Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts
Lauren, After a week of trying to find how the need for unique identification of EEE should be in practice realised I have completely new idea. Annex VI of ROHS2 looks like a recipe what point after point should be in DoC. Why identification of device is mentioned two times - in 1. and 4. ? Putting the device number at position 1. seems for me being the evident nonsense, having in mind how the typical DoC looks like (We declare... that device...). You mentioned three sides battling how to understand point 1. I'd like to be recognised as first being in fourth side. The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think point 1 is an error - it should call for No... (unique identification of document): If we assume this - everything becomes clear and logically coherent. For me it is as logic as 2+2=4. ROHS2 is based on Decision 768/2008/EC. So I looked there with hope to find the correct source version of DoC contents list. Unfortunately there is 1. ... unique identification of the product, and 4. (identification of product). I can't find any reason for identifying product two times in one document. So I think Decision is the source of this error in RoHS. Some bank papers are called products :), may be someone working before in bank was editing the Decision ? May be it is possible to find same paper written before without this error. I will not try to do it. I am not good in looking for EU papers. About three weeks ago I asked the helpdesk to show me how from main new-eu-law page to go to the all directives list page (if I have to find all directives covering my product the only way is to start from the list of all). I hope they are still looking for that way to let me know :). It seems for me impossible that since 2008 no one has noticed this error. So many translators working on Decision, people working on ROHS2, translators working on ROHS2, national bodies putting ROHS2 into national law. Too long list to not find anyone thinking. I see two possibilities: 1. It is not an error - extremely hardly to believe for me. 2. All people there become used to any illogicality and just not notice the next one (one more, one less - who cares) - easier to believe for me. Am I the only seeing that King is nude. ? Isn't it the last time to protect EMC and LVD from that error? Has anyone over there enough power and time to do it? About carrot and fish... How do you think: 1. If Pb (and others) would be in electronic equipment and in manual and both land at waste dump. Where from the water would take it faster to the ground? 2. Do the amount of CDs landing at waste dump is so small that if there are some restricted substances in their plastic it is much less care than in electronic devices? May be the direct RoHS scope interpretation saying manuals and CDs need also be RoHS is reasonable ;) Best Regards Piotr Galka - Original Message - From: Crane, Lauren To: Piotr Galka ; EMC-PSTC Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:13 AM Subject: RE: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts Piotr, This topic illustrates a concept that can be called the supremacy of practicality. I agree with you that the RoHS directive calls for No . (unique identification of the EEE): in the DoC. What I have learned is that the EU legislation as a collective is not really sure what this means, exactly. There appear to be two/three sides battling. Side 1 - people who think each product unit should have a unique number and that should be placed in a unique DoC for that particular unit. Side 2 - people who think only a general product descriptor (e.g., model name) should be required in the DoC. Side 3 - people who think a DoC can cover several unique units provided the unit number range (serial number range) is expressed in the DoC. Currently both the Low Voltage Directive and the EMC Directive are being recast. You can observe parliament and the council struggling with this issue. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a current mid-process document for the EMC Directive recast regarding the requirements for the DoC. Commission Proposal - No . (unique identification of the apparatus): Parliament Position - No . (identification of the apparatus): Council Position - Product/Apparatus (product, batch, type or serial number ) Expected compromise/outcome - [Council Position] As long as DoCs reasonably express the identification of covered products, I think in the current legislative environment, any practical solution will be acceptable. There is certainly enough evidence that 1 - there is a preference that one DoC be provided for all applicable directives (rather than a separate DoC for each applicable directive) and 2 - directives are not completely harmonized on how the covered product(s) must be identified. 50581 allows supplier declarations, confirming that the restricted substance content of the
Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts
In message D635B78C8DCB40A78C095A291F6BD905@MmPc24, dated Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Piotr Galka piotr.ga...@micromade.pl writes: If I wouldn't know that it is stupidity I could think it is sabotage. There is a similar epithet in London slang: 'It's not a carve-up, just a cock-up.' (The latter refers to fitting an arrow to a bow upside down, so the 'cock' feather is upward.) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Nondum ex silvis sumus John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts
From: Piotr Galka Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 05:15 The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think point 1 is an error - it should call for No... (unique identification of document): I will propose yet another position. This position appears to me to logically suit the intent of the RoHS Dir. For a product with a given model designation, there may be multiple product revisions that don't affect the overarching model designation. I've worked at companies that had three levels of product identification (others may have more), each of which was marked on the product for traceability purposes that aided in customer support and failure analyses. Level 1: A model designation that is generally unvarying, but may have a revision code that changes only for large changes in functionality that marketing wants to make customers aware of. Level 2: A part number for the product that is used coincident with the model designation that contains a suffix that is allowed to change more frequently than the model designation. Level 3: A lower level part no. that changes frequently (even with every minor ECO or MCO addressing minor cosmetic issues as well as with more substantive changes) and may or may not change a suffix only. To address the RoHS Dir. for a product following the above (or a similar scenario), each level of product identification that can be or is RoHS compliance affecting must be identified in the DoC. This might include only the first two levels in the above example. As the revision levels roll up, a new DoC should be issued that covers the relevant product identifier levels. It is completely illogical that every S/N should be identified. For products that have high production rates, this is ridiculously onerous. Not that politicians are immune to being illogical or ridiculous, either by design or through ignorance or negligence. ☺ Regards, Peter Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Job openings for Product Safety/EMC Engineers and Technicians in US and Taiwan
I have trimmed all the fluff out of the official posting, to help you cut to the chase. At the bottom of this email are links and job codes for each posting. To learn more about Garmin’s unique market position and what drives us to win, check out this short videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedamp;v=Pump27zOOLU#!. We offer extensive health care and dental coverage with a very small employee contribution. We offer an employer-paid vision plan, free life insurance, free long term disability, subsidized gym membership, subsidized golf league, stock purchase plan, a retirement plan, tree-lined communities with nationally ranked schools, etc. Compliance Engineer 2: * Certifies systems with multiple technologies (e.g. GPS, ANT+, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, HDMI, NFC) and services like Digital TV, HD traffic, local gas prices, ATM locations and movie times.). * Leads compliance and safety design review meetings. * Teams with mechanical and electrical engineering to launch best-in-class navigation systems with the latest technologies and processors. * Develops and then communicates the compliance plan elements, expectations and deliverables to project team. * Provides departmental updates on revisions to key standards (CISPR, FCC, E-mark) and wireless protocols such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. * Researches regulatory approval requirements in new markets and new product categories. * Provides circuit design and PCB layout review comments on EMC, SAR safety design aspects. * Mentors and/or provides guidance to less experienced staff. * Demonstrates a sense of urgency, commitment and focus on the right priorities in developing solutions in a timely fashion. Experience Required: * Experience with ESD, EMC, EMI or product safety testing with proven ability to review designs and offer suggestions for improvements. * Knows power sources, thermal hazards, flammability ratings and user manual requirements as they relate to compliance regulations. Desirable Qualifications: * iNARTE certification in EMC and/or Product Safety. * Past participation on a standards-writing committee. * NFPA membership and/or contributions to the NEC. * Previous work or internship experience with circuit design for consumer or aviation products. We’re hiring for the above position, in both the US and Taiwan. The junior positions (Compliance Engineer 1 and Compliance Technician) and the senior position are US only. Compliance Technician 1 code 13000OH http://www.garmin.com/en-US/company/careers/listing?l=2012_garmin_cr%2Fjobdetail.ftlquemarkjob%3D13000OH Compliance Engineer 1 code 13000Q3 http://www.garmin.com/en-US/company/careers/listing?l=2012_garmin_cr%2Fjobdetail.ftlquemarkjob%3D13000Q3 Compliance Engineer 2 code 13000PA US opening: http://www.garmin.com/en-US/company/careers/listing?l=2012_garmin_exp_tech%2Fjobdetail.ftlquemarkjob%3D13000PA Taiwan opening: http://www.garmin.com.tw/aboutGarmin/careers/ Jean HSIEH 謝繇芝 Human Resources Garmin Taiwan Direct: 886-3-3187099 #6514 E-mail: jean.hs...@garmin.commailto:jean.hs...@garmin.com Sr. Compliance Engineer code 13000PP http://www.garmin.com/en-US/company/careers/listing?l=2012_garmin_exp_tech%2Fjobdetail.ftlquemarkjob%3D13000PP Best regards, Doug Doug Kealey Regulatory and Environmental Affairs Manager Garmin International, Inc. 1200 E. 151 St. Olathe, Kansas USA 66062 +1 913.440.5210 www.garmin.comhttp://www.garmin.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contain information that may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication (including attachments) by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts
Peter, I think all your 3 levels should be considered under point 4 of DoC content (RoHS2 Annex VI) according to manufacturer needs. The problem I am speaking about is point 1 of this content, which I suppose should not be about product identification but about DoC unique identification. Regards Piotr Galka - Original Message - From: Peter Tarver ptar...@enphaseenergy.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts From: Piotr Galka Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 05:15 The fourth side: We (I hope I will not be alone) think point 1 is an error - it should call for No... (unique identification of document): I will propose yet another position. This position appears to me to logically suit the intent of the RoHS Dir. For a product with a given model designation, there may be multiple product revisions that don't affect the overarching model designation. I've worked at companies that had three levels of product identification (others may have more), each of which was marked on the product for traceability purposes that aided in customer support and failure analyses. Level 1: A model designation that is generally unvarying, but may have a revision code that changes only for large changes in functionality that marketing wants to make customers aware of. Level 2: A part number for the product that is used coincident with the model designation that contains a suffix that is allowed to change more frequently than the model designation. Level 3: A lower level part no. that changes frequently (even with every minor ECO or MCO addressing minor cosmetic issues as well as with more substantive changes) and may or may not change a suffix only. To address the RoHS Dir. for a product following the above (or a similar scenario), each level of product identification that can be or is RoHS compliance affecting must be identified in the DoC. This might include only the first two levels in the above example. As the revision levels roll up, a new DoC should be issued that covers the relevant product identifier levels. It is completely illogical that every S/N should be identified. For products that have high production rates, this is ridiculously onerous. Not that politicians are immune to being illogical or ridiculous, either by design or through ignorance or negligence. ☺ Regards, Peter Tarver This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Equipment rack for GR1089 testing - does it have to be metal?
Hello Neven, Perhaps this is not what you were looking for but: From GR-1089 issue 06 page 70, (3.5.5.3.4), The EUT should be grounded in a manner consistent with typical installation of the equipment as described in Section 9.3. I do not know if the metal rack will be a worst case scenario, but if that is how they are going to install it's perhaps best to test it IN-SITU as they like to say. Ryan Jazz Jayasinghe Compliance Engineer x1198 Canoga Perkins Direct:(818) 678-3898 20600 Prairie Street Company:(818) 718-6300 Chatsworth, CA 91311-6008 e-mail: rjayasin...@canoga.com www.canoga.com FAX:(818) 678-3798 From: Neven Pischl [mailto:neve...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Equipment rack for GR1089 testing - does it have to be metal? Thanks Mike. I checked by searching the document for the words: metal, rack, frame, shelf - each separately - and can't find in the Verizon document any specification or requirement that the rack must be made out of metal (or not). ANy idea where it might be? Neven From: Mike Cantwell mike.cantw...@outlook.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 5:52:21 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] Equipment rack for GR1089 testing - does it have to be metal? Hi Nevin, The rack requirement is not in GR-1089. It is a supplemental Verizon document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf Regards, Mike From: Neven Pischl [mailto:neve...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:07 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Equipment rack for GR1089 testing - does it have to be metal? Hello All, Is there a formal requirement, by either Telcordia/NEBS or by the major telecom carriers that the equipment rack (i.e. not the cable rack) be metal, when testing radiated immunity per the GR1089? I understand it is the usual practice - I have only seen such tests with a metal rack - but I am asking if there is such a requirement spelled out anywhere. I can't find it in GR1089. If any on this list knows of it, please can you forward the document, at least maybe a snapshot of the relevant paragraph along with the reference if the document can't be forwarded. Thank you, Neven - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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 LT;emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas LT;emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.netGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.comGT; - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
