individual components. Is the
finished product in or out of scope, I thought you had decided it is out as
it’s large scale stationary industrial tools.
Further, later in the proposal it is stated
Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or
its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex
IV {the big 6}. [Art 4.1]
With some exceptions
4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse
of the following:
(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.
(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014.
(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st
January 2016.
(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January
2014.
(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before
1st January 2017.
(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before
that exemption expired.
So the PSU which might be considered a monitoring and control instrument in
its own right, is a spare part for the printing press (a electrical tool) and
so may only benefit from (a), but if the particular printing press being
repaired was placed on the market this year, there is no available exemption.
[James, Chris] yes there is as you said it’s LSSIT which Annex I cl 6
excludes from scope.
Regards,
Lauren
- external use -
Save paper and trees! Please consider the environment before printing this
e-mail.
James, Chris c...@dolby.co.uk
12/15/2008 03:14 AM
To
Re: EMC Eduction and Training
In message 2008121515197.344647@Alan-PC, dated Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Alan E Hutley a...@nutwooduk.co.uk writes: Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Agreed; the 1989 Directive widened greatly the range of products subject to emission and immunity control. Before then, only a few people knew, or needed to know, about EMC, in countries other than Germany and Austria. They were different because of the restrictions placed on their AM broadcasting post-1945, which prompted a drive to lower the EM noise floor. Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude? Probably not a major factor. Academics have to pursue funding, because that's how the system is set up. But it appears that few did pursue funding for EMC, and I suspect that is because it's a bit too much 'engineering' rather than 'science', which is not attractive to many academics. One could say, 'EMC? It's Maxwell's Equations. The rest is just arithmetic!'. A lot of the science of EMC has been pursued in Germany, Switzerland and Poland, not in the countries around the North Sea. Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons. Governments understand very little about training needs. They tend to be led by the nose by a certain type of 'educationalist', who have an approach which I think many engineers would find incomprehensible and not well-directed. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk All these closing-downs have been caused by dozing clowns John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: EMC Eduction and Training
Alan, In the US the best-known university programs in EMC may be The Missouri School of Science Technology (formerly U. of Missouri- Rolla) and Clemson, but there are other schools with programs or classes in one or more aspects of EMC. From my vantage point, these programs offer from among following topics: (1) printed circuit board noise mechanisms (power bus, etc.); automotive EMC; and (3) other (shielding, cables, ESD, etc.). A lot of emphasis in academia (worldwide) is in the arena of modeling. A lot of graduate students that are pursuing advanced degrees are modeling various EMC or EM issues with various methods and tools. This is an arena in which academia has a lot to offer and they find it attractive. Signal integrity studies go hand in hand with printed circuit board noise suppression topics and modeling. A number of schools will offer modeling to graduate students even if they don’t have a full curriculum in EMC topics. A few schools are offering automotive EMC programs since there has been a need and funding sources to support this topic. Academic programs that extend beyond a few classes in an overall electrical engineering curriculum require outside funding, either from industry or the government. Successful programs, such as the Missouri case, have been driven by (1) technology, i.e., high-speed signaling; (2) requirements (more so by basic emissions requirements rather than by the EU’s immunity requirements); (3) by industry needs that are driven by requirements (need to fix a vexing problem for the future, but industry does not have manpower/time to study it themselves); and usually later in time by (4) government wanting to fund the dissemination of this knowledge to other educational channels. The successful academic program is one that is timely in offering this expertise to industry (some luck in being at the right place at the right time), able so solve knotty problems in detail so as to offer help in future designs (provide a benefit to industry), able to attract a steady influx of good students to do the work, and successfully market the program by publishing papers and presenting at conferences. Government interest or understanding of the need for this sort of education is usually late to the table. Jim __ James L. Knighten, Ph.D. EMC Engineer Teradata Corporation 17095 Via Del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 858-485-2537 – phone 858-485-3788 – fax (unattended) From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Alan E Hutley Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 7:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: EMC Eduction and Training Hello All I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to widen the debate. EMC Education and Training Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised product industry together with consultants and soothsayers. Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude? Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons. Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer? Did you? I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators, Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions. Thank you. Alan E Hutley The EMC Journal www.theemcjournal.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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
Re: EMC Eduction and Training
I agree on the relevance of RF, SI, and EM to EMC since I do all three. I marvel that academia hasn't figured it out. I don't know of any schools that really tie them together. Perhaps it is because of the ways we address them. RF is tends toward frequency domain while SI tends to be time domain. Industry addresses both from the standpoint that they are needed to make the circuit work. On the other hand EMC is what is needed to sell the product. Except for the military, the industry attitude is not to prevent the problem (EMC) unless someone is complaining about the stink. The academic view is strange. I will never forget an advanced amplifier design class where I was supposed to calculate the proper value of a bypass capacitor. The 'correct' answer was 87.5 microfarads. Never mind you can't buy an 87.5 uF cap and therefore the design is unrealizable until proper tolerancing is applied. In terms of EMC the student is really sold down the river. For instance, switching regulators will be taught from the standpoint that either a capacitor or an inductor may be used to store energy. I have never seen a curriculum that tells the student inductors are much more likely to cause EMC problems than a capacitor. Fred Townsend DC to Light Alan E Hutley wrote: Hello All I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to widen the debate. EMC Education and Training Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised product industry together with consultants and soothsayers. Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude? Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons. Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer? Did you? I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators, Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions. Thank you. Alan E Hutley The EMC Journal www.theemcjournal.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 dhe...@gmail.com
Re: EMC Eduction and Training
In message 4946d305.3020...@sbcglobal.net, dated Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Fred Townsend ftowns...@sbcglobal.net writes: The academic view is strange. I don't think that 'strange' is the right word. I will never forget an advanced amplifier design class where I was supposed to calculate the proper value of a bypass capacitor. The 'correct' answer was 87.5 microfarads. Never mind you can't buy an 87.5 uF cap and therefore the design is unrealizable until proper tolerancing is applied. Academics, even teaching engineering, mostly do science rather than engineering. They don't bother with practical details, and in many cases, don't even know about what standard component values are available. I've met two 'engineering graduates (one English, one French) who calculated resistor values to 1 part in 10^4 or so, and made the values up from series-parallel combinations of standard parts. They had never even HEARD of tolerances, let alone preferred values. Science says '87.5 uF'; engineering says 'Maybe a 100 uF will do, even at -20% tolerance. Let's try it.' -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk All these closing-downs have been caused by dozing clowns John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: EMC Eduction and Training
I see this as having deep roots. Many young people start College without the background to appreciate our discipline.These students have never listened to radio; they've only turned on a box or a compact player/stereo and stuck headphones in their ears. They will learn, if they take up engineering (Engineering? Yeah, they make lots of money; put me down for engineering.) about Faraday, Ohm, Volta , Hertz, Lenz and Maxwell, (MAYBE, about Farnsworth and Zworykin) but what they learn will not have reality to them beyond the mathematics necessary to describe certain physical phenomena they never expect to encounter. That may exaggerate -- a little. Well and all, they are more educated than I, even so. But I've been doing this work 25 years, and when in 1983, I walked into an EMC facility at Wang Labs in Massachusetts, I was able to do and understand the tests they needed done, never having done them before.It is amazing how little one need know, to know more than others. Maybe the schools need to hand out crystal sets. Or is it too late to awaken imaginations by then? Are these people going to school simply to make money? We are a distinct minority among the engineering staff where we work. We are a cost center, not a profit center, and often reminded of that. We're not romantic, We're not even attractive nerds. And schools must make money. Given that the marketplace doesn't make us look like a good bet, the institutions you found may be all the market will bear. Cortland, KA5S - Original Message - From: Alan E Hutley mailto:a...@nutwooduk.co.uk To: EMC-PSTC mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: 12/15/2008 10:19:16 AM Subject: EMC Eduction and Training Hello All I recently posted a request for information on Universities that offer EMC Educational activities. I thank those that responded but was very surprised by the very small number of Universities involved. I would like therefore to widen the debate. EMC Education and Training Behind EMC lays the Technology and Science of Electromagnetism, Signal Integrity and RF Engineering... EMC is a by-product of these disciplines. Over the past dozen or so years EMC has been largely, if not entirely, driven by Directives and Regulations. Around this scenario has evolved a specialised product industry together with consultants and soothsayers. Without the furore of this activity, EMC would almost certainly not have been on the RADAR to the extent that it has been. Could this be the reason why formal qualifications and academic training has not evolved at the same pace or magnitude? Is the apparent lack of resources committed to Training and Education due to the relevant organisations and Governments lack of understanding with respect to the complexity surrounding EMC... or are there other reasons. Invariably, or at least in many cases, Engineers seem to have ended up becoming EMC Engineers by default, not design. Does anyone actually set out with the sole purpose of becoming an EMC Engineer? Did you? I am interested in the views of others and finding out what resources are currently available, plus I would like to hear from Trainers, Educators, Course Presenters, EMC Engineers, Consultants and anyone else that can contribute to the debate by expressing their opinions. Thank you. Alan E Hutley The EMC Journal www.theemcjournal.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 dhe...@gmail.com
