RE: Question regarding something slightly unusual ...
Well I have a mouse with a UL listing mark a GS mark and a keyboard with a Recognized component mark a GS mark. So you are correct in that it does not work well. About 10 years ago the UL office we dealt with would not list and product that was rack mountable even though as an individual item it met all the requirements. We would have UL recognition, CSA certifcation as product and a GS mark. This has since changed. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 2:56 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Question regarding something slightly unusual ... Well that process doesn't seem to work that well either. I have a mouse and keyboard that both have a UL Recognition mark. The mouse has a GS mark and the keyboard has a Bauart mark. Of course, the reason the keyboard has the Bauart mark rather than the GS mark is that it does not comply with the GS requirements for a German keyboard. But that does not explain the marks on the mouse. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 1:00 PM To: 'soundsu...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Question regarding something slightly unusual ... TUV does have a mechanism, they issues the GS mark for products and the Bauart mark for components. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: soundsu...@aol.com [mailto:soundsu...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Question regarding something slightly unusual ... From Doug McKean: In 20 years, I've never seen this before but that's not saying much. Why would a mfr get a UL recognition approval for a commercial ITE style single phase 155-230vac computer style product but for that same product get the TUV GS mark? Mfr is a stateside company. Product to be used in restricted areas with trained personnel only. But, one that essentially anyone could buy. What's the advantage of getting such a mixed set of approvals? It's not really a mixed set of approvals. UL must have considered the device to be incomplete in some way (does it have an enclosure?), therefore they Recognized it as a component as opposed to Listing it as a finished product. The GS Mark has no mechanism for delineating between components and finished products - both can receive GS approval. Hence the TUV GS mark. That's my guess, based on the limited information you gave. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.com
RE: Question regarding something slightly unusual ...
TUV does have a mechanism, they issues the GS mark for products and the Bauart mark for components. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: soundsu...@aol.com [mailto:soundsu...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 12:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Question regarding something slightly unusual ... From Doug McKean: In 20 years, I've never seen this before but that's not saying much. Why would a mfr get a UL recognition approval for a commercial ITE style single phase 155-230vac computer style product but for that same product get the TUV GS mark? Mfr is a stateside company. Product to be used in restricted areas with trained personnel only. But, one that essentially anyone could buy. What's the advantage of getting such a mixed set of approvals? It's not really a mixed set of approvals. UL must have considered the device to be incomplete in some way (does it have an enclosure?), therefore they Recognized it as a component as opposed to Listing it as a finished product. The GS Mark has no mechanism for delineating between components and finished products - both can receive GS approval. Hence the TUV GS mark. That's my guess, based on the limited information you gave. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.com
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX: +49 (89) 9392 2336 Mailto: robert.pau...@hp.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:15 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does
RE: DSL Modems
Dan, I just got DSL service from Verizon in Mass and the second senerio is what I got. They sent me a self install kit which didn't require anyone from Verizon to come to the house for the installation. I just waited until I got a message from them that my line was tied into the DSLAM at the CO and I followed the installation instructions. When I ordered the service I just told them how many jacks in the house and how many of them were wall phones and they sent an appropriate number of filters. Your original hook up would have required Verizon to do the hook up and unless I missed something would have resulted in a dedicated line from the wall to the DSL modem. The way they do it now would allow any jack in the house to be used. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Roman, Dan [mailto:dan.ro...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:56 AM To: 'Peter Merguerian'; 'Rob Keller'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: DSL Modems All, When Verizon installed my ADSL service a couple years back they put in what they called a whole house filter, but it is actually a splitter/filter. I don't recall any Listing marks of any kind on the device. It was installed on the network side of the gray box on the side of my house, not on the customer premise side so Listing may not apply. I took the device with me when I moved but DSL was not available in my new location. It is potted so I have no hope of determining the construction, guess I could apply ring voltage to it in the lab and hi-pot it and see what happens! I suspect though that it is TNV-3 in and TNV-3 out. Shortly after my DSL was installed (I was one of the first in my area) they stopped installing the whole house splitter and required the user to put a filter on every phone (yuk) except for the DSL modem. So even if splitters are available that do a TNV-3 to TNV-1 or even TNV-3 to SELV connection, at least in the Verizon NJ customer area DSL modems are TNV-3 all the time. Dan -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:24 AM To: 'Rob Keller'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: DSL Modems Rob Hi! I assume that the ADSL modem is connected to the phone line through an external splitter. If you find an approved splitter having the required TNV-3 to TNV-1 insulation, and you specify the specific splitter in your manual, I gather that your interface can be TNV-1. If no such splitter is specified, then the interface should be classified TNV-3. Now a question to the group - is anyone familiar with external Listed/Certified splitters that have the TNV-3 - TNV-1 insulation? 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. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: Rob Keller [mailto:r...@cclab.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: DSL Modems Greetings all, Question regarding the classification of DSL modems. DSL modems connect to the standard telecom network yet they do not require a ring signal or go on/off hook, therefore the classification would be TNV-1. Yet there are ring signals still present on the telecom lines for the the other equipment. So, because of the ring signals, which would exceed the limits of SELV, connecting to the input the modem, should the classification be TNV-3. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Rob Keller Product Safety Engineer Communication Certification Laboratory r...@cclab.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then
RE: DSL Modems
The ADSL modem connects directly to the phone line. The filters go on the rest of your phones in the house to block any interference in the voice band. The ones I have seen would be considered TNV-3 on both sides. But they would at least need to be TNV-2 on the phone side because you would still need to pass the ring signals. I have done safety and telecom approvals on a couple of ADSL modems and the port was treated as TNV-3. The SDSL and IDSL modems I have done approvals on, the port was treated as TNV-1. I just got ADSL service for my house. The modem and all the filters were UL listed as well as Part 68 approved. FWIW, if you had a splitter that had a TNV-3 barrier in it the other side would be either SELV or TNV-2 not TNV-1. However, the splitters I have seen have no barrier and are TNV-3 on both sides. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:24 AM To: 'Rob Keller'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: DSL Modems Rob Hi! I assume that the ADSL modem is connected to the phone line through an external splitter. If you find an approved splitter having the required TNV-3 to TNV-1 insulation, and you specify the specific splitter in your manual, I gather that your interface can be TNV-1. If no such splitter is specified, then the interface should be classified TNV-3. Now a question to the group - is anyone familiar with external Listed/Certified splitters that have the TNV-3 - TNV-1 insulation? 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. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: Rob Keller [mailto:r...@cclab.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: DSL Modems Greetings all, Question regarding the classification of DSL modems. DSL modems connect to the standard telecom network yet they do not require a ring signal or go on/off hook, therefore the classification would be TNV-1. Yet there are ring signals still present on the telecom lines for the the other equipment. So, because of the ring signals, which would exceed the limits of SELV, connecting to the input the modem, should the classification be TNV-3. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Rob Keller Product Safety Engineer Communication Certification Laboratory r...@cclab.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list
RE: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report.
Gary, I didn't want to suggest that you can get Korean EMC certification with an EMC report from a local US lab. I was trying to say that to get a IEC60950 CB report with the Korean deviations does not require the EMC report to be from a Korean lab. I would venture a guess that those folks in Korea that are reviewing a CB report for safety have no interest in the EMC report other than is it there. The only issue I have successfully argued is when requested for complete schematics and BOMs for power supplies. Typically they request everything and the power supply manufacturers I have dealt with are very reluctant to provide that info. Since the power supply CB contains the info on critical components and the schematics of barrier sections of the power supply I have been able to get them to accept that info only. When I have sent over a product for MIC certification I typically send a doc package that includes the safety reports, our EMC reports and the ETSI and Part 68 telco reports. I do not know how much testing they actually do but I do typically get my certification in 3 weeks. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:17 PM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report. Dave, You've got my attention on item 4, but still confused. Agreed there is no requirement for a Korean lab in the CB report, but as you also point out it has nothing to do with meeting the Korean national requirements. So it seems we agree that this can't be the full path to conformance from a Korean perspective. The issue now seems to be whether or not a non-Korean lab can provide data satisfactory to the Koreans. With every regulation and test house that I come into contact with the word has always come back the same. Korea wants a Korean lab, and about the only exception I can think of is KTL in Ottawa and I made them show me the documents that allow them to do so. They have had for a while the ability to do the radiated portion, but they did not until very recently have the same ability for the immunity requirements. The net effect was that the equipment still needed to be shipped to Korea. My prime vendor for this would love to be able to provide that service but after much checking into the regulations on his part, including direct query with the Korean the best he could offer was to do the project management for it, ship the product, pay the fees, and act as an intermediary. As you can imagine he and I occasionally may have discussions about interpretations of the regulations etc, but I have a very high regard for his ability to either provide sound factual information or in this case, research it and respond. (Don't tell him this part he'll just raise my rates :) ) The same data came from other vendors as well. Now this is for ITE, buy the way, I do believe that for telecom stuff Korea has signed the MRA's both government to government and industry specific. Obviously it is pretty hard to argue with success so if you are telling me that you can go to your local EMC NIST approved lab with ITE equipment, get the test done locally and submit only the test report I am all ears. We aren't able to send folks to the various governmental symposiums so I do rely on knowledgeable vendors, but would be happy to hear the information is wrong. I suspect my main vendor would love to hear it as well. Taiwan requires test reports, but that data can come from US Labs. Are you sure you are not confusing the two. Gary -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 1:26 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report. Seems strange that the IECEE allowed an EMC requirement to be added as a national deviation to a Safety Standard, but they did, and it's even more bizarre that Japan has the same deviation and has no national mandatory EMC requirement. But anyway; There is no requirement that to meet the requirements for the Korean deviation in a CB report that the EMC report must come from a Korean lab. Also, having a CB safety report that shows the EMC deviation as passing has nothing to do with meeting the Korean national requirements for EMC. So in actuality there is a 4th option. 4- Have an EMC report from any recognized lab - Pass I routinely obtain CB reports from UL, CSA or TUV that meet this requirement with a CISPR test report from our OATS. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689
RE: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report.
Seems strange that the IECEE allowed an EMC requirement to be added as a national deviation to a Safety Standard, but they did, and it's even more bizarre that Japan has the same deviation and has no national mandatory EMC requirement. But anyway; There is no requirement that to meet the requirements for the Korean deviation in a CB report that the EMC report must come from a Korean lab. Also, having a CB safety report that shows the EMC deviation as passing has nothing to do with meeting the Korean national requirements for EMC. So in actuality there is a 4th option. 4- Have an EMC report from any recognized lab - Pass I routinely obtain CB reports from UL, CSA or TUV that meet this requirement with a CISPR test report from our OATS. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report. Korea - Differences to IEC60950, Third Edition (1999) 7 Addition: EMC. The apparatus shall complies with the relevant CISPR requirements As I understand it there are three options for this deviation. 1 - Have a Korean Test Report - Pass 2 - Don't have a report - Fail 3- Write a letter to the CB author stating you meet the requirements - pass Seems to be a particularly interesting case of circular reasoning going on here. Korea requires test data from a Korean approved lab to be submitted to them for EMC approval. Basic property of approval is that one meets the EMC requirements as demonstrated by a test report from a Korean authorized laboratory and also meets the Safety requirements as documented in a CB report. Most often these documents are obtained from different companies, but all nicely bound in one documentation bundle by the manufacturer when they submit for Korean acceptance. Assume one has Korea as a market then this section in the CB report makes no sense. For the first option Korea already requires that one verifies emissions with a test report from a Korean approved laboratory and presumably they read it or at least check it off their bureaucracy forms when it arrives. The equipment still can' t be imported until they see a CB report they accept. If they have the emissions report and the CB report in front of them then the first condition of this requiring the safety evaluator to confirm that they also have a copy of this report is non-sensical. In fact I suspect that as proof they have done their job the safety evaluator would include as an appendix a copy of the emissions report. So know the Korean officials have two copies of the same report. For option 2, Either one doesn't have Korea as a market and is not interested in meeting any of their deviations so the clause isn't needed, or they are interested, have the report, and send it to CB author. So now we are back to circular reasoning item 1. Option 3 may be my favorite. They authorize only a few labs to submit data. The only reason to require a Korean certified lab test is that they don't trust manufactures when they simply tell them the requirements are met. On Its own that is not an unreasonable request, independent verification of test results is always better than just trusting the manufacturer. But now in the CB report, that as I noted before either provides a copy of the emissions report as an annex or amendment to the CB report because of circular reasoning item 1 or Circular reasoning item 2 comes into play, and defaults to item 1. But if either of those two useless clauses isn't enough now there is a third option. Just write a letter that says trust us. It will be included in the CB report as an appendix or an annex. Of course this letter doesn't make any sense either because they require along with the CB report, a test report from a previously Korean approved lab. This requirement is because they ! obviously don't trust a manufacturer to just say they meet the requirements. And back to useless option 1. What am I missing here? Seems like its time to break out the old Fecalencephalometer ( a large painful instrument intended to measure just how far your head is up your rear end! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For
RE: ISO 9k/2k relevance
Ron, If you are following the requirements documented in ISO 9k you will be producing product that meets your own and your customers requirements. It specifically requires you to design to statutory and regulatory requirements. It specifically requires you to look for potential sources of non conformances (preventive action), under the corrective action clause specifically requires you to address customer complaints and it requires that management be reviewing these activities to see if they are appropriate for the business. If you are doing those things effectively you can't be making bad product. No ISO does not define a level of goodness, it's a generic standard, that's up to you and the business you are in to define that. The requiremens of ISO will not allow you to make cement life jackets as the naysayers like to tell you. Brian, Your question regarding whether ISO is relevent: If your business is with the RBOCs then TL9000 (the telecom specific version of ISO 9k) is quickly becoming mandatory to do business with them and this version of the standard requires you to push it down to your primary suppliers. If you business is with the auto manufacturers QS9000 (the automotive version) is pretty much mandatory. Having a registered quality system is still a requirement for product approvals in a large number of countries. RFPs from most larger companies will have a check box for ISO on their check lists. It may not be the final decider but certainly could be a tie breaker. I think you will find that any successful world class company will have embraced the basic principles of ISO 9000 a long time ago regardless of whether they feel it is necessary to have a certificate or not. It's tuff to measure if you improved after obtaining ISO because you would have needed to be making relevent measurements before and if you were doing it before then you were likely meeting the spirit of ISO anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: ron_well...@agilent.com [mailto:ron_well...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 11:59 AM To: boconn...@t-yuden.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: ISO 9k/2k relevance Hello Brian, ISO 9K accreditation only verifies that you have a quality system in place. It doesn't matter if you make good product or bad product because ISO 9K doesn't measure that, your Customers do. Regards, +=+ |Ronald R. Wellman|Voice : 408-345-8229 | |Agilent Technologies |FAX : 408-553-2412 | |5301 Stevens Creek Blvd.,|E-Mail: ron_well...@agilent.com| |Mailstop 54L-BB |WWW : http://www.agilent.com | |Santa Clara, California 95052 USA| | +=+ -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:36 AM To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: ISO 9k/2k relevance Good People of the PSTC: I've had some conversations with our Component Engineers, Sales and QA people. I could not identify any customer that placed an order based on our ISO 9k and/or 2k certification. Nor could I identify any component specified and/or purchased that was based on whether a supplier has ISO certification. Is the ISO paper mill relevant? Is there empirical evidence that ISO certification results in better stuff? Is ISO certification a requirement for your purchasing policies? Has ISO certification been a determining or contributing factor for selection of your company's products? At this point, I am not being critical of the ISO process; I am attempting to understand its ROI and relevance to product quality. I speak only for myself; nothing said here represents my employer's policies. R/S, Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc
RE: PCB layout question for good EMC performance
Check out High-Speed Digital Design by Howard Hohnson and Martin Graham. Rhents rule deals with this topic. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:20 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: PCB layout question for good EMC performance I have a problem where a very large number of chips are mounted on a very small board. The ground plane looks like Swiss cheese and there is ground bounce accordingly. For future reference, is there a rule-of-thumb for how much PCB area should be allocated per number of IC chips/pins so as to be able to provide ground returns for all important signal/clock routing? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Safety symbol
The only one I have seen is a house with an arrow pointing in that desigates it's for indoor use. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Desmond Fraser [mailto:desm...@rheintech.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:44 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Safety symbol Hi All; Does any know the purpose of a safety symbol depicting a house with a small window on the right side? I will be grateful if someone can provide information such as its use, safety standard, and exactly what the correct symbol should look like. Best regards, Des Fraser
RE: Accreditation - testing ourselves
Michael, Second and Third party testing is a different issue from what Amund was asking. Second party accreditation has to address independence within the organization to ensure results can not be impacted by business pressures of the organization. Third party accreditation must address confidentiality to ensure one companies proprietary info is not made known to another. It is only natural to feel more comfortable with a report from an independent lab than one from the manufacturers own lab even if both labs have the same accreditation. From a regulatory standpoint this used to be a requirement but now with all the self declaration programs appearing it is less and less mandatory. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: michael.sundst...@nokia.com [mailto:michael.sundst...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:00 PM To: Dave Clement; am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Accreditation - testing ourselves Don't forget the aspect of self testing. Doesn't 17025 have special provisions / requirements about self testing your own item? I hear third party testing is always given precedence over self testing data. Is this true and written in 17025 or just the way the auditors interpret it? Michael Sundstrom NOKIA TCC Dallas / EMC ofc: (972) 374-1462 cell: (817) 917-5021 amateur call: KB5UKT -Original Message- From: ext Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 9:14 AM To: 'am...@westin-emission.no'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Accreditation - testing ourselves From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:25 AM An EMC test lab is accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025. They are also accredited for many tests as the IEC61000-4-series, EN55022 and many other. We have previously done some EMC pre-testing in this lab and we have operated the test equipment ourselves. Now, they won't let us do that with reference to their accreditation status. The test lab personnel have to operate the test equipment. Does it make sense, is there any restriction in the accreditation ? There is nothing in ISO 17025 that would prevent a lab from allowing someone from coming in and using the equipment. However, if they had not made provisions in their QA manual for use by non lab personnel they would be in violation of there own procedures and subject to audit findings by the lab accrediting body. Specifically they would need to address; how they were going to ensure that testing done by non lab personnel would not be represented as lab performed testing and that test equipment was still in calibration after use by non lab personnel. They may be hiding behind the accreditation as a graceful way of stopping a practice they no longer want to be involved in. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Accreditation - testing ourselves
From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:25 AM An EMC test lab is accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025. They are also accredited for many tests as the IEC61000-4-series, EN55022 and many other. We have previously done some EMC pre-testing in this lab and we have operated the test equipment ourselves. Now, they won't let us do that with reference to their accreditation status. The test lab personnel have to operate the test equipment. Does it make sense, is there any restriction in the accreditation ? There is nothing in ISO 17025 that would prevent a lab from allowing someone from coming in and using the equipment. However, if they had not made provisions in their QA manual for use by non lab personnel they would be in violation of there own procedures and subject to audit findings by the lab accrediting body. Specifically they would need to address; how they were going to ensure that testing done by non lab personnel would not be represented as lab performed testing and that test equipment was still in calibration after use by non lab personnel. They may be hiding behind the accreditation as a graceful way of stopping a practice they no longer want to be involved in. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Kevin, The OJ for the RTTE Directive lists EMC (EN55022, EN55024, etc) and Safety (EN60950, EN60065, etc) standards as well as the Radio and Telecom standards (well there are no requirements for wireline telco listed). So, if you are declaring to the RTTE then you should be covered for EMC and Safety since they are listed as essential requirements in the RTTE OJ. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Creating a Reliability Department
From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:16 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 1. The goal is to hire one permanent employee and grow over time. What are some justifications/success stories/strategies for having a Reliability Department? 2. Assuming the goal is to have the best reliability department in the world, how do we get started? What are the stages which should be followed for developing a Reliability Group? What would staffing requirements look like for each phase? Profesional Reliability Engineering is a wing of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). This link http://www.asq-rd.org/ is a place to start. 3. The goal is to have this position report to Manufacturing Engineering. From a compliance standpoint, this would be a conflict of interest. Does the same hold true for Reliability Engineering? Bad move. Just as with Compliance the reliability function needs independence and needs to be involved at the front end of the developement process. If you are worrying about it with in the Manufacturing environment it's too late. 4. This department may include a global function. What is the best method to integrate this department globally? Since reliability engineering is a specialization within quality being part of the corporate quality group is a good place. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering / Test Lab Services 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Spray-on Conductive Coatings
I do not believe it's required. If the plastic/coating and applicator are under the UL746 program then you do not need to do any testing to qualify your product. If it is not then it must be tested. We have been using conductive coatings for 15+ years and as long as the combo is under the UL program it's been accepted without testing. Also, never have had any quality problems with these materials either. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Darrell Locke [mailto:dlo...@advanced-input.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:52 PM To: 'Aschenberg, Mat' Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Spray-on Conductive Coatings Thanks Matt, I was not aware that a UL approved painter/applicator was required. Is this in a standard, or is it just a common practice? Darrell Locke -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM To: Darrell Locke Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Spray-on Conductive Coatings Darrell, I have used this process in the past. It presents a bit of a safety nightmare. The products I work on are UL tested and approved. Getting a product approved with UL having a spray-on conductive coating is difficult. The spray needs to be UL listed for use with the particular plastic you are going to use. Then you need to find a UL approved Painter (applicator) who uses the UL approved process to apply the spray-on conductive coating. Once is enough. I stay away from those like a plague. Mat -Original Message- From: Darrell Locke [SMTP:dlo...@advanced-input.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Spray-on Conductive Coatings Dear Colleages, We have seen an issue lately with spray-on conductive coatings used on the inside of electronic enclosures. The coating works great for EMC, but there seems to be a problem with adhesion and tiny flakes of conductive material getting in the electronics. I'm thinking that the spray-on type materials should not be used at all. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Thanks Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices Coeur d'Alene ID --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: warranty - guarantee
If you take a look in Websters (http://www.m-w.com); warranty: a usually written guarantee of the integrity of a product and of the maker's responsibility for the repair or replacement of defective parts guarantee: an assurance of the quality of or of the length of use to be expected from a product offered for sale often with a promise of reimbursement I do not think you will find any other official defintions that will expand much on the expectations of the two terms. I see them used interchangeably. Like so much these days you need to read the fine print so determine what you are getting and a judge decides the ambiguities. EX: Took a look at the Warranty page in a user manual on my desk. The hardware is warranted to be free from defects in workmanship and materials while the software is warranted to perform in conformance to specifications. Dave Clement -Original Message- From: Stig Jorgensen [mailto:jorgen...@skyskan.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:33 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: warranty - guarantee Hi All, Having seen mixed use of language i.e. Oxford English verses US English. It some times created miss understandings. I may be out in left field, but warranty is not the same as guarantee. Does EU have a definition for Warrantee and Guarantee ? I have seen the difference in the US retail industry where warrantees and guarantees are used as a selling tools. A Warranty is covering events that happened behind the factory door, use of faulty material and workmanship etc. The ware and tare factor through the consumers use is not covered under a warranty. This becomes clear when you read the expanded warranty statement that usually is enclosed with the product. It limits the manufacturers obligation to correct faulty material and faulty manufacturing process. A Guarantee cover what the Warranty covers plus it also assures that the product will for a given length of time, perform, function, as per specification of the manufacturer. You will see statements like performing as new equipment or perform as per manufacturer's specification. Thus the effect from usage is covered. When you read the explanation in the warranty statement, that comes with the product, it comes clear that the limit of the responsibility of the manufacturer covers only items under their control. The risk component outside a Warranty is treated as an insurance risk and its cost is calculated accordingly. Sincerely Stig jorgen...@skyskan.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: internal modem
Terminal Equipment approval has been privatized and is now under the control of ACTA. Go to their web page http://www.part68.org and you can down load one copy as a freeby of the new ANSI/TIA technical requirements. David Clement Sr. Staff Approvals Engineer Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 -Original Message- From: Eric Petitpierre [mailto:eric.petitpie...@pulse.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:27 AM To: dan.kin...@heapg.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: internal modem Dan, Title 47 of The Code of Federal Regulations, Part 68 is what you are looking for. http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html will get you started. A lot of procedures have changed in recent years,but the objectives are still the same ( protection for the network/network personnel) On a modem, you will want to make sure there is adequate isolation ( HV steady-state and impluse), in- band signal power levels within limits, out of band level limits, tariff protection, longitudinal balance, ac and dc impedance characteristics. May initially seem overwhelming but it really isn't. Regards, Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon,VA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Certificate of Incoorporation???
Andy, Certificate of Incorporation usually is the piece or paper from the Secretary of State of the state your company is incorporated in as a business. I have had to provide this as evidence that the company is a real company when doing approval work but it certainly has nothing to do with and EU DofC and CE marking. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 2:28 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certificate of Incoorporation??? Hello- Can someone explain to me what a Certificate of Incorporation is? One of our vendors wants to supply this in lieu of an EU Declaration of Conformity for CE compliance. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks again- -Andy Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp Ph: 919.677.2507 Fax: 919.677.2480 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Chinese GB/T17626.6-1998 standard
The Chinese are not generating official english copies of these standards. You will either need to find a service that has them translated or have it done your self. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:33 PM To: david_l_tarnow...@email.whirlpool.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Chinese GB/T17626.6-1998 standard It is my understanding that the PRC EMC standard is GB-9254-1998. That is listed on our CCIB certificates along with GB-4943-1995 (safety). I do not know how to obtain an English copy. George david_l_tarnowski%email.whirlpool@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/14/2001 12:32:52 PM Please respond to david_l_tarnowski%email.whirlpool@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Chinese GB/T17626.6-1998 standard Happy Wednesday, everybody! Is it true that the GB/T17626.6-1998 standard is China's version of IEC61000-4-6? Does anyone know how I can get a copy (in English)? Dave Tarnowski Whirlpool Corporation --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Print on demand labels - UL/CSA approved
Chris, I introduced this method into the factory about 10 years ago. The first iteration was using die cut myler label stock on a laser printer. It turned out to be very time consuming and you had to print 8 identical (s/n incremented for each) labels at a time. The next step was a thermal transfer printer with Mylar label stock on a roll. This was fast and allowed for one label at a time. Initially we used home grown software on a PC and had several standalone systems around the factory each with an assigned block of serial numbers. We then integrated the system into our Factory Control system computers and had labels printed on demand at the configuration station based on scanned sales order travelers. We have since out sourced our manufacturing so we went back to the standalone PC based system using software from an outfit called Loftware http://www.loftware.com/home.htm http://www.loftware.com/home.htm Our system uses completely blank label stock and a various layouts are designed using the drawing features in Loftware. Variables are merged from a database (excel) and printed on the label. Power ratings, model descriptions, agency logos, patent numbers are all pulled from the database and the layouts determine the placement on the label. We even included a couple of smaller sub labels as part of the basic label stock that have serial numbers, models numbers, etc that can be placed in other locations on the product to help out the customer service folks. We have had great success using thermal transfer printers from Zebra Technologies http://www.zebra.com/ http://www.zebra.com/ . The label stock is a 1.5 mil myler and we have used both matt and gloss finish materials in translucent and white. To meet UL requirements the combination of printer, label stock and ribbon are approved. We have a section in our UL SP volume describing the system. The most difficult thing to do is select a label stock and ribbon combination that will provide an acceptable level of print quality while still meeting the durability requirements of the marking section of the safety standard. All thermal transfer processes use ribbons that are either a wax, resin or combination of both. The wax materials provide the best print quality and are great on paper labels but will not stand up to the solvent wipe test on Myler. The resins are durable and easily pass the wipe test but the quality of the printed image is not as good. There are ribbons that are a ! ! ! ! blend that will give you what you need. The only other consideration is the adhesive on the label. If you are applying the label to a smooth plastic or metal surface there is not much to worry about. If the part is textured you will need a a heavier layer of adhesive to get acceptable adhesion. One of these systems are definitely the way to go. We cut our costs from an average of $0.50 per preprinted label to $0.06 per label with this process. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Chris Wells [mailto:cdwe...@stargate.net] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 2:49 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Cc: Wells, Christopher D Subject: Print on demand labels - UL/CSA approved As a continuation of my last email - save me from label hell I need to do some investigations into better print on demand labeling sollutions. Right now about the only print on demand we do is the serial number/ date code. The rest of the label is silk screened and includes all the variations within a product. As a result we must have a multitude of different lables with set up charge and lead time issues. i would like to improve that approach What I have seen and would like to do is create a boiler plate label for each product or a series of products, that will support print-on-demand for all the variables. *The printing ought to be back printed on plastic stock so that the surface affords protection. Perhaps there are other approaches. *It needs to be UL/CSA/??? controled/approved matterials. *It needs to be compatible with industrial temp extremes of -40 to ~ 85C on metal or Poly carb plastic surfaces. Our products are typicaly speced to 60 or 70C. *Most importantly I need a semi turn key system form engineering to production. Not just the label stock and the printer but a data base that will handle the transfer of printing field data from design engineering out to the production floor with an eye on maintaining ISO 9001 and compatibility with our drawing control management system (CMS). Looking for recomendations or feedback (good or bad) on vendors that can help update our approach. Are there some good trade mags on this topic, web sites Are there any pitfalls to avoid? Thanks Chris Wells Senior Design Eng.
RE: Taiwan Contact Point
I thought under the APEC MRA you could get BSMI accreditation via NIST. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: John Cronin [mailto:croni...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Taiwan Contact Point Hi When applying for Taiwan BSMI accreditation it is necessary to have a Taiwan contact point. We are considering applying for accreditation. Can anyone recommend a contact person? Best Regards John Cronin _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Product Marking
From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:01 PM . I also know that the City of L.A. is a stickler for a third party mark on a medical device (and I would suspect other devices as will), if it isn't there you submit your device along with mounds of data to the cities electrical department, and pay the $2-3K for their inspection and sticker. Overall, it makes good business sense to use a reputable third party NRTL when doing business. We ran into a situation in LA with a piece of recognized (back in the dys UL resisted giving a listing to any piece of rack mount equipment) rack mount equipment installed in a bank computer center. They would not issue the bank an occupancy certificate unless the product was listed or there was field evaluation of the installation by an NRTL and a listing is approved. I have been following this thread and one comment that has not been made that is quite relevant is; You do not want to be shopping around to NRTLs for the best price all the time. Every NRTL is going to have yearly fees and factory inspection fees not to mention the disruption of the factory during the factory inspections (that could mean 4 x the number of NRTLs you have product certified by). If the goal is cost and cycletime reduction to certification setting up your own safety lab and having it accredited ubder one of the client test data / self certification programs such as ULs COMPASS, CSAs Category or TUVs ACT will significantly reduce the cost of product certification and will cut the cycltime in 1/2 or better. If your products are designed using approved power supplies and you use certified components anywhere it has a safety impact the lab you set up does not need to be very elaborate or take up much space. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 C: 508-725-9689 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Brazilian requirements
For Terminal Equipment the generic requirments are; Federal Official Gazette - Ordance No. 322 - Net No. 001/92 There is also a test procedure - No.225-540-514 Test Procedures for Data Communications Equipment for Transmission Nominal Speed Up yo 28800 Bits/sec These are published in Portuguese and you will need to have them translated. Make sure you get a technical translator. We had a requirement that got translated incorrectly that placed an out of band requirement on voice band signals. David Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P: 508-261-4389 F: 508-261-4777 E: mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com Pager: Numeric: 978-545-5452 Alpha: mailto:6178020099.0705...@pagenet.net -Original Message- From: jradom...@clare.com [mailto:jradom...@clare.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:43 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Brazilian requirements Group, Could you advise me on the Brazilian telecom requirements for interfaces to be connected to the analog PSTN? I was not able to find any information on this subject in English. Thank you in advance. John Radomski Product Compliance Engineer Clare Corp. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
