Re: T-Couple Calibration

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

Note that the hammer method does create a weld.
Another method that can be used is solder. Purists complain that this creates
two junctions. However when they are both at the tip where you are measuring
the temperature, the intermediate metal is irrelevant.
I weld with line voltage ac, a light bulb ballast and a carbon motor brush for
the contact surface.

I get upset with some people who think it is their job to be difficult. This
business of calibration of thermocouples is a good example. For the purposes
of product safety testing, no-one has problems with the CALIBRATION of their
thermocouples. But its an easy problem to fuss about. Your real problems will
be shorts, opens, wrong thermocouple types or type settings, thermocouples
detached from their measurement point, wrong polarity, reading and
transcription errors, misidentified thermocouples, poor location choices,
thermal gradients at the measurement point, etc. These can happen even with
calibrated thermocouples. You can worry about calibration if you are doing
milligram calorimetry.

The problems with thermocouples are mostly open or short circuits. It is good
practice to check your recorder once in a while against  a boiling point and
ice point, but the most important thing to do is begin your testing with a
comparison of all the thermocouples before they are applied and again after
they are applied but before the EUT warms up.
I generally check the identity and function by putting the thermocouple in my
mouth before applying it. It should rapidly change to about 34C (depending on
how much you're drinking).
Polarity errors are also easy to overlook (you may find your temperature rise
is negative).
You will find opens at the weld, at terminals and connectors or within the
leads. 
Shorts somewhere along the length of the thermocouple leads can result in
temperature measurement at the short instead of at the tip. Shorting against a
chassis edge as they enter an EUT is common. This can be particularly
insidious since they don't stop working, they just measure the wrong place.
In rare cases intermediate metals in the path to the instrument can introduce
errors. The error they introduce depends on the temperatures of the
intermediate junctions. Everyone using thermocouples should be familiar with
what the introduction of intermediate metals in switches and terminals might
do to the measurements and how to control the effects.

The accuracy needed for product safety measurements is pretty low. Why anybody
records to a tenth of a degree is beyond me. Temperature limits for insulation
and touchable surfaces are only approximations and errors of a few degrees may
be arguable from a certification standpoint but are not significant from a
safety standpoint. In many cases limits based on touch, measurement stickers
or thermal crayons have enough accuracy to rule out thermal concerns.

I have used an assortment of attachment methods. Tape is quick and easy.
Superglue is also quick (but toxic). You apply a drop, insert the thermocouple
and cure it instantly with baking soda or a commercial accelerator. Acetone
can be used for removal.
Sodium silicate (waterglass) is great (but slow) for difficult surfaces like
glass or high temperatures. It creates a very hard cement and you usually have
to abandon the junction by breaking off the wires when done.
Solder works well on some metals but you may need special fluxes or alloys
depending on the metals involved.
With any attachment method, be aware of heat flow. If the junction vicinity is
a uniform temperature, any adhesive will be suitable. In other conditions the
cement can be an insulator or a heat sink. If there is a high thermal gradient
near the junction you may have to be careful. That is the reason the tiny weld
bead is a good measurement tool. Note the leads can have a significant cooling
effect on the junction.

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety  

American Idle wrote: 

You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd junction from the 
last
bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)

I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program and he had the
following comments;

-This requirement is based on a CTL decision
-You must validate one TC from the beginning of the spool and one from 
the
end of the spool with an RTL Calibrator or water bath method
-You risk all your previous data if the last TC you make from the spool
doesn't calibrate right

He also stated that this requirement may change in the future because it
doesn't make a lot of sense (and suggested that I bring this particular issue
up for discussion if I happened to know anyone who sits on the Standards
Commitee!).  

As another poster stated, you may be better off purchasing pre-made
thermocouples.  The only risk there is if your manufacturer goes out of
business, your calibration certificates may become invalid.

-Ken Aren

KCC vs MIC

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

Hi,
does anyone have translated guidelines for moving towards KCC certification vs
MIC in Korea? 
As far as I know, it is going to be mandatory from January 2010 and
technically speaking they are the same requirements, just under different
government agency. My main question is: what about the products already
certified by MIC? Does Korean gov. allows any grace period or all of the
products must get  re- certified before being sold after 2010 deadline? 
Thanks, Mark




Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it
now.  
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

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

Yes, Sodium Silicate and Kaolin are specified by the IECEE in CTL-OP 108.

I prefer this attachment only for HALT series, otherwise I prefer
cyanoacrylate for product safety Type tests.

Brian 


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brent G DeWitt
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:36 PM
To: 'Ralph McDiarmid'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

So I guess nobody much uses Sodium Silicate and Kaolin as thermocouple
adhesive anymore?
 
Brent (old dinosaur) DeWitt
 
From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermocouple welder
 
I don’t know how one would calibrate a thermocouple, but we use a welding
device cobbled together from carbon rod (from a dry-cell) and a 40Vdc power
supply and an alligator clip.   It takes 10 minutes to setup and couple of per
thermocouple to weld and inspect to ensure there is a little ball of metal at
the end of the two wires and there are no twists.   We might do 30 or 40 in
one sitting and the DIY allows us to make each to a reasonable length.  (at
least 2 metres). Eye protection recommended.
 
To attach, we use plain old super glue and tape the wires in a couple of
places for strain-relief.  It’s a method that has proven successful for us
for many years and the TC can most often be removed without damaging the weld.
 
What I’m not crazy about is placing a piece of Mylar tape between a bare
live part and the TC to electrically isolate one from the other.  Not sure
what thermal conductively the piece of tape provides and what error it might
introduce.  Silpad or similar material is likely a better choice for that
function.
 
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc. 
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Barker, Neil
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:37 AM
To: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Thermocouple welder
 
Peter
 
Why bother?
Unless you need really long thermocouples that are not available off the shelf
as pre-welded units, it simply isn't worth the time and trouble. We treat
thermocouples as consumable items. They cost about £5 ($7) each and we just
discard them when broken. The thermocouples come with a Certificate of
Conformity, so there is no need to calibrate them. You can buy an awful lot of
those with the money you would spend on a welder, and then you've got to add
on the cost of the wire and the time to make the weld. With overheads, lab
time costs us about £70 ($100) an hour, so £5 would buy less than 5 minutes.
Do you think you can set up your welder, prepare the wires and make the weld
in less than 5 minutes?
Just my 2p (2c) worth.
 
Neil Barker
Manager
Central Quality
 
e2v
106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England
Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616
Mobile:   +44 (0)7801 723735
Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571
 www.e2v.com
 
P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail?
 
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: 16 June 2009 00:47
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder
Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 
 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! 
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Sent by a member of the e2v group of companies. The parent company, e2v
technologies plc, is registered in England and Wales. Company number;
04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU,
UK. This email and any attachments are confidential and meant solely for the
use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and then deleting this copy and the reply from your system without
further disclosing, copying, distributing or using the e-mail or any
attachment. 

RE: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

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

So I guess nobody much uses Sodium Silicate and Kaolin as thermocouple
adhesive anymore?

 

Brent (old dinosaur) DeWitt

 

From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

 

I don’t know how one would calibrate a thermocouple, but we use a welding
device cobbled together from carbon rod (from a dry-cell) and a 40Vdc power
supply and an alligator clip.   It takes 10 minutes to setup and couple of per
thermocouple to weld and inspect to ensure there is a little ball of metal at
the end of the two wires and there are no twists.   We might do 30 or 40 in
one sitting and the DIY allows us to make each to a reasonable length.  (at
least 2 metres). Eye protection recommended.

 

To attach, we use plain old super glue and tape the wires in a couple of
places for strain-relief.  It’s a method that has proven successful for us
for many years and the TC can most often be removed without damaging the weld.

 

What I’m not crazy about is placing a piece of Mylar tape between a bare
live part and the TC to electrically isolate one from the other.  Not sure
what thermal conductively the piece of tape provides and what error it might
introduce.  Silpad or similar material is likely a better choice for that
function.

 

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc. 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Barker, Neil
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:37 AM
To: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Thermocouple welder

 

Peter

 

Why bother?

Unless you need really long thermocouples that are not available off the shelf
as pre-welded units, it simply isn't worth the time and trouble. We treat
thermocouples as consumable items. They cost about £5 ($7) each and we just
discard them when broken. The thermocouples come with a Certificate of
Conformity, so there is no need to calibrate them. You can buy an awful lot of
those with the money you would spend on a welder, and then you've got to add
on the cost of the wire and the time to make the weld. With overheads, lab
time costs us about £70 ($100) an hour, so £5 would buy less than 5 minutes.
Do you think you can set up your welder, prepare the wires and make the weld
in less than 5 minutes?

Just my 2p (2c) worth.

 

Neil Barker

Manager

Central Quality

 

e2v

106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England

Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616

Mobile:   +44 (0)7801 723735

Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571

 www.e2v.com  

 

P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail?

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: 16 June 2009 00:47
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 

 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Sent by a member of the e2v group of companies. The parent company, e2v
technologies plc, is registered in England and Wales. Company number;
04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU,
UK. This email and any attachments are confidential and meant solely for the
use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and then deleting this copy and the reply from your system without
further disclosing, copying, distributing or using the e-mail or any
attachment. Thank you for your cooperation.
__

RE: T-Couple Calibration

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

This is, for me, good stuff. I adore the physics of measurements.

Mr. Dudek has provided a link to a good info source that I was remiss for
not including. On this general subject of test data acceptance, please
note that all such UL guides are at



To re-state my original question - what does the CFR say about temperature
measurement in reference to the NRTL program ?

Brian 

 > -Original Message-
 > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Dudek,
 > John (Corcom)
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:25 PM
 > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
 > Subject: RE: T-Couple Calibration
 >  
 >  From UL's website, acceptance of thermocouple guidelines 
 > for DAP participants.
 > 
 > http://www.ul.com/global/eng/documents/offerings/services/pro
grams/dap/tools/Equipment_Thermocouple.pdf
 > 
 > Regards
 > John F. Dudek
 > Manager, Product Safety Engineering
 > Corcom Products, Tyco Electronics Corp.
 > Mundelein, Il. USA
 > 847-573-6534 telephone
 > 847-680-0340 fax direct to PC
 > Mailto:j.du...@tycoelectronics.com
 >  
 > 
 > -Original Message-
 > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf 
 > Of Brian O'Connell
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:27 PM
 > To: emc-p...@ieee.org
 > Subject: RE: T-Couple Calibration
 > 
 > I buy thermocouple wire on separate spools so that I can 
 > control the twisted pair, then cut the twisted pairs into 
 > 1.5m segments. Then I choose a pair from the first third and 
 > a pair from the last third of the spools to verify. No 
 > complaints from any auditors to date. For calibration, look 
 > at ASTM E207/E220/E563 - but there are easier, more 
 > reasonable ways to verify instruments and temperature sensors.
 > 
 > I have not seen any particular requirement in 29 CFR 1910.7 
 > for NRTL thermocouple-based measurements/calibration. I 
 > would be very interested in any additional information that 
 > could be provided for NRTL temperature measurement requirements.
 > 
 > Let us talk about this concept called 'temperature', because 
 > I have seen some non-credible temperature data from CBTLs and NRTLs.
 > 
 > Temperature measurements are recorded for a small surface 
 > area of a larger mass, for a single instance in time. 
 > Temperature is a scalar quantity. Do not think of 
 > temperature measurements as vector quantities, and do not 
 > consider a temperature measurement to represent a 'constant' 
 > characteristic.
 > 
 > The NIST polynomials' accuracy for the common stuff (J, K, 
 > T) has a theoretical yield of about than 0.1 degC error 
 > through the full scale. The NIST polynomial error can be 
 > improved an order of mag for a delimited temperature range.
 > 
 > The reported accuracy of some instruments that are used for 
 > typical engineering measurements are about the same is the 
 > resolution (about 0.1 degC), which is not practical, and 
 > maybe not possible. For any of these common t/c types, the 
 > voltage gradient across a thermocouple wire pair is on the 
 > order of 100s of microvolts or perhaps 10's of millivolts 
 > for most product safety Type Test measurements. So the 
 > sensitivity of the thermocouple and its variable lead 
 > resistance and t/c attachment thermal impedance and thermal 
 > shunting and non-isothermal routing of t/c leads, the 
 > accuracy of the instrument, and the ambient noise conditions 
 > all conspire to make the resultant temperature measurement 
 > uncertainty, at best, 2 degC.
 > 
 > And a lab that reports temperatures to 0.1 degC is delusional.
 > 
 > There are some research/academic labs that may be able to 
 > control a test so the measurement uncertainty is 1 degC or 
 > better - but the practice is not reasonable for the 
 > engineering measurements in a product safety lab.
 > 
 > Let the shouting begin.
 > 
 > Brian
 > 
 > -Original Message-
 > From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf 
 > Of American Idle
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:38 AM
 > To: john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
 > Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
 > Subject: Re: T-Couple Calibration
 > 
 > You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd 
 > junction from the last bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)
 > 
 > I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program 
 > and he had the following comments;
 > 
 > -This requirement is based on a CTL decision
 > -You must validate one TC from the beginning of the spool 
 > and one from the end of the spool with an RTL Calibrator or 
 > water bath method
 > -You risk all your previous data if the last TC you make 
 > from the spool doesn't calibrate right
 > 
 > He also stated that this requirement may change in the 
 > future because it doesn't make a lot of sense (and suggested 
 > that I bring this particular issue up for discussion if I 
 > happened to know anyone who sits on the Standards Commitee!).
 > 
 > As another poster stated, you may be better off purchasing 
 > pre-made thermocouples.  The only risk there is if your 
 > m

Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation

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

 
Thanks Grace! 

--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Grace Lin  wrote:



From: Grace Lin 
Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
To: "Price, Edward" 
Cc: owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 10:07 AM


The best way to approach is to ask the customers/buyers.
 
From my own opinion, for those organizations/companies and individuals 
that
do not receive government fund should not be worry about.  

 
On 6/16/09, Price, Edward http://us.mc301.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ed.pr...@cubic.com> > wrote: 



> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org  
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org  ] On Behalf
> Of Grace Lin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:49 AM
> To: jeffcollin...@yahoo.com  
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
> Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
>
> Jeff,
>
> My interpretation:  If you (your employer) do not sell your
> products to Chinese government(or any party subject to
> government rules), you don't need to worry about the rules
> (similar to WLAN products).
>
> I attach a quick translation for your reference.
>
> Regards,
> Grace Lin



Now that opens up a whole new dimension! What Chinese entities 
are NOT
subject to Chinese "government rules"?


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

-

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
http://us.mc301.mai
.yahoo.com/mc/compose?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  >
Mike Cantwell  >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:   >
David Heald:  >



-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: T-Couple Calibration

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

 From UL's website, acceptance of thermocouple guidelines for DAP participants.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/documents/
fferings/services/programs/dap/tools/Equipment_Thermocouple.pdf

Regards
John F. Dudek
Manager, Product Safety Engineering
Corcom Products, Tyco Electronics Corp.
Mundelein, Il. USA
847-573-6534 telephone
847-680-0340 fax direct to PC
Mailto:j.du...@tycoelectronics.com

NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and any of its attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. The sender intends
this transmission only for the designated recipient(s). If you are not a
designated recipient (or authorized to receive for a designated recipient),
you are hereby notified that the disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
any of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy this message,
delete any copies which may exist on your system and notify the sender
immediately. Thank you.




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:27 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: T-Couple Calibration

I buy thermocouple wire on separate spools so that I can control the twisted
pair, then cut the twisted pairs into 1.5m segments. Then I choose a pair from
the first third and a pair from the last third of the spools to verify. No
complaints from any auditors to date. For calibration, look at ASTM
E207/E220/E563 - but there are easier, more reasonable ways to verify
instruments and temperature sensors.

I have not seen any particular requirement in 29 CFR 1910.7 for NRTL
thermocouple-based measurements/calibration. I would be very interested in any
additional information that could be provided for NRTL temperature measurement
requirements.

Let us talk about this concept called 'temperature', because I have seen some
non-credible temperature data from CBTLs and NRTLs.

Temperature measurements are recorded for a small surface area of a larger
mass, for a single instance in time. Temperature is a scalar quantity. Do not
think of temperature measurements as vector quantities, and do not consider a
temperature measurement to represent a 'constant' characteristic.

The NIST polynomials' accuracy for the common stuff (J, K, T) has a
theoretical yield of about than 0.1 degC error through the full scale. The
NIST polynomial error can be improved an order of mag for a delimited
temperature range.

The reported accuracy of some instruments that are used for typical
engineering measurements are about the same is the resolution (about 0.1
degC), which is not practical, and maybe not possible. For any of these common
t/c types, the voltage gradient across a thermocouple wire pair is on the
order of 100s of microvolts or perhaps 10's of millivolts for most product
safety Type Test measurements. So the sensitivity of the thermocouple and its
variable lead resistance and t/c attachment thermal impedance and thermal
shunting and non-isothermal routing of t/c leads, the accuracy of the
instrument, and the ambient noise conditions all conspire to make the
resultant temperature measurement uncertainty, at best, 2 degC.

And a lab that reports temperatures to 0.1 degC is delusional.

There are some research/academic labs that may be able to control a test so
the measurement uncertainty is 1 degC or better - but the practice is not
reasonable for the engineering measurements in a product safety lab.

Let the shouting begin.

Brian


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of American Idle
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:38 AM
To: john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: T-Couple Calibration

You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd junction from the last
bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)

I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program and he had the
following comments;

-This requirement is based on a CTL decision
-You must validate one TC from the beginning of the spool and one from the end
of the spool with an RTL Calibrator or water bath method
-You risk all your previous data if the last TC you make from the spool
doesn't calibrate right

He also stated that this requirement may change in the future because it
doesn't make a lot of sense (and suggested that I bring this particular issue
up for discussion if I happened to know anyone who sits on the Standards
Commitee!).

As another poster stated, you may be better off purchasing pre-made
thermocouples.  The only risk there is if your manufacturer goes out of
business, your calibration certificates may become invalid.

-Ken Arenella

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM, 
wrote:

While we are on the subject. Anyone have an inexpensive solution to the big
NRTL's new
Calibrated Thermocouple requirement?

As I read the spec it requires calibrating the first and last T-Couple off of
the spool
minimum. Takes me a couple years to us

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

I don’t know how one would calibrate a thermocouple, but we use a welding
device cobbled together from carbon rod (from a dry-cell) and a 40Vdc power
supply and an alligator clip.   It takes 10 minutes to setup and couple of per
thermocouple to weld and inspect to ensure there is a little ball of metal at
the end of the two wires and there are no twists.   We might do 30 or 40 in
one sitting and the DIY allows us to make each to a reasonable length.  (at
least 2 metres). Eye protection recommended.

 

To attach, we use plain old super glue and tape the wires in a couple of
places for strain-relief.  It’s a method that has proven successful for us
for many years and the TC can most often be removed without damaging the weld.

 

What I’m not crazy about is placing a piece of Mylar tape between a bare
live part and the TC to electrically isolate one from the other.  Not sure
what thermal conductively the piece of tape provides and what error it might
introduce.  Silpad or similar material is likely a better choice for that
function.

 

Ralph McDiarmid, AScT 
Compliance Engineering Group 
Xantrex Technology Inc. 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Barker, Neil
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:37 AM
To: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Thermocouple welder

 

Peter

 

Why bother?

Unless you need really long thermocouples that are not available off the shelf
as pre-welded units, it simply isn't worth the time and trouble. We treat
thermocouples as consumable items. They cost about £5 ($7) each and we just
discard them when broken. The thermocouples come with a Certificate of
Conformity, so there is no need to calibrate them. You can buy an awful lot of
those with the money you would spend on a welder, and then you've got to add
on the cost of the wire and the time to make the weld. With overheads, lab
time costs us about £70 ($100) an hour, so £5 would buy less than 5 minutes.
Do you think you can set up your welder, prepare the wires and make the weld
in less than 5 minutes?

Just my 2p (2c) worth.

 

Neil Barker

Manager

Central Quality

 

e2v

106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England

Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616

Mobile:   +44 (0)7801 723735

Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571

 www.e2v.com  

 

P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail?

 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: 16 June 2009 00:47
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 

 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Sent by a member of the e2v group of companies. The parent company, e2v
technologies plc, is registered in England and Wales. Company number;
04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU,
UK. This email and any attachments are confidential and meant solely for the
use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and then deleting this copy and the reply from your system without
further disclosing, copying, distributing or using the e-mail or any
attachment. Thank you for your cooperation.
__

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discuss

RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Hey John
 
You didn't miss anything at all - this is something that was proposed for the
draft ANSI C63.4 to be released later this year. It may have changed since
last year, so not 100% verbiage is still in there. My understanding is that it
is. 
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott
 
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR), 
[ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Flavin, John
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:14 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


We are currently evaluating absorber material for our OATS, and are trying to
determine how much of the ground plane we need to cover. Obviously, the entire
turntable is covered, but how far, perpendicular to the antenna-EUT axis, do
the absorbers need to extend on the ground plane between the turntable and the
antenna? 
 
All I seem to recall reading is that absorbers are placed between the EUT and
the antenna, but don't remember seeing minimum dimensions specified. Is the
2.4m x 2.4m a "rule of thumb" that seems to work or is this actually called
out in one or more of the standards?
 
Maybe I haven't read enough standards?
 

John D. Flavin 
Teradata TCP Engineering 
17095 Via del Campo 
San Diego, CA 92127 
john.fla...@teradata.com 
V: (858) 485-3874 
F: (213) 337-5432 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Elliott
Mac-FME001
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:15 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hey Tim / group
 
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start. 
 
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
 
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
 
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
 
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
 
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted .
 
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
 
Anyway, hope this helps
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hello Group,
 
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
 
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there any
site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the ground
plane instead of solid metal panels.
 
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering & Associates



An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
 
-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large fil

RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Hi Tim
 
I think that you would only need the amount of absorber needed to pass the
CISPR requirements - which do not have dimensions of absorber footprint. That
is an ANSI alternative. 
 
As far as the second question, according to presenters at the ANSI workshop
the answer to the second question is that you would be able to leave the
absorber down. I had the same question. 
 
The ANSI workshop Friday before the Symposium was really informative last
year. Some of this info may be dated. If anyone attends this year please keep
us posted. 
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott
 
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR), 
[ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[] General Public  
 



From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Elliott Mac-FME001; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hi Mac,
 
Per CISPR 22, emission measurements above 1GHz are done at a 3 meter test
distance, even on a 10 meter site. Doesn't this mean that the same amount of
absorber would be used on a 3 meter or 10 meter site since the test distance
is 3 meters?
 
Even if the NSA below 1GHz is passing, I believe the absorber material would
need to be removed when performing measurements below 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/16/2009 7:15:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fme...@motorola.com writes:

Hey Tim / group
 
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but 
may be
a place to start. 
 
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires 
meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
 
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger 
for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
 
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets 
these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
 
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the 
absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
 
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would 
meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted .
 
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet 
the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
 
Anyway, hope this helps
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hello Group,
 
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
 
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are 
there
any site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the
ground plane instead of solid metal panels.
 
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to 
do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering & Associates




An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc
discussio

RE: [PSES] CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Hi Michael
 
I can't speak for the FCC but can say that during the ANSI C63.4 workshop last
year in Detroit the OET was represented on the panel when these topics were
discussed. 
 
I definitely understand your question / concern 
 
If < 1 GHz NSA comes in with the absorber + ANSI C63.5:2006 antenna factors
AND if it meets the CISPR 16 requirement, my hope is that site with
significant OFA might make it with maybe a little extra help maybe around
turntable / etc - anything else sticking up [CISPR VSWR test uses
omnidirectional antenna] then one site could be used for both - at least for
Part 15. 
 
Keeping fingers crossed and will definitely keep you posted as I get time to
try things out. 
 
If you have the chance since you are in Dallas sign up for the ANSI C63.4
workshop on Friday before the Symposium in Austin. It was really informative.
Not attending that one this year but planning on going to the antenna cal one
on Saturday. 
 
Good luck!
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott
 
[] Motorola Confidential Restricted (MCR), 
[ X ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[] General Public  
 



From: michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com
[mailto:michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:38 PM
To: Elliott Mac-FME001; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005



Mac, 
Has the FCC changed it's position on needing reflection (bounce) ground plane
requirement? Seems like you'll need two sites now, one for FCC and one for
CISPR? 

Michael Sundstrom
Electronic Lab Analyst, EMC Lead
Overhead Door
TREQ Center, Dallas
michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com
OFC: 214-579-6312
CELL: 940-390-3644
KB5UKT 



Elliott Mac-FME001  

06/16/2009 09:14 AM 
Please respond to
Elliott Mac-FME001 


To
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
cc
Subject
Re: [PSES] CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005






Hey Tim / group 
  
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start. 
  
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
  
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
  
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
  
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
  
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted . 
  
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
  
Anyway, hope this helps 
  
Best regards, 
  
Mac Elliott 

[] General Public   
  




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

Hello Group, 
  
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor. 
  
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there any
site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the ground
plane instead of solid metal panels. 
  
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz. 
  
Thanks, 
Tim Pierce 
TAP Engineering & Associates 




An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
  
-

This message is from the IE

RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

We are currently evaluating absorber material for our OATS, and are trying to
determine how much of the ground plane we need to cover. Obviously, the entire
turntable is covered, but how far, perpendicular to the antenna-EUT axis, do
the absorbers need to extend on the ground plane between the turntable and the
antenna? 
 
All I seem to recall reading is that absorbers are placed between the EUT and
the antenna, but don't remember seeing minimum dimensions specified. Is the
2.4m x 2.4m a "rule of thumb" that seems to work or is this actually called
out in one or more of the standards?
 
Maybe I haven't read enough standards?
 

John D. Flavin 
Teradata TCP Engineering 
17095 Via del Campo 
San Diego, CA 92127 
john.fla...@teradata.com 
V: (858) 485-3874 
F: (213) 337-5432 

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Elliott
Mac-FME001
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:15 AM
To: emcp...@aol.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hey Tim / group
 
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start. 
 
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
 
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
 
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
 
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
 
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted .
 
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
 
Anyway, hope this helps
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hello Group,
 
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
 
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there any
site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the ground
plane instead of solid metal panels.
 
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering & Associates



An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
 
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used

Re: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Hi Mac,
 
Per CISPR 22, emission measurements above 1GHz are done at a 3 meter test
distance, even on a 10 meter site. Doesn't this mean that the same amount of
absorber would be used on a 3 meter or 10 meter site since the test distance
is 3 meters?
 
Even if the NSA below 1GHz is passing, I believe the absorber material would
need to be removed when performing measurements below 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/16/2009 7:15:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fme...@motorola.com writes:

Hey Tim / group
 
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but 
may be
a place to start. 
 
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires 
meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
 
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger 
for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
 
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets 
these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
 
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the 
absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
 
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would 
meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted .
 
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet 
the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
 
Anyway, hope this helps
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hello Group,
 
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
 
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are 
there
any site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the
ground plane instead of solid metal panels.
 
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to 
do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering & Associates




An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
 
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  




An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

Re: [PSES] CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Mac, 
Has the FCC changed it's position on needing reflection (bounce) ground plane
requirement? Seems like you'll need two sites now, one for FCC and one for
CISPR? 

Michael Sundstrom
Electronic Lab Analyst, EMC Lead
Overhead Door
TREQ Center, Dallas
michael_sundst...@overheaddoor.com
OFC: 214-579-6312
CELL: 940-390-3644
KB5UKT 



Elliott Mac-FME001  

06/16/2009 09:14 AM 
Please respond to
Elliott Mac-FME001 

To
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
cc
Subject
Re: [PSES] CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005






Hey Tim / group 
  
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start. 
  
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
  
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
  
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
  
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
  
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted . 
  
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
  
Anyway, hope this helps 
  
Best regards, 
  
Mac Elliott 

[] General Public   
  




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

Hello Group, 
  
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor. 
  
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there any
site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the ground
plane instead of solid metal panels. 
  
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz. 
  
Thanks, 
Tim Pierce 
TAP Engineering & Associates 




An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
  
-

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
mailto: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 mailto:emcp...@ptcnh.net> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald mailto: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
mailto: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/ 

RE: T-Couple Calibration

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

I buy thermocouple wire on separate spools so that I can control the twisted
pair, then cut the twisted pairs into 1.5m segments. Then I choose a pair from
the first third and a pair from the last third of the spools to verify. No
complaints from any auditors to date. For calibration, look at ASTM
E207/E220/E563 - but there are easier, more reasonable ways to verify
instruments and temperature sensors.

I have not seen any particular requirement in 29 CFR 1910.7 for NRTL
thermocouple-based measurements/calibration. I would be very interested in any
additional information that could be provided for NRTL temperature measurement
requirements.

Let us talk about this concept called 'temperature', because I have seen some
non-credible temperature data from CBTLs and NRTLs.

Temperature measurements are recorded for a small surface area of a larger
mass, for a single instance in time. Temperature is a scalar quantity. Do not
think of temperature measurements as vector quantities, and do not consider a
temperature measurement to represent a 'constant' characteristic. 

The NIST polynomials' accuracy for the common stuff (J, K, T) has a
theoretical yield of about than 0.1 degC error through the full scale. The
NIST polynomial error can be improved an order of mag for a delimited
temperature range.

The reported accuracy of some instruments that are used for typical
engineering measurements are about the same is the resolution (about 0.1
degC), which is not practical, and maybe not possible. For any of these common
t/c types, the voltage gradient across a thermocouple wire pair is on the
order of 100s of microvolts or perhaps 10's of millivolts for most product
safety Type Test measurements. So the sensitivity of the thermocouple and its
variable lead resistance and t/c attachment thermal impedance and thermal
shunting and non-isothermal routing of t/c leads, the accuracy of the
instrument, and the ambient noise conditions all conspire to make the
resultant temperature measurement uncertainty, at best, 2 degC. 

And a lab that reports temperatures to 0.1 degC is delusional.

There are some research/academic labs that may be able to control a test so
the measurement uncertainty is 1 degC or better - but the practice is not
reasonable for the engineering measurements in a product safety lab.

Let the shouting begin.

Brian 
 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of American Idle
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:38 AM
To: john.merr...@us.schneider-electric.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: T-Couple Calibration

You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd junction from the last
bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)

I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program and he had the
following comments;

-This requirement is based on a CTL decision
-You must validate one TC from the beginning of the spool and one from the end
of the spool with an RTL Calibrator or water bath method
-You risk all your previous data if the last TC you make from the spool
doesn't calibrate right

He also stated that this requirement may change in the future because it
doesn't make a lot of sense (and suggested that I bring this particular issue
up for discussion if I happened to know anyone who sits on the Standards
Commitee!).  

As another poster stated, you may be better off purchasing pre-made
thermocouples.  The only risk there is if your manufacturer goes out of
business, your calibration certificates may become invalid.

-Ken Arenella

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM, 
wrote:

While we are on the subject. Anyone have an inexpensive solution to the big
NRTL's new
Calibrated Thermocouple requirement?

As I read the spec it requires calibrating the first and last T-Couple off of
the spool
minimum. Takes me a couple years to use 500ft. So I would technically only
need to Calibrate
one a year.

Thanks in advance

John Merrill
Principal Product Safety Engineer
Schneider Electric

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation

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

The best way to approach is to ask the customers/buyers.
 
>From my own opinion, for those organizations/companies and individuals that do
not receive government fund should not be worry about.  

 
On 6/16/09, Price, Edward  wrote: 



> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf
> Of Grace Lin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:49 AM
> To: jeffcollin...@yahoo.com
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
>
> Jeff,
>
> My interpretation:  If you (your employer) do not sell your
> products to Chinese government(or any party subject to
> government rules), you don't need to worry about the rules
> (similar to WLAN products).
>
> I attach a quick translation for your reference.
>
> Regards,
> Grace Lin



Now that opens up a whole new dimension! What Chinese entities are NOT
subject to Chinese "government rules"?


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

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act

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

I don't know how due diligence works in the US, but in Europe failure of a
device that has been shown to have been designed as safe as 'reasonably
practicable' then the manufacturer will not be charged with breaking the
law; he may however still be ordered to pay compensation, but that would be
covered by his product liability insurance.
Maybe US manufacturers have had it easy and now have liability aligned with
Europe. Surely an unlikely but possible random failure of a device cannot
mean the manufacturer was breaking the law.

Andy


From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: 16 June 2009 16:19
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act

Perhaps I did not understand the proposed legislation.

My interpretation is, regardless of FDA and NRTL assessments and
certification, that the failure of a fully conforming device will make the
vendor subject to all manner of litigation, and that there is no such thing
as all due diligence.

Please comment if I am not correct.

Brian 

 > -Original Message-
 > From: Andy Clifford [mailto:andy.cliff...@conformance.co.uk]
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:06 AM
 > To: 'Brian O'Connell'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 > Subject: RE: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act
 >  
 > Due to the new Medical Device Safety Act 2009, I might 
 > expect the risk
 > assessment requirements of the 3rd edition to become more 
 > important, since
 > the FDA, who may now share in a manufacturer's liability by 
 > approving test
 > reports, will need more effort from manufacturers in order 
 > to demonstrate
 > safety of their devices?
 > 
 > Andy
 > 
 > -Original Message-
 > From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
 > Sent: 11 June 2009 21:56
 > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 > Subject: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act
 > 
 > Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (HR 1346)
 > 
 > comments by medical community
 > 
 > 
 > The proposed bill would nullify the 2008 decision Reigel v. 
 > Medtronic, where
 > the U.S. supreme court ruled that if your box is certified/tested to
 > required normative standards and legislation, the mfr is 
 > generally immune
 > from civil litigation when the device fails through no fault 
 > of the mfr.
 > (Yes I know that the case had to do with published product 
 > data and labels)
 > 
 > The new stuff required by IEC60601-1 3d ed does not matter...
 > 
 > Brian

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: T-Couple Calibration

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

You could pull the whole spool off and make your 2nd junction from the last
bit, then re-wrap the whole spool :-)

I talked to a UL team lead on their DAP/ISO 17025 program and he had the
following comments;

-This requirement is based on a CTL decision
-You must validate one TC from the beginning of the spool and one from the end
of the spool with an RTL Calibrator or water bath method
-You risk all your previous data if the last TC you make from the spool
doesn't calibrate right

He also stated that this requirement may change in the future because it
doesn't make a lot of sense (and suggested that I bring this particular issue
up for discussion if I happened to know anyone who sits on the Standards
Commitee!).  

As another poster stated, you may be better off purchasing pre-made
thermocouples.  The only risk there is if your manufacturer goes out of
business, your calibration certificates may become invalid.

-Ken Arenella


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM, 
wrote:


While we are on the subject. Anyone have an inexpensive solution to the 
big
NRTL's new
Calibrated Thermocouple requirement?

As I read the spec it requires calibrating the first and last T-Couple 
off of
the spool
minimum. Takes me a couple years to use 500ft. So I would technically 
only
need to Calibrate
one a year.

Thanks in advance

John Merrill
Principal Product Safety Engineer
Schneider Electric

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 



-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act

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

Perhaps I did not understand the proposed legislation.

My interpretation is, regardless of FDA and NRTL assessments and
certification, that the failure of a fully conforming device will make the
vendor subject to all manner of litigation, and that there is no such thing as
all due diligence.

Please comment if I am not correct.

Brian 

 > -Original Message-
 > From: Andy Clifford [mailto:andy.cliff...@conformance.co.uk]
 > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:06 AM
 > To: 'Brian O'Connell'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 > Subject: RE: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act
 >  
 > Due to the new Medical Device Safety Act 2009, I might 
 > expect the risk
 > assessment requirements of the 3rd edition to become more 
 > important, since
 > the FDA, who may now share in a manufacturer's liability by 
 > approving test
 > reports, will need more effort from manufacturers in order 
 > to demonstrate
 > safety of their devices?
 > 
 > Andy
 > 
 > -Original Message-
 > From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
 > Sent: 11 June 2009 21:56
 > To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
 > Subject: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act
 > 
 > Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (HR 1346)
 > 
 > comments by medical community
 > 
 > 
 > The proposed bill would nullify the 2008 decision Reigel v. 
 > Medtronic, where
 > the U.S. supreme court ruled that if your box is certified/tested to
 > required normative standards and legislation, the mfr is 
 > generally immune
 > from civil litigation when the device fails through no fault 
 > of the mfr.
 > (Yes I know that the case had to do with published product 
 > data and labels)
 > 
 > The new stuff required by IEC60601-1 3d ed does not matter...
 > 
 > Brian

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act

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

Due to the new Medical Device Safety Act 2009, I might expect the risk
assessment requirements of the 3rd edition to become more important, since
the FDA, who may now share in a manufacturer's liability by approving test
reports, will need more effort from manufacturers in order to demonstrate
safety of their devices?

Andy




From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2009 21:56
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] U.S. Medical Device Safety Act

Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (HR 1346)

comments by medical community


The proposed bill would nullify the 2008 decision Reigel v. Medtronic, where
the U.S. supreme court ruled that if your box is certified/tested to
required normative standards and legislation, the mfr is generally immune
>from civil litigation when the device fails through no fault of the mfr.
(Yes I know that the case had to do with published product data and labels)

The new stuff required by IEC60601-1 3d ed does not matter...

Brian

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

Hey Tim / group
 
I don't know whether or not this would meet the CISPR requirements but may be
a place to start. 
 
The proposed ANSI C63.4 revision [that I saw last year] requires meeting the
CISPR 16-1-4 requirements or alternately using absorber that is at least 20 dB
down for freqs over 1 GHz [not sure what the upper range is off hand]. 
 
The requirements is a 2.4m * 2.4m for 3m OATS and proportionally larger for
larger sites - which for a 10m site comes out to 8m*8m - quite a large
footprint. 
 
There are companies out there that state that their absorber that meets these
criteria will be weather [rain and sun] resistant and should retain their
electrical characteristics for 5 years or maore - but they are quite expensive
- especially for a 10m site This company has plastic anchors that you can
attach to your ground plane to keep the absorber in place. 
 
I have done some preliminary experimentation on my 3m site with the absorber
and it seems that - except for a few points - NSA comes in under 1GHz with the
absorber down. May even improve. Challenged my thinking on the perfect site
model and NSA curves because I thought a perfect reflection was included. Was
told this would be the case but needed to see it myself. I want to repeat the
tests using only ANSI C63.5 2006 antenna factors and see how it works out -
maybe those few troublesome spots will come in.  [if I can get site time for
experimentation!.]. Would like to do these tests before the Symposium
hopefully. 
 
Maybe an OATS that has a significant OFA with these absorbers would meet the
CISPR requirements. If the experimentation I describe above is favorable I
plan to try that as a next step and will keep the forum posted .
 
If anyone can think of reasons that the solution above could not meet the
CISPR requirements would like to hear them as well. 
 
Anyway, hope this helps
 
Best regards,
 
Mac Elliott

[] General Public  
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of emcp...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:49 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005


Hello Group,
 
I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective
10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is
typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
 
How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there any
site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the ground
plane instead of solid metal panels.
 
Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do
testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site would
be valid for testing above 1GHz.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
TAP Engineering & Associates



An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
 
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

T-Couple Calibration

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

While we are on the subject. Anyone have an inexpensive solution to the big
NRTL's new
Calibrated Thermocouple requirement?

As I read the spec it requires calibrating the first and last T-Couple off of
the spool
minimum. Takes me a couple years to use 500ft. So I would technically only
need to Calibrate
one a year.

Thanks in advance

John Merrill
Principal Product Safety Engineer
Schneider Electric

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

I used the Omega for many years in a previous job.  We tested air conditioners
and welded 20 – 30 thermocouples a week without problems.  It proved to be a
reliable tool.  However, for the budget minded, there are other options.

DCC HotSpot   - $700

Omega TL Weld   - $1800

Therm-x 258B   - $1300

Burrell Scientific Kup-L-Weld  - ???

 

My personal preference is to use long wires with the tip glued in place.  At
the end of a test, I cut off the end and leave it on the test sample.  It
doesn’t take long to weld a new tip onto the thermocouple wires.  I will
throw out the wires only when they get too short, or when they don’t read
room temperature properly when I run a sanity check before starting a test.

 

Ted Eckert

Compliance Engineer

Microsoft Corporation

ted.eck...@microsoft.com

 

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

 

 

 

From: Dan Roman [mailto:dan.ro...@dialogic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:08 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Thermocouple welder

 

This is the same welder I use and am very happy with it.  Bought it over 10
years ago and it is still going strong.  Needed to replace the needle nose
pliers used to hold onto the TC wires once (some of the techs here are not
very careful with their welding).  My only complaint about it would be that
the warning buzzer is too loud, but a piece of well placed tape solved that
problem.

 

Dan

 

From: Chris [mailto:cksal...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

 

Pete,  

You can try this site. 

This welder is easy to use once you have secured the carbon block.
 
http://dcccorporation.thomasnet.com/ite
/thermocouple-welders/hotspot-i-ii-ther
ocouple-welders/item-1112?&plpver=10&origin=compare&filter=0&CTypeID=2


Christopher


--- On Mon, 6/15/09, peterh...@aol.com  wrote:


From: peterh...@aol.com 
Subject: Thermocouple welder
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 4:47 PM

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 

 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the 

RE: New China CCC Document - English Translation

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

 

> -Original Message-
> From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf 
> Of Grace Lin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:49 AM
> To: jeffcollin...@yahoo.com
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> My interpretation:  If you (your employer) do not sell your 
> products to Chinese government(or any party subject to 
> government rules), you don't need to worry about the rules 
> (similar to WLAN products).
> 
> I attach a quick translation for your reference.
> 
> Regards,
> Grace Lin



Now that opens up a whole new dimension! What Chinese entities are NOT
subject to Chinese "government rules"?


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

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

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

This is the same welder I use and am very happy with it.  Bought it over 10
years ago and it is still going strong.  Needed to replace the needle nose
pliers used to hold onto the TC wires once (some of the techs here are not
very careful with their welding).  My only complaint about it would be that
the warning buzzer is too loud, but a piece of well placed tape solved that
problem.

 

Dan

 

From: Chris [mailto:cksal...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Thermocouple welder

 

Pete,  

You can try this site. 

This welder is easy to use once you have secured the carbon block.
 
http://dcccorporation.thomasnet.com/ite
/thermocouple-welders/hotspot-i-ii-ther
ocouple-welders/item-1112?&plpver=10&origin=compare&filter=0&CTypeID=2


Christopher


--- On Mon, 6/15/09, peterh...@aol.com  wrote:


From: peterh...@aol.com 
Subject: Thermocouple welder
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 4:47 PM

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 







A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: New China CCC Document - English Translation

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

Jeff,

My interpretation:  If you (your employer) do not sell your products
to Chinese government(or any party subject to government rules), you
don't need to worry about the rules (similar to WLAN products).

I attach a quick translation for your reference.

Regards,
Grace Lin

==
"An engineer from China Information Security Certification Center gave
me a call.  The requirements for the implementation rules of
compulsory certification for the information security products have
been published.  Please refer to the following.

No. 33, Year 2009

The compulsory implementation of information security products listed
in 2008 CNCA Notice No. 7 has been postponed to May 1, 2010.  It is
implemented under the scope of government purchase (this means, from
my interpretation,  if the buyer is not a Chinese government, the
rules are not mandatory).

Announced
Attachments:  Complulsory Certification Implementation Rules for
Information Security Products

No 33, Year 2009

1. Security Operating Systems
2. Securiy Isolation and Informaiton Exchane Products
3. Security Router Products
4. Security Audit Products
5. Security Database Systems Products
6. Anti-trash Emails Products
7. Firewall Products
8. Intruder Detector Systems Products
9. Database Backup and Recovery Products
10. Network Security Isolation Cards and Circuit Selector Products
11. Network Weakness Scanning Products
12. Network Recovery Products
13. Wisdom Card cos Products

April 27, 2009
"
 ===


On 6/16/09, jeffcollin...@yahoo.com  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Group,
>
> The official CNCA document  for CCC compliance was just released in May
> 2009. Does anyone have an official or unofficial translation in English? I'm
> specifically interested in knowing if Network Intrusion and Network
> Monitoring equipment now require the CCC mark. These categories of network
> equipment were previously exempt from CCC.
>
>
>
>
> 信息安全认证中心的工程师刚给我电话， 关于调整信息安全产品强制性认证实施要求的公告发布了，请参见下面。
> 2009年第33号
> 　　  关于调整信息安全产品强制性认证实施要求的公告
> 
> 国家质量监督检验检疫总局、国家认证认可监督管理委员会2008年第7号公告中涉及的信息安全产品强制性认证的强制实施时间延至2010年5月1日，在政府采购法规定的范围内强制实施。
> 特此公告。
> 　　附件：信息安全产品强制性认证实施规则（共13份）
>
> 　　1. 安全操作系统产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　2. 安全隔离与信息交换产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　3. 安全路由器产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　4. 安全审计产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　5. 安全数据库系统产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　6. 反垃圾邮件产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　7. 防火墙产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　8. 入侵检测系统产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　9. 数据备份与恢复产品强制认证实施规则
> 　　10. 网络安全隔离卡与线路选择器产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　11. 网络脆弱性扫描产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　12. 网站恢复产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　13. 智能卡cos产品强制性认证实施规则
> 　　 
> 二九年四月二十七日
>
>
>
>
>
> 新的公告明确了在政府采购法规定的范围内强制实施。如果不参加政府采购，则不受限制。请参考。
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff Collins
>
>
> Compliance & Reliability
>
>
> -
> 
> 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
> 
>
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher:  
> David Heald: 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

Not to hijack this thread, but what is the best way to hold a thermocouple in
place and get the best most accurate readings?

Is there a special cement or glue to glue the tip right to what you are trying
to measure?  

We try to secure the thermocouple back from the tip and use thermo paste on
the tip but this is very messy.

 

I’ve seen some labs use plane old super glue to glue the tip down and then
use acetone to soften it up for removal.  

Is this a common practice or is there a better way or some official way to do
this?

 

The Other Brian

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ronald R.
Wellman
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:33 AM
To: 'American Idle'; rpick...@rpqconsulting.com
Cc: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Thermocouple welder

 

You will not get away with twisting and smacking the leads if you are under
IECEE SMT. You have to weld them. Also, my lab uses lots of TCs and we reuse
them so you may have to re-weld them after each use because whatever cement
you use to apply the TCs can very well cause you to rip the end of the TC when
you remove it. 

 

Best regards,

Ron Wellman  

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of American Idle
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:41 PM
To: rpick...@rpqconsulting.com
Cc: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Thermocouple welder

 

Well... If we're going to MacGuyver it, you can just strip the insulation off
the ends of the two wires, twist the wires together, and smack the joint with
a hammer to create a TC junction.

-Ken A.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Ron Pickard, RPQ 
wrote:

Hi Pete,

 

On the cheap, a used large value DC capacitor with threaded terminals (easy to
attach wires) along with two different-colored (to observe polarity), cut in
half banana-banana cables should the job nicely, especially if you already
have a DC power supply for charging. Just make sure the cap is safely voltage
rated and polarity observed for the DC supply when charging. Also, common
alligator clips that fit on the banana ends are easily replaceable as welding
takes its toll. Please note that this set up will not produce controlled or
consistent welds, but with a little practice the welds will soon become quite
good.

 

IHTH.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard

RPQ Consulting

Glendale, AZ 85303

+623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax

rpick...@rpqconsulting.com

www.rpqconsulting.com  

www.linkedin.com/in/RonPickard

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:47 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder

 

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 

 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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




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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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


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.o

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

You will not get away with twisting and smacking the leads if you are under
IECEE SMT. You have to weld them. Also, my lab uses lots of TCs and we reuse
them so you may have to re-weld them after each use because whatever cement
you use to apply the TCs can very well cause you to rip the end of the TC when
you remove it. 

 

Best regards,

Ron Wellman  

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of American Idle
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:41 PM
To: rpick...@rpqconsulting.com
Cc: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Thermocouple welder

 

Well... If we're going to MacGuyver it, you can just strip the insulation off
the ends of the two wires, twist the wires together, and smack the joint with
a hammer to create a TC junction.

-Ken A.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Ron Pickard, RPQ 
wrote:

Hi Pete,

 

On the cheap, a used large value DC capacitor with threaded terminals (easy to
attach wires) along with two different-colored (to observe polarity), cut in
half banana-banana cables should the job nicely, especially if you already
have a DC power supply for charging. Just make sure the cap is safely voltage
rated and polarity observed for the DC supply when charging. Also, common
alligator clips that fit on the banana ends are easily replaceable as welding
takes its toll. Please note that this set up will not produce controlled or
consistent welds, but with a little practice the welds will soon become quite
good.

 

IHTH.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard

RPQ Consulting

Glendale, AZ 85303

+623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax

rpick...@rpqconsulting.com

www.rpqconsulting.com  

www.linkedin.com/in/RonPickard

 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:47 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder

 

Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 

 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  

-

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




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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
Dav

New China CCC Document - English Translation

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

 
Group,
 
The official CNCA document  for CCC compliance was just released in May 2009. 
Does anyone have an official or unofficial translation in English? I'm 
specifically interested in knowing if Network Intrusion and Network Monitoring 
equipment now require the CCC mark. These categories of network equipment were 
previously exempt from CCC.
 
 
信息安全认证中心的工程师刚给我电话， 关于调整信息安全产品强制性认证实施要求的公告发布了，请参见下面。

2009年第33号
　　  关于调整信息安全产品强制性认证实施要求的公告　　


国家质量监督检验检疫总局、国家认证认可监督管理委员会2008年第7号公告中涉及的信息安全产品强制性认证的强制实施时间延至2010年5月1日，在政府采购法规定的范围内强制实施。

特此公告。 

　　附件：信息安全产品强制性认证实施规则（共13份） 

　　 
　　1. 安全操作系统产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　2. 安全隔离与信息交换产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　3. 安全路由器产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　4. 安全审计产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　5. 安全数据库系统产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　6. 反垃圾邮件产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　7. 防火墙产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　8. 入侵检测系统产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　9. 数据备份与恢复产品强制认证实施规则 

 
　　10. 网络安全隔离卡与线路选择器产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　11. 网络脆弱性扫描产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　12. 网站恢复产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　13. 智能卡cos产品强制性认证实施规则 

 
　　 二九年四月二十七日
新的公告明确了在政府采购法规定的范围内强制实施。如果不参加政府采购，则不受限制。请参考。
 
Thanks,
 
Jeff Collins
 
Compliance & Reliability
 
-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

Re: CISPR22:2005 + A1:2005

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

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:49:18 EDT,
  emcp...@aol.com wrote:

> I have a question on the new CISPR22 ammendment that becomes effective 
> 10-2010. It requires free space emission measurements above 1GHz. This is 
> typically done with ferrite absorber on the chamber floor.
>  
> How does one address this issue when testing on a 10 meter OATS? Are there 
> any site modifications needed?  The OATS uses a mesh (chicken wire) for the 
> ground plane instead of solid metal panels.

We are going to put carbon-loaded expanded plastic absorbers
(Riken PFP30) on the OATS floor, and also put them vertically to
make some absorber walls to reduce reflection from the OATS walls.

The absorbers are not compact but quite light, and we can move
them easily.


> Please also advise if there is any new site validation requirements to do 
> testing above 1GHz. In the past, if NSA is passing below 1GHz, the site
would 
> be valid for testing above 1GHz.

Site VSWR verification specified in CISPR 16-1-4 would be required.

Regards,
Tom


Tomonori Sato  
URL: http://homepage3.nifty.com/tsato/

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

New exceptions to RoHS Directive

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

Hi All,

 

Thought you might be interested in this.  See

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex
riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:148:0027:0028:EN:PDF

 

Best regards,

 

Paul

 

 

Paul Lovell

Group Regulatory Specialist

ArjoHuntleigh

Tel: +44 (0)1582 745891

Mob: +44 (0)791 956 5599

 


The information contained in this electronic mail, including all attachments
are intended only for the personal use of the designated recipient named and
is confidential and may also contain privileged company information or work
product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual,
individuals, or entity to whom the electronic mail is addressed. If you are
not the intended recipient, or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this electronic mail in error, please return to us immediately. Thank you.

This email has been scanned on behalf of ArjoHuntleigh for all viruses by the
MessageLabs SkyScan service.

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

Peter
 
Why bother?
Unless you need really long thermocouples that are not available off the shelf
as pre-welded units, it simply isn't worth the time and trouble. We treat
thermocouples as consumable items. They cost about £5 ($7) each and we just
discard them when broken. The thermocouples come with a Certificate of
Conformity, so there is no need to calibrate them. You can buy an awful lot of
those with the money you would spend on a welder, and then you've got to add
on the cost of the wire and the time to make the weld. With overheads, lab
time costs us about £70 ($100) an hour, so £5 would buy less than 5 minutes.
Do you think you can set up your welder, prepare the wires and make the weld
in less than 5 minutes?
Just my 2p (2c) worth.
 

Neil Barker

Manager

Central Quality

 

e2v

106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU, England

Tel: +44 (0)1245 453616

Mobile:   +44 (0)7801 723735

Fax:+44 (0)1245 453571

 www.e2v.com  

 

P Consider the environment: do you really need to print this e mail?

 




From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
peterh...@aol.com
Sent: 16 June 2009 00:47
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Thermocouple welder


Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for type J and
K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a used or
refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 



A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
  
-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Sent by a member of the e2v group of companies. The parent company, e2v
technologies plc, is registered in England and Wales. Company number;
04439718. Registered address; 106 Waterhouse Lane, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 2QU,
UK. This email and any attachments are confidential and meant solely for the
use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and then deleting this copy and the reply from your system without
further disclosing, copying, distributing or using the e-mail or any
attachment. Thank you for your cooperation.
__

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

-

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


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  

RE: Thermocouple welder

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

I've done the twisted together and the hammer smacking method before.  The 
twisting worked the best between the two methods since the one of the metal was 
brittle and cracked easily instead staying attached when smacked the hammer, 
and neither agreed much with the reference.  But one was easy and the other was 
fun.  Being able to claim that the other one was doing highly calibrated 
delicate precision work was fun when asking the bystanders to step back, and 
then swinging the big hammer to smack the twisted joint.

- Bill
Indecision may or may not be the problem.

--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Ron Pickard, RPQ  wrote:



From: Ron Pickard, RPQ 
Subject: RE: Thermocouple welder
To: "'American Idle'" 
Cc: peterh...@aol.com, emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 11:12 PM



Hi Ken,

 

Pete did say that he wanted a very inexpensive solution, which is what 
I suggested, topping off at about $15 w/o the DC supply. The hammer idea would 
need some safety glasses, a quality hammer and a hard striking surface, which 
probably would likely exceed the $15 in total if those items are not already on 
hand.

 

Although this is something I would not recommend for TC joints as I 
believe it does not represent a true weld, I have seen TC joints consisting of 
two wires twisted together into a spot of superglue. Does anyone have any 
thoughts on the legitimacy of this method?

 

And, thanks for the comparison to MacGyver. However, he would’ve 
probably used some aluminum foil, paper, rubber bands and a couple of 
paperclips after stripping the wire harness from a junked car in the 
neighborhood (MacGyver’s cost - $0, as always). 

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard

RPQ Consulting

Glendale, AZ 85303

+623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax

rpick...@rpqconsulting.com 
 

www.rpqconsulting.com  

www.linkedin.com/in/RonPickard

 




From: American Idle [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:41 PM
To: rpick...@rpqconsulting.com
Cc: peterh...@aol.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Thermocouple welder

 

Well... If we're going to MacGuyver it, you can just strip the 
insulation off the ends of the two wires, twist the wires together, and smack 
the joint with a hammer to create a TC junction.

-Ken A.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Ron Pickard, RPQ 
http://us.mc01g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rpick...@rpqconsulting.com> > 
wrote:
Hi Pete,
 
On the cheap, a used large value DC capacitor with threaded terminals 
(easy to attach wires) along with two different-colored (to observe polarity), 
cut in half banana-banana cables should the job nicely, especially if you 
already have a DC power supply for charging. Just make sure the cap is safely 
voltage rated and polarity observed for the DC supply when charging. Also, 
common alligator clips that fit on the banana ends are easily replaceable as 
welding takes its toll. Please note that this set up will not produce 
controlled or consistent welds, but with a little practice the welds will soon 
become quite good.
 

IHTH.

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard

RPQ Consulting

Glendale, AZ 85303

+623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax

rpick...@rpqconsulting.com 
 

www.rpqconsulting.com  

www.linkedin.com/in/RonPickard
 



From: emc-p...@ieee.org 
  
[mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org 
 ] On Behalf Of 
peterh...@aol.com 
 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:47 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
 
Subject: Thermocouple welder
 
Hello friends,

I am looking to purchase a very inexpensive thermocouple welder for 
type J and K as I have a small budget. Can anyone help please? I don't mind a 
used or refurbished unit.

Thank you
Pete 
 




A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! 

  

-
--