Spring Holydays

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

For all the PSES and EMCS friends I send from Holly Land best wishes for Happy
Passover or Happy Easter, as applicable!

 

Steli Loznen, M.Sc.,SM-IEEE

Q.A. and Certification Manager

Convener of IEC/TC62/SC62A/WG17

I.T.L (Product Testing) Ltd.

1, Bat Sheva St., POB 87

LOD 71100, ISRAEL

Tel: 972-8-9153100

Fax: 972-8-9153101

Mobile: 972-54-7245794

E-mail: st...@itl.co.il

www.itl.co.il

___

This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you
are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message
and its attachments to the sender.

-

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: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

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

John Woodgate wrote:


In message <4bb38e6f.6090...@sbcglobal.net>
 , dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Fred
Townsend    writes: 



John I would argue the other case. The statement is not 
ambiguous and a
'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are technically
different things. I would offer a few tests: 
1.Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately 
and
independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver 
2.Does the device share major components other than cabinet and 
power
supply?  yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver 
I would not expect any author of such a specification to be 
deliberately
ambiguous (politicians excepted). 



Believe me, it is VERY difficult to avoid *unintended* ambiguity when 
writing
standards. There is absolutely NO question of *deliberate* ambiguity though. 



How can you make sense of the whole sentence, based on your 
interpretation? 




In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for 
transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions." 


My guess, it is an attempt to differentiate between continuous 
broadcast or
telemetry and ICAS (Intermittent commercial - amateur) operation.  FT




-

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: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

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

In message <4bb38e6f.6090...@sbcglobal.net>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010, 
Fred Townsend  writes:

>John I would argue the other case. The statement is not ambiguous and a 
>'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are 
>technically different things. I would offer a few tests:
>1.Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately and 
>independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver
>2.Does the device share major components other than cabinet and power 
>supply?  yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver
>I would not expect any author of such a specification to be 
>deliberately ambiguous (politicians excepted).

Believe me, it is VERY difficult to avoid *unintended* ambiguity when 
writing standards. There is absolutely NO question of *deliberate* 
ambiguity though.
>
How can you make sense of the whole sentence, based on your 
interpretation?
>
>
>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers 
>or co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
>transmissions."

-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

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: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

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

John I would argue the other case. The statement is not ambiguous and a
'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter' are technically
different things. I would offer a few tests:


1.  Can the transmitter and receiver functions operate separately and
independently? yes = transmitter and receiver; no = transceiver
2.  Does the device share major components other than cabinet and power 
supply?
 yes = transceiver ; no = transmitter and receiver

I would not expect any author of such a specification to be deliberately
ambiguous (politicians excepted).


Fred Townsend
DC to Light


John Woodgate wrote: 

In message <64E79FA814D3472AA68233483EE31294@MmPc21>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 
2010,
Piotr Galka   
writes: 



In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for 
transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions." 
Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is 
for
"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >? 



It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical 
argument we
can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver and transmitter'
are technically things of the same kind, and I suppose a transceiver doesn't
use continuous transmission, so we could remove 'co-located receivers and
transmitters using continuous transmissions' without changing the meaning of
the sentence: 

Not required for transceivers 

Instead of that sentence, a simple table would be clearer, and less 
liable to
be incorrectly translated. It's difficult to do tables in plain ASCII, but
maybe this will not be too badly garbled: 

Transceivers. Not required 

Co-located receivers and transmitters 
using continuous transmissions... Not required 



  
If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver 
measurements ? 
Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field 
by the
transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or
not. 



When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or 
not.
But that probably doesn't answer your question. You can determine whether the
receiver works at any time by using a separate 13.5 MHz source. 



-

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: ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

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

In message <64E79FA814D3472AA68233483EE31294@MmPc21>, dated Wed, 31 Mar 
2010, Piotr Galka  writes:

>In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers 
>or co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous 
>transmissions."
>Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for 
>"co-located receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" >?

It is somewhat ambiguous grammatically. But applying a technical 
argument we can resolve it. a 'transceiver' and a 'co-located receiver 
and transmitter' are technically things of the same kind, and I suppose 
a transceiver doesn't use continuous transmission, so we could remove 
'co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions' 
without changing the meaning of the sentence:

Not required for transceivers

Instead of that sentence, a simple table would be clearer, and less 
liable to be incorrectly translated. It's difficult to do tables in 
plain ASCII, but maybe this will not be too badly garbled:

Transceivers. Not required

Co-located receivers and transmitters
using continuous transmissions... Not required

> 
>If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver 
>measurements ?
>Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the 
>transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working 
>or not.

When there is no field, it doesn't matter whether the receiver works or 
not. But that probably doesn't answer your question. You can determine 
whether the receiver works at any time by using a separate 13.5 MHz 
source.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort.

-

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: 

ETSI EN 302 291-1(2) and the receiver measurement

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

All,
 
Because of energy saving we plan to switch on the 13.56MHz field in typical,
small Mifare RFID reader for short periods (let us say 10ms) 4 times a second.
In 302 291-2 cl.4.3 (Receiver) I read: "Not required for transceivers or
co-located receivers and transmitters using continuous transmissions."
Do in such English sentence the "continuous transmissions" is for "co-located
receivers and transmitters" only or also for "transceivers" ?
 
If it is for transceivers also then: How to do the receiver measurements ?
Receiver works by seeing the modulation of the 13.56MHz field by the
transponder. When you have no field do you say such receiver is working or not.
 
Best Regards
 
Piotr Galka
MicroMade
Poland
 
-

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  

Safety Compliance engineer Job Opening in India, Bangalore

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

Hi 

APC India currently has an opening for a safety compliance engineer in
Bangalore India.  If you know of someone please ask that they forward their
resume to me.  I will then forward their resume to the proper person in India.
  The candidate should have some prior compliance work experience dealing with
regulatory agencies such as UL, CSA, TUV, or VDE.  EMC or similar type
experience would be ok as well as some safety experience. 

best regards 

bill burks -

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  

Korean Standards in English

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

Hello Group,
 
Does anyone have the latest Korean standards in English for EMC, Radio and
Telecom? The standards are only published in Korean but I need an English
version. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks,
Tim Pierce
 
 

Notice on Type Official Approval, Type Registration, and EMC Registration of
Broadcasting and Communications Equipment (KCC Public Notification 2009-40,
Dec 24, 2009)

 

Notice for Type Approval of Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (RRA Public
Notification 2009-50, Dec 10, 2009)

 

Regulations on the Technical Requirements for Telecommunications Terminal
Equipment (Presidential Decree 20664, Feb 29, 2008)

 

Technical Requirements for Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (RRA Public
Notification 2009-38, Sep 11, 2009)

 

Technical Requirements for grounding equipment, customer premise telecom
equipment, line equipment and common ducts, etc. (RRA Public Notification
2009-52, Dec 10, 2010)

 

Conformity Assessment Procedure for Type Approval of Telecommunications
Terminal Equipment (RRA Announce 2009-17, Nov 11, 2009)

 

Rules on Radio Equipment including other Technical Requirements(KCC Public
Notification 2009-36, Dec 8, 2009)

 

Unlicensed Radio Equipment Established Without Notice (KCC Public Notification
2009-23, Sep 11, 2009)

 

Technical Requirements for Measurement of Electromagnetic Field Strength (RRA
Public Notification 2008-17, Jun 2, 2008)

 

Conformity Assessment Procedure for Electromagnetic Field Strength and
Specific Absorption Rate (RRA Public Notification 2008-18, Jun 2, 2008)

 

Conformity Assessment Procedure for Type Official Approval and Type
Registration of Radio Equipment (RRA Announce 2009-6, Oct 15, 2009)

 

Technical Requirements for Electromagnetic Interference (KCC Public
Notification 2008-39, May 19, 2008)

 

Technical Requirements for Electromagnetic Susceptibility (KCC Public
Notification 2008-38, May 19, 2008)

 

Conformity Assessment Procedure for Electromagnetic Interference (RRA Announce
2009-9, Dec 21, 2009)

 

Conformity Assessment Procedure for Electromagnetic Susceptibility (RRA
Announce 2009-10, Dec 21, 2009)

 

-

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