RE: ITE / AV Equipment with Ethernet
Dan, Emissions Ethernet test repeatability is improved by a loopback program that broadcasts continual data. Be sure the loopback perimeter includes the cable (beyond the driver chip). Terminate the Ethernet TP cable into a Class B hub; it is easier to explain than a 100-ohm dummy load. Although continual data transfer is 'real world' the measurement is not real world, you measure AE emission 50% of the time. Immunity Continual data transfer is best. Use at least 2 nodes in AE to prevent Ethernet from auto-negotiating to full-duplex, a collision-free domain. Full duplex is not worst case - it trivially passes immunity because 'collision-detect' is inhibited. TV wiring is not critical, impedance match is a given. Document the wiring and AE. David -Original Message- From: Dan Pierce [mailto:dpie...@escient.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:18 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: ITE / AV Equipment with Ethernet Dear Group, I currently have a device that is a cross between ITE and AV (a typical set top box) which has Ethernet. I am wondering how to terminate the line for testing both emissions and immunity. In addition, should I have this Ethernet setting so that I transmit data in a 1 meter loop back cable? Would a connection to a hub with no other lines to/from be legal? Any responses are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, -Dan Pierce --- 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: CE for IP Phone
Alan, If the device looks like a telephone and can easily be connected to the POTS (e.g. RJ-11 or RJ-45), you can assume someone will try to connect it to the telephone network. So due diligence means RTTE testing and marking, if only to warn via the 'alert' symbol that the device does not comply. Re: Walkman-type headphones and PC microphones. Direct wiring to POTS requires electrical expertise, and a conscious intent to make an illegal connection. Manufacturer's liability for an illegal connection is quite low in this case. David Sterner -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:45 AM To: 'alan.hud...@amsjv.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: CE for IP Phone Alan, _IF_ your product is covered by the RTTED _THEN_ there is no lower voltage limit for safety (or anything else). In fact, this is also true for the upper voltage limits. Therefore, the RTTED applies to mobile 'phones even though they are powered from 3V batteries. If you invented some equipment covered by the RTTED that was powered directly off a 60 kV MV line then that would be covered too. However, If your product IS NOT covered by the RTTED THEN the existing voltage limits continue to apply when considering the LVD. There are therefore many examples of network infrastructure equipment which are not covered by either the RTTED or the LVD, typically they are CE marked to show compliance with the EMC Directive. I know that some people have the mistaken belief that the RTTED somehow modified the voltage limits of the LVD. This is not so, the RTTED did not modify the LVD. Certainly, the European Commission are considering revising the LVD and one of the things they are looking at is the removal of the lower voltage limits (they are presently not suggesting the removal of the upper voltage limits). However, these discussions are still in the early stages - so it wouldn't be too good an idea to start making changes to your compliance strategy on the basis of possibilities. Hope all is now clear. Richard Hughes -Original Message- From: alan.hud...@amsjv.com [ mailto:alan.hud...@amsjv.com mailto:alan.hud...@amsjv.com ] Sent: 05 December 2002 10:56 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE for IP Phone Importance: High Richard Hughes said: ++ Moreover, since the said telephone is connected only to an SELV Circuit then ++ it falls below the lower voltage limits of the LVD (50 Vac, 75 Vdc) and so ++ the LVD does not apply. I thought the RTTED referral to the LVD removed the voltage limits of the latter? That is, under the RTTED even battery-operated portable equipment then came under its LVD requirements. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong of course, as I'm no expert on either Directive. Regards, Alan EMC Consultant Alenia Marconi Systems Scotland
RE: Question regarding something slightly unusual ...
Doug - Dual listing is simple economics assuming you meant '115 V' by your '155 V': Multiple approvals let you sell slow-moving US inventory overseas simply by switching the linecord (if you supply multilingual I-I's). In the same manner, slow-moving international inventory can be sold here. Without dual listing, post-manufacture 'conversion' (U.S. - international) is impractical; you would have to break it down and rebuild it. Another advantage is inventory simplification (reduces SKU's). David -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:44 AM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Question regarding something slightly unusual ... 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? I would assume such a thing would normally get a Listing. Maybe turning the question around for our overseas friends - why would you get a GS mark for your product but only get UL recognition for an ITE computer product when it's normal to get a listing for such a product? And now I'm wondering if with such a device that there's some deviation within the testing as to cause the product to be GS accepted but not with a listing. Regards, Doug (scratching head...) --- 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: FCC information
Since CISPR 22 as an alternate procedure acceptable to both versions, we test to CISPR, covering international requirements with the same set-up (testing at both 115 and 230V or at the worst-case voltage). CISPR 22's mains-conducted-RF limits have been stable for years. David -Original Message- From: Neil Helsby [mailto:nei...@solid-state-logic.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:55 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC information Further to my recent queries, I was pointed at a couple of web sites. These are: ecfr.access.gpo.gov frwebgate.access.gpo.gov Checking both I find different versions of the FCC documents. Looking at, for example, 15.107 conducted limits, the first site includes a heading this data current as of the Federal Register dated September 19, 2002 and the second Revised as of October 1, 2001 The text of both bear little commonality. There are also small discrepancies between the versions of 15.109, radiated emissions. As the ecfr data appears to be more up-to-date, do I ignore the frwebgate pages and is there any official document to say that would be correct? Thanks for your help, Regards, Neil Helsby ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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
IEC 60068-2-18 fixturing
Does anyone know of a source of fixturing for: Ra 2 cabinet integrity test (Drip box) referenced in IEC 60529 and IEC 60068-2-18. David Sterner ADEMCO Group Div. of Honeywell International 165 Eileen Way Syosset NY 11791 516-921-6704 x6970
RE: USB Immunity Specs??
Brian - USB on a PC is designed for residential environment; stress levels should be 3V/m for EN61000-4-3 and 3V for EN61000-4-6. We got similar results checking USB to EN50130-4 alarm system requirements (which resemble industrial environment. EFT needs fault-tolerant software (acceptable performance loss). Alarm P/F criteria are slightly different: no false alarms or change of state (armed to unarmed and vice-versa). Fault tolerant software is not acceptable for all alarm applications. David -Original Message- From: brian_ku...@leco.com [mailto:brian_ku...@leco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:02 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: USB Immunity Specs?? Dear Group, Our Engineering Department thinks that USB is the worlds best interface. Though it has a lot going for it, I'm not sure if is all that, but never the less, I'm seeing it used to control and interface with commercial and industrial instrumentation requiring the more severe immunity testing for Europe; e.g. 10volt/meter Radiated Immunity, 10Vrms Conducted Immunity, and 2KV Fast Transient Testing (1KV using Clamp). To these higher levels, we have failed almost every USB system we have ever encountered using USB cables longer than 2 meter in length. I understand that USB is suppose to be able to goto 5 meter. The failure shows itself as a communication error that usually requires resetting the hardware. Fairly recently we evaluated one of those USB Hubs. Someone realized that if you run a 5 meter USB cable into a HUB you can run it out another 5 meters. Our Immunity testing failed the HUB configuration in the most miserable ways. A detailed examination of the manual that came with the USB Hub proudly displayed a DOC and the CE marking, but gave no special conditions or mention of cable lengths. At home I have a USB Flatbed scanner that came with a 2 meter USB cable with ferrite beads on BOTH ends. What might I expect if I went to Best Buy and bought a 5 meter USB cable and installed it on my scanner? I guess I would expect it NOT to comply with emissions requirements, who knows about immunity, but would it even function? In any case, I don't think it is right that I can purchase a scanner and only when I get it home and open the box I find out that I can only use the provided 2 meter cable. Being USB, I expected to be able to put any 5 meter cable on it. I hate surprises like that, don't you? We have tested dozens of different USB cables, looking for a solution to the Immunity Problems we are encountering (Even the Gold Plated 12MB/s versions which tested no better than the cheep ones). We discovered that we could get it to pass Immunity if the impedance of the USB cable was improved. We would simulate this by going over a standard USB cable with a better, heavier braided shield and then soldering the shield to the backshells (connecting a ground strap between the instrument and the computer would often give similar results). The problem with this approach is that no one makes a cable like this. I understand that USB cables are constructed according to the USB standard which includes a DC cable shield impedance requirement which in my opinion should be lower and include impedance requirements for the entire frequency band. So, to all you USB Experts out there, please education me in the finer points of USB. 1. Does the USB specification take into account any Immunity Requirements? If so, to what levels? 2. Any recommendations to improve a USB systems performance during Immunity Testing? 3. What are others doing? I expect that they are testing with short USB cables then specifying (or not) the length in the user's manual. 4. What changes can we expect to see in the future of USB? We know the interface is getting faster and faster. Is functionality, cable length, Emissions, and Immunity being considered? Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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:
RE: suggestion for 100W audio amp
http://www.crownaudio.com has audio amplifiers exceeding 100W. Ion-implanter manufacturers have been known to use Crown amplifiers as servo amps for ion deflection coils and plates. Professional musicians attest to their stability. David -Original Message- From: shbe...@rockwellcollins.com [mailto:shbe...@rockwellcollins.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: suggestion for 100W audio amp Hello group, I was hoping that someone could suggest a vendor/model number for an 100 W audio amplifier for use performing DO-160D, change 2, section 18 audio susceptibility testing. I am currently using an old Solar 6552-1A, but sometimes it can't provide the pre-calibrated power (100W) into the EUT. It could also be used for 461E CS101 testing. Thanks in advance, Susan Beard --- 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: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights?
Plexiglas cases are great for air-flow studies and trade show demos. It would be presumptive indeed to affix an FCC DofC logo to a chassis w/o motherboard. I suspect many other pstc members have located television sets near a PC operating with cover removed and experienced only minor interference if any. Also HCW and others make TV interface boards for PC's where modulated video is routed into the chassis. David -Original Message- From: Kyle Ehler [mailto:keh...@cox.net] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:06 PM To: Wagner, John P (John); michael.sundst...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; George Stults Subject: Re: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? I dont recall seeing a DoC on any of the $28 cases I have purchased for my home built pc's. It is remarkable that the ATX power supplies actually have UL/TUV many of these cases include. Please note that these cases do NOT provide sufficient containment to meet class A (much less class B) without intelligent treatment. It is indeed a big loophole, albeit for a small crowd. IMHE, purchasing a new pc with warranty costs only a little more than a self assembled pc from a heap of parts. This would seem to appeal only to the hobbyist (new age student?) and constitute a very small population. Kyle Ehler (forced retiree - LSI Logic) - Original Message - From: Wagner, mailto:johnwag...@avaya.com John P (John) To: michael.sundst...@nokia.com mailto:michael.sundst...@nokia.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org ; George Stults mailto:george.stu...@watchguard.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? The current FCC rules are pretty clear. For systems assembled from components, the system considered compliant if assembled from compliant components; namely, enclosures, motherboards, power supplies. The peripheral rules also apply. So, if this case or enclosure has been tested and shown to be compliant when used as a component for a system, then all is ok. To be legal, the case should have an FCC DoC. John P. Wagner
RE: IEEE Conference Proceedings (2000 - 2001)
The 2001 Montreal Symposium is IEEE Cat. # 01CH37161C and ISBN: 0-7803-6571-2 David Sterner ADEMCO -Original Message- From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:18 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEEE Conference Proceedings (2000 - 2001) Hello, In the past the IEEE procedings have been made available to the public. Applied Microfilm sponsored the 40 years for $40. UL sponsored a CD for the few years following. Has anyone seen a CD for the last two years? Mat --- 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: Side Issue: Proximity Cards in Wallets ...
I've been swiping my wallet past HID card readers for a couple years and the credit cards still work ok. If you open the card reader test reports on FCC's website you will see why: low frequency (126-128 Hz), low power ( 10dBuA/m @ 10m). David -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Side Issue: Proximity Cards in Wallets ... A proximity card reading security system is used in a company, possibly based on the Wiegand Effect. Some of the employees put their security cards in their wallets to have them all the time. When needing access to an area that requires a card, users simply pull out their wallets, swipe the wallet in front of the reader and thus gain access. For those people with cards in their wallets, they do not pull the security card out of the wallet and then swipe the reader. They all swipe the reader with the wallet. A question was posed to me that involved the swamping of the card with a magnetic field to identify the card. The electronics in the card generates a series of pulses from the pulsed magnetic field that when received by the card reader validate or invalidate the card. Is this field strong enough to wipe any magnetic strips on any credit or bank or any of the other types of cards using magnetic strips that may also be in the wallet? Regards, Doug McKean --- 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: IEC 60950 Solar Cells
Don Theoretical solar-cell efficiency calculation excludes photons of insufficient energy for electron-hole-pair production. Also photon energy beyond pair-production requiement is converted to heat (and cannot produce electricity). Electron-hole pairs produced in doped regions above or below the depletion zone quickly recombine, producing no electricity. Also silicon band gap decreases with temperature so the voltage decreases as the solar cell heats up. For silicon, a 20% efficiency is fairly good. Solar intensity above the atmosphere is 1400W/m^^2. Typical (IEC60068-2-5, Bellcore, MIL-STD-810) solar intensity test level is 1120W/m^^2. David Sterner -Original Message- From: don_borow...@selinc.com [mailto:don_borow...@selinc.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:44 PM To: Andrew Carson Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 60950 Solar Cells If I remember correctly, solar intensity in space is about 1.5 kW per square meter. At sea level at the equator it something like 1.1 kW per square meter on a clear day. So there is significant significant loss coming through the atmosphere, but certainly not 90%. Perhaps there is 90% reduction of some wavelengths (UV light through a good thick stratospheric ozone layer?). Andrew Carson andrew_car...@uk.xyratex.com on 06/07/2002 09:33:05 AM To: Don Borowski/SEL@SEL, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc: Subject: RE: IEC 60950 Solar Cells I thought the Suns Solar Intensity was 1kW per square meter above the Earths atmosphere and what hit the ground was reduced by 90%. But it has been a few years since my college days :-) Andrew Carson - Senior Compliance Engineer, Xyratex, UK Phone: +44 (0)23 9249 6855 Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 6014 -Original Message- From: don_borow...@selinc.com [mailto:don_borow...@selinc.com] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:09 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 60950 Solar Cells For the power limit part of the problem, a good rule of thumb to use for solar intensity is 1 kW per square meter. A garden variety solar cell (single crystal) is easily 10% efficiency these days, and the best ones are past 20%, so this yields 100 watts to beyond 200 watts per square meter for the expected power. Don Borowski Schweitzer Engineering Labs Pullman, WA Andrew Carson andrew_car...@uk.xyratex.com on 06/07/2002 02:19:03 AM Please respond to Andrew Carson andrew_car...@uk.xyratex.com To: Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Don Borowski/SEL) Subject: RE: IEC 60950 Solar Cells Ron Some help, I hope, to your questions. Would this small LCD display device even be required to be evaluated to IEC 60950 3rd Edition or to IEC 60950-1? This depends on what you are trying to achieve, good company practices, or a countries regulatory requirements. For Europe, the product does not need safety testing under the scope of the LVD, but would do under the RTTE. For the US market, there is no legislation that says the equipment vendor must safety test. So this will be driven by your customer and market place requirement. Depending on the equipments intended function, you might find more guidance in the UL Audio and Video equipment standards. Would a solar cell energy source be treated similarly to a battery? No. You do not have the risk of explosion associated with a battery, but then again the Solar Cell is not a limited Energy device like a battery. Treat the Solar Cell like an external SELV power source. As long as the sun still shines, it will continue to deliver power. However, for maximum energy available form the Cell, even in the most extreme fault conditions, there is a physical upper limit to how much solar energy can be converted into electricity. Off the top of my head it is around 10W per square meter with today's technology. Should you be concerned over the safety of a Solar Cell powered LCD screen. Yes. If the LCD screen has a back light inverter, then some very high voltages could be present within the equipment. So single fault protection. You also need to address the chemical nature of the LCD screen and any risk to the operator in a fault condition. Hope this helps. Andrew Carson - Senior Compliance Engineer, Xyratex, UK Phone: +44 (0)23 9249 6855 Fax: +44 (0)23 9249 6014 -Original Message- From: Ron Pickard [mailto:rpick...@hypercom.com] Sent: 06 June 2002 23:26 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: IEC 60950 Solar Cells To all, First, a little background. I have been asked a question that I did not know the answer to, which relates to a potential new product. As I understand it, this device will be relatively small, consume very little power and will only display particular information depending on the application. What I have been told, this device will be powered by a solar cell with a potential 3V coin battery for back up (the battery part is iffy). I can't give anymore information about it because I don't know any more.
RE: Compact Chamber Calibration
Don, I believe the rationale is: 1) if the chamber has a natural cancellation frequency affecting a single location you do not have to boost levels in the remaining locations out of proportion. 2) it is a qualitative test; unless the EUT is highly tuned to a frequency, the adjacent frequencies will trigger interferance. 3) check the clause about maximum % of non-conforming frequencies; even with the exemption you get a fairly good susceptability test. It is much better than the old IEC801-3; some labs (who shall remain anonymous) used screen rooms and a rheostat for active 'leveling'. David -Original Message- From: djumbdenst...@tycoint.com [mailto:djumbdenst...@tycoint.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:38 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Compact Chamber Calibration Hi All, I read the standard EN 61000-4-3:1996 with amendments to gather a deeper understanding of the requirement and the procedure. It appears the procedure is at odds with the requirement. Please allow me to explain. The requirement is to establish 75% of the field points to be within -0 dB to +6 dB. Exploring the uniformity by means of constant field strength invokes Clause 6.2 a, d, e, f, and h. I have trouble with clause e. Paraphrasing for simplicity, - take the data - find the mean in V/m - throw out the worst 25% - the remaining points shall lie within +/-3 dB - use the lowest of the remaining points as reference. The 4th step does not make sense to me. I can still maintain a -0, +6 dB spread without invoking a +/- 3 dB window about the median. As an illustration, suppose I have data that establishes a spread from -15 dB to +4 dB about the mean. My worst 4 points are -15, -14, -13, -12 dB. So these points are clearly further from the mean than +4 dB and are deleted. The remaining points are clustered between +1 and +4 dB. Step e says the remaining points shall remain within +/- 3 dB, so the point at +4 dB is considered non-compliant, even though it is only 3 dB away from the lowest point. Step f says to make the lowest point the reference for -0, +6 dB. This being the case, my non-compliant point, originally identified as +4 dB from the mean is now well within the -0, +6 dB range of the reference, but is considered non-compliant. I realize the standard allows up to 3% of points to fall between +6 and +10 dB, but that is not the issue. This point should not have been identified as non-compliant in the first place, but clause e requires it to be identified as non-compliant. Does anyone know the rationale to clause e? What am I missing? Are there any committee members out there who can shed some light on this? Kind regards, Don Umbdenstock TEPG -- Sensormatic 561 912 6440 --- 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: Stun Guns on Aircraft.
Relax. The worst would be a modern Windows-based system that must be rebooted after the 'blue-screens' and 'general protection faults'. David -Original Message- From: Fred Townsend [mailto:f...@poasana.com] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:24 PM To: Gregg Kervill Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Stun Guns on Aircraft. Do you think the EMI from a stun gun can compare to the airplane being hit by lightning? World wide, airplanes are hit by lightning every day. They don't crash. Relax If you want something to worry about... worry about the FAA flight tracking computers that were built the 1970s that fail every day somewhere across the USA. Be very worried. Fred Townsend Gregg Kervill wrote: There have been several reports here (in the US) that airlines are placing guns or stun-guns on aircraft. I understand the risk of a bullet - I understand that the risk can be reduced by using a flat, disc-shaped, rubber projectile. BUT, the though of ANYONE discharging a stun gun on a flight deck full of mission critical (and sometimes not well buffered) electronics scares me more that the though of a terrorist. Please can someone tell me that I should not worry - or to stop flying. Best regards Gregg --- 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 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: Inquiry on standard specifying potential ESD hazard reduced t o a level BELOW 200V
Paul, ANSI/EIA-625-1994 Requirements for Handling Electrostatic-Discharge-Sensitive (ESDS) Devices specifies that antistatic packaging shall not triboelectric charge to greater than +/-200V; and workstation equipment 'shall not generate +/-200V within twelve (12) inches of unprotected ESDS devices during use.' EIA-625 explains how to handle ESDS devices; there is no distinction regarding 'customer's semiconductors' or even 'semiconductors'. David -Original Message- From: paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com [mailto:paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:34 PM To: emc-pstc (E-mail) Subject: RE: Inquiry on standard specifying potential ESD hazard reduced to a level BELOW 200V Folks, Is there a standard specifying that the potential ESD hazard Must Be reduced to a level BELOW 200V ( or other max. voltage ) adjacent to any location where a customer's Semiconductor Device Under Test might be Handled or Contacted. Your comments would be most appreciated. Best Regards,Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., Boston, MA 02111 paul.j.sm...@teradyne.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
RE: Suitable CDN for IEC61000-4-6 ethernet 10/100
LINK LOSS Complete link loss is likely from the collision-detect circuitry (EUT or AE); it interprets the induced RF + signal as a collision. Hubs typically 'partition' ports having high collision rates (remaining ports function normally if the noisy node is disconnected). Some hubs 'unpartition' a noisy port if it is quiet for several minutes. In my opinion, a partitioned port is a failure. BIT ERROR Ethernet is designed for a 1E-10 to 1E-14 bit-error-rate environment. Higher rates clog the network with resent packets. See M. Shooman, The Reliability of Error Correcting Code Implementations. Proc RAMS:1996. IEEE, p148,ff. IEC61000-4-6 acceptance criteria do not require theoretical bit-error rates during screening. Consider your customer: evaluate competitive product and set your goal at equal or better performance. TEST VALIDITY In light of the above, it is important that the immunity test configuration be close to real world. 1) Preserve the IEEE802.3 transmission line - avoid short cables (especially with F-E) and do not attach probes to the line (possible antenna) 2) Cat-5 is required for Ethernet/F-E; 10/100 should also be tested at 10Mb on Cat-3 3) 'band-aid' fixes for EN55022 can reduce immunity; ferrited RJ-45's increase back pressure causing cable-length sensitivites (very bad - customer complaints - no fault found). 4) Field strength is high near the RF input end of the EM clamp. Keep unrelated AE cables away from this area; 300mm clamp-EUT separationmay be required (which you should note on the data sheet). TECHNICAL A good starting point is Application Note 8.7 by T. Greene and P. Brandt on SMSC's website http://www.smsc.com David Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:35 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Suitable CDN for IEC61000-4-6 ethernet 10/100 Maybe there's the rub. We have usually tried to test a device to device link using a crossover cable. We haven't had to worry about small errors. I considered a link loss to be failure; and that's what I was seeing...a complete link loss. Perhaps using a bridge or other type of LAN driving device would make our Ethernet link seem more robust during the test. What do you mean by a lxia box? Chris -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:18 PM To: Pommerenke, David; Chris Maxwell; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Suitable CDN for IEC61000-4-6 ethernet 10/100 Yup, when we do immunity testing - we see the occassional crc error or the ilk, but I've never seen a problem with the link. We use an Ixia box to cram data down the lines. There are probably many other traffic generators that will work just fine but none of them are pocket change. Gary -Original Message- --- 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: Suitable CDN for IEC61000-4-6 ethernet 10/100
Most people use the EM clamp. We test to EN50130-4 alarm system limits: 10V, pulsed and AM modulated. The test is trivial because of the inherent immunity of Ethernet; be sure you understand the EUT and AE port partitioning algorithms. Constructing a CDN that compliant to ANSI/IEEE 802.3/802.3u twisted pair transmission line definitions for 10BaseT and 100BaseTX is not trivial. When you play games with the transmission line the Ethernet/F-E link becomes 'cable-length sensitive', i.e. less S/N at certain cable lengths ... confounding the immunity test results. It is probably possible to design an Ethernet/F-E CDN, I would want correlation data before using it. EN55022:1998 RF-conducted emissions test methods for UTP Ethernet are controversial; I prefer to discuss them off-line. David Sterner ADEMCO, Syosset, NY -Original Message- From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:carpenti...@thmulti.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Suitable CDN for IEC61000-4-6 ethernet 10/100 Hello group, IEC 61000-4-6 mentions a decision chart on the use of injection method: 1rst question of this chart: are suitable CDN's available? if YES: use CDN as per 6.2.2 if NO: use other means (e.g. EM Clamp) My question: 1. Are CDN's used for CE in EN55022 suitable CDN's for ethernet 10/100BaseT? (like ENY22 of RS) I might assume these CDN will at least attenuate the ethernet signal and thus make the signal more sensitive to the AM coupled signal 2. Assumed the CDN is suitable, is it allowed to use an alternative method like EM Clamp anyway? As usual, many thanks for your valuable responses Regards, Kris Carpentier --- 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: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection
Ari, Circuit diagram is EN61000-4-5: Figure 10. My coil was 20mH coil: www.wilcocorp.com P/N HFT-203 which has a DC resistance, R(L), of 2 ohms. The key is minimizing R(L). Ethernet incorporates internal threshold-detection and noise-rejection; low level signals are rejected both devices on the link. Twisted-Pair Ethernet is transformer-isolated at each end to eliminate DC; signal is inherently limited due to 100-ohm source impedence. David -Original Message- From: ari.honk...@nokia.com [mailto:ari.honk...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:26 AM To: david_ster...@ademco.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection David, if you have a decoupling circuit that keeps the surge away but passes ethernet, how about posting the details here? Lots of us would be most interested! Ari -Original Message- From: ext david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: 27 March, 2002 22:20 To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Richard, We made our own decoupler with low-resistance 20mH coils. You really should have an active link during conditioning. Off-line surge will not detect a partitioned port; if there is no link, there can be no partition. A slow link is better than no link. David -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection You will not be able to transfer data when the decoupling network is added for the I/O surge test per EN61000-4-5. The data rate through the decoupler is very low. However, clause 7.7 allows you to use an alertnate test set-up. We do not use a decoupler to test our high speed network. We test the network before and after the surge application and disconnect the auxilary equipment with a relay for a short interval overlaping the surge application. We have recommended to the manufacturer of the surge generator that the IEC/CENELEC techincal committee include this test method in a revision of the standard. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:34 AM To: jan.mob...@philips.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Here is one approach: Terminations: You need actual or simulated traffic (data packets) on the LAN. Terminate cables per IEEE802.x; the LAN link is a transmission line and must be correctly terminated (by LAN card or hub). Details depend on EUT functionality. Wiring configuration for emissions and immunity should be similar. If the EUT connects to a PC only via LAN, then the PC is AE; test the EUT as a stand-alone. If there are cables (USB, RS-232) to the PC or other AE, you must decide based on typical equipment proximity. Functionality during emissions test: I prefer constant signals for reproducibility. If EUT can simulate traffic internally, terminate the Ethernet cable to a PC LAN card and shut off the PC. If EUT is not an Ethernet node, set the PC's LAN card in a loopback mode (internal test routine) to send Ethernet data through the EUT. Scan all states supported by the EUT (10Mb, 100 Mb, full duplex, half duplex). Functionality during immunity test: Actual data traffic is needed because acceptance criteria references data quality. Metrics: For unambiguous results, run a program that transfers packets (or files) and tabulates errors. Monitoring the collision rate tells you if communication is degrading (some hubs have collision rate LED's; sophisticated monitoring equipment is also available). Packet-transfer rate degradation is a secondary effect. Ethernet CRC routines resend corrupted packets, higher Ethernet levels also provide correction. Because of packet resending, bit-error rate depends on where it is monitored. Tip: Specialized Ethernet diagnostic equipment may survive immunity tests. Isolate expensive monitoring equipment with low-cost hubs. David -Original Message- From: jan.mob...@philips.com [mailto:jan.mob...@philips.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Hello newsgroup readers, Question about the EMC test set-up for Emission + Immunity. We are developing a product which can be connected to the ethernet / LAN/ Internet. Do we need to connect the product to a PC (with ethernet card) in the anechoic room or can we decide to place the PC outside the anechoic room. Or can we test ONLY with an cable
RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection
Mike, A method that surges two units simultaneously (as with coaxial cable) is good. Justification: IEEE 802.3 compliance A link with a 20mH decoupler is atypical and non-compliant with ANSI/IEEE 802.3 (a.k.a. ISO/IEC 8802-3) Ethernet requirements. Inductance (noted by Richard Woods) is a problem with 100BaseTX and Gigabit Ethernet. Relating test to reality Although our Ethernet products meet EN61000-4-5 with the 20mH choke, relating test results to 'lightning strikes in the vicinity' is purely conjectural. Science project vs. immunity test Non-coax LAN links typically connect two (2) units. Testing the link eliminates the need to 'invent' new decouplers. Our typical product-qualification sample is 1; simultaneously surging a second unit is no problem. David Sterner ADEMCO Group -Original Message- From: Michael Hopkins [mailto:mhopk...@thermokeytek.com] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:56 PM To: david_ster...@ademco.com Subject: Re: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Each end individually, or the whole link at once?? Each end by itself is easier (constrained, of course, by the availability of couplers). I'll pass your comments along to the working group and see if anyone has any ideas. Best Regards, Mike Hopkins - Original Message - From: david_ster...@ademco.com To: mhopk...@thermokeytek.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:10 AM Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Mike, I would like an 'alternate method' where you can surge the entire link (i.e. both ends). The EFT test procedure includes a test for a link. Surely it is not rocket science to determine equivalent surge test parameters. David Sterner ADEMCO Group Syosset NY -Original Message- From: Michael Hopkins [mailto:mhopk...@thermokeytek.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:47 PM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection As convenor of SC77B WG11 which is responsible for the revision of this document AND as a manufacturer of simulators and coupler/decouplers, we (both the WG members and my company) have investigated a number of ways of dealing with coupling to high speed data and telecom lines. The problem is threefold: 1. You need enough back impedance in the line to support the voltage surge to be delivered to the load. 2. The back filtering must be adaquate to prevent any significant surge energy from being delivered back to the auxillary equipment (the source of the data). 3. The loading on the line from coupling (capacitance) and the impedance of the line from filtering, must be low enough that the data is not reduced to the point where it is unusable. To date, no one has offered a design that will work for data rates of more than about 100kHz. We and other manufacturers have such designs and they are available commercially. The current recommendation for high speed I/O and data lines is to take a leaf from FCC, CCITT (now ITU), and Bellcore standards which test as follows: With the data/telecom line connected, determine that the port is working properly Remove the data/telecom line, surge the input. Replace the data/telecom line and determine that the port is still functional. If anyone out there has a better recommendation, please let me have it ASAP. Our next meeting is in Berlin in May and we must have a CD of the next revision as a result of that meeting. We'll consider any design that is submitted. Best Regards, Michael Hopkins Convenor IEC SC77B WG11 mhopk...@thermokeytek.com - Original Message - From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 2:58 PM Subject: Re: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13FB2@flbocexu05) about 'EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection', on Wed, 27 Mar 2002: We have recommended to the manufacturer of the surge generator that the IEC/CENELEC techincal committee include this test method in a revision of the standard. You should make the same proposal to IEC SC77B through your national committee of the IEC. The equipment manufacturer may be reluctant to support a proposal that requires modification to his product. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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:
RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection
Richard, We made our own decoupler with low-resistance 20mH coils. You really should have an active link during conditioning. Off-line surge will not detect a partitioned port; if there is no link, there can be no partition. A slow link is better than no link. David -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 12:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection You will not be able to transfer data when the decoupling network is added for the I/O surge test per EN61000-4-5. The data rate through the decoupler is very low. However, clause 7.7 allows you to use an alertnate test set-up. We do not use a decoupler to test our high speed network. We test the network before and after the surge application and disconnect the auxilary equipment with a relay for a short interval overlaping the surge application. We have recommended to the manufacturer of the surge generator that the IEC/CENELEC techincal committee include this test method in a revision of the standard. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:34 AM To: jan.mob...@philips.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Here is one approach: Terminations: You need actual or simulated traffic (data packets) on the LAN. Terminate cables per IEEE802.x; the LAN link is a transmission line and must be correctly terminated (by LAN card or hub). Details depend on EUT functionality. Wiring configuration for emissions and immunity should be similar. If the EUT connects to a PC only via LAN, then the PC is AE; test the EUT as a stand-alone. If there are cables (USB, RS-232) to the PC or other AE, you must decide based on typical equipment proximity. Functionality during emissions test: I prefer constant signals for reproducibility. If EUT can simulate traffic internally, terminate the Ethernet cable to a PC LAN card and shut off the PC. If EUT is not an Ethernet node, set the PC's LAN card in a loopback mode (internal test routine) to send Ethernet data through the EUT. Scan all states supported by the EUT (10Mb, 100 Mb, full duplex, half duplex). Functionality during immunity test: Actual data traffic is needed because acceptance criteria references data quality. Metrics: For unambiguous results, run a program that transfers packets (or files) and tabulates errors. Monitoring the collision rate tells you if communication is degrading (some hubs have collision rate LED's; sophisticated monitoring equipment is also available). Packet-transfer rate degradation is a secondary effect. Ethernet CRC routines resend corrupted packets, higher Ethernet levels also provide correction. Because of packet resending, bit-error rate depends on where it is monitored. Tip: Specialized Ethernet diagnostic equipment may survive immunity tests. Isolate expensive monitoring equipment with low-cost hubs. David -Original Message- From: jan.mob...@philips.com [mailto:jan.mob...@philips.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Hello newsgroup readers, Question about the EMC test set-up for Emission + Immunity. We are developing a product which can be connected to the ethernet / LAN/ Internet. Do we need to connect the product to a PC (with ethernet card) in the anechoic room or can we decide to place the PC outside the anechoic room. Or can we test ONLY with an cable with NO termination. What is your opinion Thanks in advance, Jan Mobers --- 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
RE: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection
Here is one approach: Terminations: You need actual or simulated traffic (data packets) on the LAN. Terminate cables per IEEE802.x; the LAN link is a transmission line and must be correctly terminated (by LAN card or hub). Details depend on EUT functionality. Wiring configuration for emissions and immunity should be similar. If the EUT connects to a PC only via LAN, then the PC is AE; test the EUT as a stand-alone. If there are cables (USB, RS-232) to the PC or other AE, you must decide based on typical equipment proximity. Functionality during emissions test: I prefer constant signals for reproducibility. If EUT can simulate traffic internally, terminate the Ethernet cable to a PC LAN card and shut off the PC. If EUT is not an Ethernet node, set the PC's LAN card in a loopback mode (internal test routine) to send Ethernet data through the EUT. Scan all states supported by the EUT (10Mb, 100 Mb, full duplex, half duplex). Functionality during immunity test: Actual data traffic is needed because acceptance criteria references data quality. Metrics: For unambiguous results, run a program that transfers packets (or files) and tabulates errors. Monitoring the collision rate tells you if communication is degrading (some hubs have collision rate LED's; sophisticated monitoring equipment is also available). Packet-transfer rate degradation is a secondary effect. Ethernet CRC routines resend corrupted packets, higher Ethernet levels also provide correction. Because of packet resending, bit-error rate depends on where it is monitored. Tip: Specialized Ethernet diagnostic equipment may survive immunity tests. Isolate expensive monitoring equipment with low-cost hubs. David -Original Message- From: jan.mob...@philips.com [mailto:jan.mob...@philips.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Hello newsgroup readers, Question about the EMC test set-up for Emission + Immunity. We are developing a product which can be connected to the ethernet / LAN/ Internet. Do we need to connect the product to a PC (with ethernet card) in the anechoic room or can we decide to place the PC outside the anechoic room. Or can we test ONLY with an cable with NO termination. What is your opinion Thanks in advance, Jan Mobers --- 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: Temporarily disabling a fire fighting system
John Woodgate wrote: But what advice to you give about the circumstances under which the system may be switched off? The building must surely be substantially unoccupied, so that lives are not at risk. But there may be other requirements as well; the insurers wouldn't like the building to burn down even if there were no people in it.. John makes very good points. You must balance dual objectives of protecting lives/property and preventing false alarms (hollering 'wolf'). 1) If mains is disabled, the Control Panel reports a power loss fault to the Central Station which investigates and/or notifies authorities. This is not recommended: fire and police departments do not appreciate false alarms; some even charge fines. 2) An authorized user code is needed to disarm via keypad console; the Central Station will be alerted to the status change but will probably not investigate unless other faults are sent. Disarming the fire detection for maintenance (e.g. replace batteries, add or replace sensors) requires maintenance-level access. This puts the building at risk, but down time is presumably short, and the maintenance person is likely on site in case of fire. 3) If the entire system is wiped out (explosion, cutting telco, etc.) the Central Station automatically supervises the site on a regular basis and detects missing communicating devices. The Central Station can investigate the fault and/or notify authorities. The extent of protection depends on system installation, programming and the Central Station service agreement. Proposed functionality levels are given in prEN50131-n and prEN30133-n. Local requirements may apply as well. David Sterner Alarm Device Manufacturing Co. ADEMCO Group, Syosset NY -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Temporarily disabling a fire fighting system I read in !emc-pstc that david_ster...@ademco.com wrote (in 2DF7C54A75B dd311b61700508b64231002c5a...@nyhqex1.ademcohq.com) about 'Temporarily disabling a fire fighting system', on Tue, 19 Mar 2002: Our Installation Instructions for Fire/Burglary Alarm Control Panels specify permanent wiring to the mains for security reasons. However, a double-pole circuit breaker on the branch circuit supplying the control panel is recommended to satisfy the LVD. In the US-Canada we have optional radio- and cellular links so the panel with aux. battery reports faults even if mains and telephone are severed by intruders. To temporarily disable the system it is best to enter the proper commands on a keypad console. But what advice to you give about the circumstances under which the system may be switched off? The building must surely be substantially unoccupied, so that lives are not at risk. But there may be other requirements as well; the insurers wouldn't like the building to burn down even if there were no people in it.. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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 --- 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: Temporarily disabling a fire fighting system
Arno, Our Installation Instructions for Fire/Burglary Alarm Control Panels specify permanent wiring to the mains for security reasons. However, a double-pole circuit breaker on the branch circuit supplying the control panel is recommended to satisfy the LVD. In the US-Canada we have optional radio- and cellular links so the panel with aux. battery reports faults even if mains and telephone are severed by intruders. To temporarily disable the system it is best to enter the proper commands on a keypad console. David -Original Message- From: Arno van Kesteren [mailto:avkes...@eso.org] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:44 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Arno van Kesteren Subject: Temporarily disabling a fire fighting system Dear All, Although maybe a bit out of the scope of this group I still hope that this issue may be dealt with. I would like to know whether the standards allow the installation of a switch in a fire detection fighting system to be able to temporarily disable its operation. If not, what would be the procedure to build in such functionality ? Arno van Kesteren ESO Munich, Germany e-mail: avkes...@eso.org --- 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 --- 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: anybody have a better link than this to the fcc rules - only shows the odd sections of part 15
Maybe it's for future harmonization with IEC-CEI specs: they can put French on even-numbered pages. Dave -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: anybody have a better link than this to the fcc rules - only shows the odd sections of part 15 I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff Gary.McInturff@worldwidepackets .com wrote (in 917063bab0ddb043af5faa73c7a835d40ac...@windlord.wwp.com ) about 'anybody have a better link than this to the fcc rules - only shows the odd sections of part 15', on Mon, 18 Mar 2002: 2. Did you remember to look at both sides of the paper? Yes, you need a display with an anode-ray tube (positrons) to see the even pages (in white letters on a black background, of course). And in mirror-writing, unless you reverse the horizontal scan. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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 --- 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: CE Mark on Product Packaging
Russell, The RTTE CE-marking includes a character (!) if geographical or TELCO-interface restrictions. LVD/EMC CE-marking is simply 'CE', no extra information. The compulsory RTTE marking is good; no one wants customers to break seals on retail packages to find whether RTTE products have restricted application. Optional LVD/EMC marking CE-marking of retail packaging is a good idea. CE-marking on cartons is not so important if product is sold in bulk packs to professional installers. David -Original Message- From: Russell [mailto:r@totalise.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:39 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: CE Mark on Product Packaging Does anybody know why the placing of the CE mark on product packaging is compulsory under the RTTE Directive, yet optional under the EMC and LVD Directives? Or am I wrong? Only curious, Russell. --- 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 --- 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: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Kevin, Council Directive 99/5/EC does call out directives 73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC. Since some customers are not aware of the linkage, listing all three directives on the DofC avoids having to 'educate the customer'. Either way, standards applied will tell the story. David -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 --- 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: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning? (cleaning mating surface s, chassis, )
I imported it from their website into MS Word. It prints on legal (8-1/2 x 17) paper. Click on any product, then click the topics in the pull-down menu. Select 'metal compatibility' David -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:43 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning? (cleaning mating surfaces, chassis, ) How can one obtain the graph? I got mine by accident. Instrument Specialties is only a six hour drive away. We have done osme business with them and they used to visit our company regularly. During one of the visits they just gave me a design guide (it's a catalog of products that also includes some tips on how to use their products). I've been told that Instrument Specialties is now Laird Technologies. Maybe you can look them up on the web? (www.instr.com still works) It would really be great if they had put their design guide online. Or maybe if you could contact them from the website; perhaps they could mail you a design guide. The potential problem here is that my copy is an old one ~1997. They may have edited the metals compatibility graph out of later editions. Best regards, Chris -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:19 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning? (cleaning mating surfaces, chassis, ) I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote (in 83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaaf7d...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com) about 'Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning? (cleaning mating surfaces, chassis, )', on Fri, 1 Mar 2002: If you're worried about galvanic corrosion. An excellent (and free) source of information is the Instrument Specialties Catalog and Design Guide.The back cover is a foldout which has a very nice color coded chart that shows metal compatibility while taking into account the environment. Their graph is easily worth a thousand words. How can one obtain it? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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/so
RE: Japan mains voltage
Much of Japan is 100V 50Hz (worst case for transformers). Japan approval should cover 50/60Hz. Hotels generate a 120V 60Hz for US appliances. The 200V supply is more complicated. I had a JEOL electron microscope that wanted 3-phase 200 volts. They would not let us run it on 208V 3-phase and we had to install an elaborate conversion network. David -Original Message- From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 8:33 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Japan mains voltage According to World Electricity Supplies from BSI, voltage is 200/100, 60 Hz. We have certainly produced 100V 60 Hz specials for Japan. Regards, John Crabb, Development Excellence (Product Safety) , NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd., Discovery Centre, 3 Fulton Road, Dundee, Scotland, DD2 4SW E-Mail :john.cr...@scotland.ncr.com Tel: +44 (0)1382-592289 (direct ). Fax +44 (0)1382-622243. VoicePlus 6-341-2289. -Original Message- From: Darren Pearson [mailto:dar...@genesysibs.com] Sent: 20 February 2002 12:46 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Japan mains voltage Can anyone tell me what the mains voltage is in Japan, I think it is 110V but I do not know the frequency. apart from this, does any one know of a web site that gives information about the mains voltage and frequency of various countries ? Regards Darren. Darren Pearson Radio Telecom Approval Services Genesys Singleton Court, Wonastow Road Monmouth, NP25 5JA UK Tel: +44 1600 710300 Fax: +44 1600 710301 email: dar...@genesysibs.com mailto:dar...@genesysibs.com web: www.genesysibs.com http://www.genesysibs.com
RE: CE - abbreviation
Amund,
I don't think the discussion reached a consensus. An early book on the
subject,
Chris Marshman. The Guide to the EMC Directive. 1992:IEEE Press,
Piscataway NJ 308p.,
identified 'Communauté Européen' as the reason for 'CE' (p11 of
Introduction).
Some explainations are anachronistic. The 'European Community' ('Community
European' in romance languages) was still 'European Economic Community' when
the symbol was created. Chris may be correct.
David
-Original Message-
From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:40 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: CE - the abbreviation
Hi all,
We had a short discussion last autumn about the abbreviation of 'CE'. Did we
conclude that the characters CE didn't mean anything? I have seen papers
recently that says CE is 'Communauté Européen', but we did conclude that it
was incorrect, didn't we ?
Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway
---
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
---
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: Alpha particles
Jim, Alpha particle effects on DRAMS is fairly well documented because charge is temporarily stored in the cells. Most DRAMs today use refresh cycles with Hamming codes and enough extra cells for SECSED error detection and correction. See Proc. IRPS-1988 (2 papers including information on computer simulation, good bibliographies) and the classic paper by Tom May and Murray Woods in IEEE Trans. Electron Devices vol. ED-26 pp2-9. Simulation is tricky because you need parameters of incident angle, junction depth, stored charge q/cell. You may need Monte Carlo projections to come up with events/hour. Re FITS Alpha particles cause 'soft errors' by generating hole-electron pairs that alter the state of a DRAM cell. Even if the refresh error-correction scheme fails (2 or more soft errors in the same row between refresh cycles), a 'hard failure' does not occur so correlation to FITS is not mathematically possible - 'temporary' failures are treated as f(t). [FYI per D. Stewart Peck (who coined the acronym), 'FITS' is a contraction of 'Failure unITS', not Failure(s) In Time, despite what you heard in reliability short courses] David Sterner -Original Message- From: Jim Freeman [mailto:free...@chelsio.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:09 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Alpha particles Hi All, I am trying to calibrate Alpha Particles to the charge that they generate in a semiconductor. If anybody can help me with the energy of the Alpha Particle(I think 1Mev), the number of electron-hole pairs generated per Alpha particle in the junction or the bulk, and some ideas on how to convert Alpha particles counts per hour(cph) to Failures in time(FIT) rate. we a re employing a bump technology for our product and this could be of concern. The Vendor has given us some FIT rates and I would like to correlate that to the cph( also given) I have the geometries involved but there may be some that I have not considered. Thanks Jim Freeman --- 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: ENV 50141 and EN 61000-4-6
A proposed amendment to EN50130-4 invokes EN61000-4-6 and clarifies other problems. Unfortunately it also calls out RF radiated immunity to 2GHz. Meanwhile, with EN50131-4's exceptions to ENV 50141, the switch to EN61000-4-5 is a moot point. David -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:12 PM To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 Ditto here too. John Juhasz Fiber Options -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:24 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 We test to EN50130-4 and we use EN61000-4-6 basud upon our understanding that ENV 50141 is withdrawn (see forward) and replaced by EN61000-4-6. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Mavis, Robert [mailto:rma...@pelco.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:09 AM To: cet...@cetest.nl; John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 So what do I do? Follow the EN 50130-4 : 1996 standard that states; The test apparatus procedure shall be as described in ENV 50141 : 1993, with the following modifications and clarifications taken into account. or do I substitute EN 61000-4-6 in place of ENV 50141. -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 10:55 AM To: Mavis, Robert; John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 It looks as if you are right, but in the case of any ENV version of a standard, this calling out is incorrect. Any ENV standard is NOT a standard. It was never meant to be used as a standard but temporarily. The EN version following it WAS. However, in this case the EN 50141 was not published, so the only alternative is the EN 61000-4-6. The ENV version, as it says itself, automatically becomes non-existent as soon as its successor is published. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Mavis, Robert Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 4:55 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 John, Even though the ENV is a pre-standard, if a Product Family Standard calls it out you must test to it. Am I not correct. Case in point, EN 50130-4 Product Family Standard for Alarm Systems calls out specifically ENV 50141 not EN 61000-4-6. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk wrote (in 01c19a92.f4398e80.chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk) about 'EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6', on Fri, 11 Jan 2002: I am testing to the generic immunity standard EN 61000-6-2 which refers to EN 61000-4-6 for immunity to conducted disturbances induced by radio-frequency fields. A query has arisen that EN 50141 is missing from my list of tests. Is my understanding correct that these two standards are essentially the same? I do not have a copy of either and currently awaiting delivery of EN 61000-4-6 which I have recently purchased. 50141 is an ENV (a 'pre-standard'), not an EN and is not called up by EN61000-6-2. Whoever threatened you with 'EN50141' is unaware of the facts. If it was a test-house, get another one! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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
RE: EMC-related safety issues
My copy of BS EN 50140-4:1996 was 'published under the authority of the Standards Board and comes into effect on 15 August 1996.' BS DOW was 2001-01-01 for the 1998 version. Amendment 10102 dated September 1998 affects page 3, adding 'alarm transmission systems' to the scope. Comments: 1) Supersedes generic immunity requirements if product is positioned within scope EN50130-4. 2) Test conditions and acceptance criteria differ from generic immunity David -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:59 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002: more severe immunity requirements apply. Those requirements are either specified in EN 50130-4 According to the BSI web site, BS EN 50130-4 is not yet published. Comments? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- 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: RJ45 filtered connector
Some Ethernet history will explain the situation: 10BaseT Ethernet was designed to run on the same cable with telephone to simplify connectivity to cubicles. Non-telco pins were selected for Ethernet so RJ-45 jacks could accept either a telephone- or Ethernet plug. This combination wiring scheme was never very popular in the USA, and totally illegal in Europe (where telco wiring MUST be separated from all other wiring). All references to a combined Ethernet-telco wiring scheme were removed from NIC Installation Instructions around 1991 because European customers were being advised to violate the law!! The RJ-45 jack specified in for T-P in ANSI/IEEE 802.3 is an artifact of a 'connectivity improvement' that never made it. Also 1) TIA/EIA-968 replaced CFR 47 Part 68 now that ACTA is in charge 2) TIA/EIA-968 has no reference whatsoever to Ethernet 3) It is very difficult to change ANSI/IEEE802.3 retroactively David -Original Message- From: John Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:56 AM To: david_ster...@ademco.com; john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com; ows...@cisco.com; rhe...@vicon-cctv.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector David: The pertinent and defining specification is contained in the FCC Rules, 47 FR Part 68. Everything else is a misuse of the original intent. An RJ11 is also defined there. ALL RJ designations are specified for use within the telephone industry. Is is too bad that the Networking groups chose to use the same designation for the same modular plug with different wiring. That is the same as calling all DB-25 connectors an RS-232 connector, even if used for a different application. John -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of david_ster...@ademco.com Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 9:12 AM To: john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com; ows...@cisco.com; rhe...@vicon-cctv.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector John, The pertinent specification, ANSI/IEEE 802.3 (a.k.a. ISO/IEC8802.3), describes the Ethernet physical layer plug/jack as an RJ-45. ArcNet twisted pair was RJ-11. If you purchase jacks that include internal filters, be sure the filters are designed for Ethernet/F-E (10BaseT 100BaseTX). Some ferrite filters are designed to suppress digital noise in voice telephone lines. These ferrites can cause 'back pressure' on the digital signal, resulting in cable-length sensitivity; i.e. the impedance curve no longer meets 802.3. You can live with cable-length sensitivity on emissions (to 'isolate' the EUT), but expect diminished RF immunity with certain cable lengths when filters are inserted in the T-P line. Ethernet components are rigorously tested for 802.3 compliance (waveforms, jitter, SQE, bit-error rate) and for compatibility with components from other manufacturers. These compatibility-suite tests are performed without any additional T-P line filters. Any altered interface is your responsibility; results may or may not represent real world installations. David -Original Message- From: John Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 6:10 PM To: 'Bill Owsley'; 'John Shinn'; 'Reginald Henry'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector Acutally, the term RJ is used by the FCC for designating connectors that are part of the registration (now approval) process. So why would you want to call a ethernet connector by a designation used by the telephone industry? I am not going to police the use of the term, but I wanted to put that information out to everyone. Regards, John Shinn -Original Message- From: Bill Owsley [mailto:ows...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 2:32 PM To: John Shinn; 'Reginald Henry'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector so if we called it an RJ-48C, would that be better ?? At 04:56 PM 12/20/2001 , John Shinn wrote: Although it may suprise some, and I may get flak, but an RJ45 connector is an specific configuration used exclusively for a programmable data connection. It has a specific wiring configuration. The RJ stands for Registered Jack. This is an FCC designation of that specific configuration. There is nothing against using an 8-pin modular plug/jack for 10Base-Tor 100Base-T, or even microphone inputs to my Ham radio, but do not call it a RJ45. Now, yes, there are several vendors that produce shielded and filtered 8-pin modular jacks. I remember using them and working with several vendors a few years ago, but I would suggest you look at the website or catalogs of the major connector suppliers. John Shinn, P.E. Manager, Lab. Operations. Sanmina-SCI -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [ mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn
RE: RJ45 filtered connector
John, The pertinent specification, ANSI/IEEE 802.3 (a.k.a. ISO/IEC8802.3), describes the Ethernet physical layer plug/jack as an RJ-45. ArcNet twisted pair was RJ-11. If you purchase jacks that include internal filters, be sure the filters are designed for Ethernet/F-E (10BaseT 100BaseTX). Some ferrite filters are designed to suppress digital noise in voice telephone lines. These ferrites can cause 'back pressure' on the digital signal, resulting in cable-length sensitivity; i.e. the impedance curve no longer meets 802.3. You can live with cable-length sensitivity on emissions (to 'isolate' the EUT), but expect diminished RF immunity with certain cable lengths when filters are inserted in the T-P line. Ethernet components are rigorously tested for 802.3 compliance (waveforms, jitter, SQE, bit-error rate) and for compatibility with components from other manufacturers. These compatibility-suite tests are performed without any additional T-P line filters. Any altered interface is your responsibility; results may or may not represent real world installations. David -Original Message- From: John Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 6:10 PM To: 'Bill Owsley'; 'John Shinn'; 'Reginald Henry'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector Acutally, the term RJ is used by the FCC for designating connectors that are part of the registration (now approval) process. So why would you want to call a ethernet connector by a designation used by the telephone industry? I am not going to police the use of the term, but I wanted to put that information out to everyone. Regards, John Shinn -Original Message- From: Bill Owsley [mailto:ows...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 2:32 PM To: John Shinn; 'Reginald Henry'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RJ45 filtered connector so if we called it an RJ-48C, would that be better ?? At 04:56 PM 12/20/2001 , John Shinn wrote: Although it may suprise some, and I may get flak, but an RJ45 connector is an specific configuration used exclusively for a programmable data connection. It has a specific wiring configuration. The RJ stands for Registered Jack. This is an FCC designation of that specific configuration. There is nothing against using an 8-pin modular plug/jack for 10Base-Tor 100Base-T, or even microphone inputs to my Ham radio, but do not call it a RJ45. Now, yes, there are several vendors that produce shielded and filtered 8-pin modular jacks. I remember using them and working with several vendors a few years ago, but I would suggest you look at the website or catalogs of the major connector suppliers. John Shinn, P.E. Manager, Lab. Operations. Sanmina-SCI -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [ mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn Behalf Of Reginald Henry Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:51 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE:RJ45 filtered connector To All, Can anyone out there tell me where I would be able to purchase a fully shielded and filter RJ45 connector that is Bulkhead mountable. The RJ45 must be able to handle data rates from 10Base T to 100Base T I will be performing CE testing in the chamber so it must be bulkhead mountable ! Thanks and Happy Holidays to YOU ALL ! Reg --- 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/ 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/ 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
RE: Are there any standards written for FTIR analytical methods.
Check Nicolet's website [ http://www.nicolet.com http://www.nicolet.com ] application notes. For effuent monitoring with FTIR you need to determine the spectral line(s) of interest and set up instrument parameters to capture and record changes. Knowledge of the process in question as well as the 'chemical processing equipment', etc. is necessary in order to set up a procedure. Chemical standards: For quantitative results you may need to create your own concentration standards. Paper standards: If the effluent is toxic, the EPA or private environmnetal organizations may have some information. Hazmet analysis texts are also available. David Sterner -Original Message- From: lcr...@tuvam.com [mailto:lcr...@tuvam.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 9:41 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Are there any standards written for FTIR analytical methods. All, I have seen lots of papers available on using FTIR analysis in particular situations, but I have been unable to find any general standards on the use of FTIR Analysis equipment in a general sense or in the specific sense of monitoring effluent from a piece of chemical processing equipment. (FTIR = Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy) Is anyone aware of an organization that may have written such a standard test method? TIA Lauren Crane * Regional Manager for Machinery Evaluation * TÜV Product Service \ TÜV America * 1401 Wesson Cove, Cedar Park, TX 78613 * Phone 512 401-4922 Fax 512 401-9167
RE: German Translation
'Gefährdungen' is the plural 'die Gefährdung' meaning endangering or imperiling I'm not sure there is a good English equivalent, 'endangerings' is the litteral translation. David -Original Message- From: Stephen Phillips [mailto:step...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:57 AM To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: German Translation I don't carry my various language conversion dictionaries in my briefcase anymore, since spec's have come in English for many years now. But I think it might mean (in some form) Danger; spelled differently though (die Gefaehrdung: danger, hazard, peril, accident risk). Try: http://dictionaries.travlang.com/GermanEnglish/ http://dictionaries.travlang.com/GermanEnglish/ Best regards, Stephen At 08:32 AM 11/30/2001, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: Can someone please tell me what the word Gefäedungen means in English? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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/ 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: Notified Body Question
1) You can check the list of notified bodies to verify the NB listing. 2) The lab was probably accredited to EN45001 when it was valid. Accrediting bodies are transferring accreditations from 45001 and ISO Guide 25 to IEC/ISO/EN17025 but an 'upgrade' is not automatic, nor did it begin with the demise of EN45001. Accrediting bodies needed time to prepare materials and a programme for 17025. Also the test lab may have old cover pages and pre-printed certificates to use up. 3) If the report was issued before or during the transition of accreditation from EN45001, the lab cannot yet claim 17025. However if they are listed with an authorized 17025 accrediting body, they should be using very similar controls for competency of personnel and accuracy of reports. One US accreditor allows 1 year for an accredited lab to calculate its EMC uncertainty; accredited labs may have unresolved deficiencies. I recommend you e-mail the lab to affirm the status of changeover to 17025. David -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Notified Body Question Hi, I have a Notified Body test report that states the following: This report is in conformity with EN45001. Question 1) Is this an official report produced by the Notified Body as a Notified Body? In other words, can I use it in my TCF as a Notified Body test report, as it has a higher status that a ordinary test report by another laboratory? The date of the report is June 2000. EN 45001 was withdrawn on the 15 May 2000 and replaced with EN 17025. Question 2) Assuming the answer to question 1 is YES, is the report still valid ? Thank you for your help. Enci --- 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: ULC vs. CUL
Gregg, ULC is UL Canada whose logo is ULC inside a maple leaf inside a circle. ULC is now owned by UL (purchased a couple years ago) but files and administrative functions are not yet merged ULC is different from cUL and CSA (different spec #'s, files, etc.) ULC approvals are primarily Fire and Burg equipment including alarm systems Older ADEMCO products have separate UL and ULC approvals (different spec #'s, file #'s, etc). New products have UL and cUL because approval is one-stop. Maybe someone from Underwriters Laboratories can let us know UL's future plans for merging administrative functions and procedures. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset NY -Original Message- From: Gregg Kervill [mailto:gkerv...@eu-link.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:06 PM To: bur...@andovercontrols.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: ULC vs. CUL UL Underwriters' Lab is the Agency - it Lists PRODUCTS or Recognizes Components for North American use. (The Canadian counterpart is CSA Canadian Standards Association) Historically you had to apply to BOTH agencies to have a product Listed (Recognize) and Certified (for Canada). Twp submissions to two labs. Now CSA and UL have a MOU by which they acknowledge test performed by each other to their standards. UL is the UL Listing mark to a UL standard. cUL is the UL Marking that demonstrates that the product was tested by UL to a CSA standards. The recognition marks are similar but I do not have a backward R so I cannot do them here. Best regards Gregg PLEASE NOTE NEW NUMBERS P.O. Box 310, Reedville, Virginia 22539 USA Phone: (804) 453-3141 Fax: (804) 453-9039 Web: www.test4safety.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of bur...@andovercontrols.com Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ULC vs. CUL Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL. Does anyone know the difference between these two marks? Your help is always appreciated. Thanks, Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax
RE: IEEE isolation question.
Jake Obviously you refer to 10/100 twisted-pair Ethernet with isolation transformers. ANSI/IEEE802.3 (ISO/IEC8802-3) requirements are for safety and EMC protection: Cat-5 cabling is self-shielding, impedance-matched transformer terminations provide ideal transmission lines. Each link is transformer terminated at both ends. Each link of a hub/switch is isolated from all other links. Consider the gigantic 'ground loops' if network wiring were earthed. 1) radiated emissions would be impossible to control 2) immunity would degrade because of reciprocity 3) DC currents from nodes at different ground potentials would pose safety issues Interconnecting earths helter-skelter throughout buildings is scary. Clock frequencies from PC's, hubs, switches, routers, modems, etc. could couple onto the ground lines causing untold interference. Any hot chassis among nodes/hubs/switches becomes a fire hazard. COAX Under 802.3, Ethernet Coax (10Base2) also is isolated from ground at each node. The cable interface is a transformer-isolated driver with level-shifting. The coax shield is supposed to be earthed at a single point between nodes (often ignored by installers). These are my opinions and not necessarily shared by Europeans. For an alternative viewpoint, read EN55022:1998. David Sterner ADEMCO Group -Original Message- From: Jake Jung [mailto:jakej...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:38 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: jakej...@yahoo.com Subject: IEEE isolation question. Hello, I have start at new company this past week. We have ethernet products that are required to comply with the isolation requirements of IEEE802.3. We provide isolation of 2250vdc (1500vac) between the ethernet line and the secondary circuit and between the ethernet line and ground circuit. Does anyone know why these lines are not required to be grounded? If both sides of a line are connected to IEEE802.3 compliant products, I think that if there is a fault between the building power wire and a ethernet wire, the fault voltage will just float on the ethernet wire since there is not path to ground. If there are other cables attached to the device, these cables will also float the power voltage and be subject to contact if not connected on other end. Do anyone know the background on this requirement or have any thoughts on if this is correct thinking? Thank you for your help, Jake __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.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: Label - telecom port
Amund, UL once accepted a phone-ban symbol (circle and diagonal line through a desk-type telephone). They did not like the hockey-stick-ban label. I think the phone-ban symbol originated at NCR. David -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Label - telecom port Case: A telecom port (RJ-???) on a ITE is not intended to be connected to the public telecom network, but to a local Ethernet. I know that the port should be marked with a special label (assume figure 5090 in IEC 60417 with a crossover). Instead of that label, could we just put on a home made Ethernet label on the port ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- 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: Light Emission from Professional Photography Flashes
Rich, Peter, Strobe flash is not a simple calculation. The iris of the eyes and 'visual purple' both alter the sensitivity. So human susceptibility depends on darkness of the environment. Strobe flash units are rated in 'Watt-seconds' but many flash units have a thyrister circuit that cuts off the flash after a short duration. Amateur cameras have 'pre-flash' that causes the iris to close to avoid 'red eye'. Then there is a distance-to-subject factor, etc. At 2 distance, amateur flash units can be deadly. Professionals use high-powered units for group shots, but the distance to subject is much greater so the effect on the subject is reduced. Professionals using color film prefer slow flash durations 1/2000 sec because the color balance of the film is subject to reciprocity failure. Some professionals use a dark studio so that the eyes of the subject appear larger (as the iris opens), and of course, no pre-flash. But pros use 2- and 3-light set-ups; flash units are not directed at the eyes (as with amateur photographers using 'flash-on-camera'. Flash exposure is becomming less of a problem as professionals shift to digital cameras. The computerization will keep the flash intensity minimally above ambient illumination so that the subject is not harmed by the light flash. David Sterner Member of American Photographic Historical Society and IEEE -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:00 PM To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Light Emission from Professional Photography Flashes Hi Peter: Any limitations/requirements for amount of light emitted from professional photography flashes? Any UL, IEC or European standards which specify limitations? I know how many you like being photographed - but imagine what harm one of these flashes can cause to your eyes! The root question is what is the maximum safe optical energy as a function of time for the eye? I suspect there are many research documents for this eye parameter. Check out this optical radiation safety calculator: http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/jbm/home/exps/java/safe_txt.html The calculator is described for situations such as when the eye is illuminated for photography. I suspect this is for steady- state and not for flash. But, it should provide some references. Good luck, and best regards, Rich --- 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: 10/100 base interface in a plastic box
Jon, Richard, Test radiated emissions at both speeds and with each cable type. Per ANSI/IEEE 802.3 and 802.3h, 100BaseTX has 1/2 the pulse height of 10BaseT (to reduce EMI). Whether to earth the shield (or semi-shield) is an eternal question. These four possibilities can occur (since a hub uplink connects to another hub) with floating shield: 1) STP cable earthed at AE end only - emissions are produced by AE, not EUT 2) STP cable earthed at EUT only - emissions will be from EUT 3) STP cable earthed at both ends - higher emissions due to ground loops (ground planes of both units are connected to the shield). If you add caps, the emissions can actually increase. 4) STP cable floating at both ends - minimal effect on emissions So long as you can justify your design and test methodology either approach is acceptable. David Sterner -Original Message- From: Stone, Richard A (Richard) [mailto:rsto...@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 8:22 AM To: 'Jon Keeble'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: 10/100 base interface in a plastic box Jon, if your running high etherent freq. and the shield is NOT grounded, you might fail class A FCC/Cispr 22. Richard, -Original Message- From: Jon Keeble [mailto:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: 10/100 base interface in a plastic box RJ45s come in shielded, unshielded, and shielded with integral magnetics (and probably other flavors as well). Has anybody got any suggestions / experience / whatever re the use of one or other of these parts in a product that will live in a plastic box, power by an external mains adapter / internal regulator. The intention is to use UTP cable. I've read Intel's appnotes regarding layout for PHY / Magnetics / RJ45. In a situation with no chassis to call chassis ground, I suspect the shield is irrelevant. However, I'm rather attracted to the 'integral magnetics' solution, and these all seem to have shields. Given that the planes are void under the connector I suppose that means this shield will just have to be 'not connected. Has anybody got a recommendation regarding voids under the 'integral magnetics' part? Regards Jon Keeble --- 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: ESD Immunity Testing
Rich, Multiple zaps and step-stress techniques are ideal for evaluation and characterization of new circuitry during the engineering phase of development. The proof of good engineering design is an ESD test at the system level to the applicable ESD standard(s). The typical ten zaps may not cover all logic states, but a sampling plan of several EUT's will increase your confidence. IEC/EN61000-4-2 is a 'human body' test and does not advocate multiple repeated zaps because 1) a human body discharge does not deliver multiple zaps - i.e. multiple zaps are not a real-world event 2) at air-discharge points where full discharge does not occur multiple zaps are not practical 3) depending on the circuitry, discharge path heating from multiple zaps could cause spurious failure modes unlikely to occur in the field 4) for cases where multiple discharge is likely, power-line-crossover tests are available As you observed, ESD at the system level is much more stochastic than at the component level. Alas, the majority of technical publications address safe-handling techniques and component ESD immunity (my previous ESD experience was developing protection structures for CMOS and CMOS-SOI integrated circuits). IEC61000-4-2 and its predecessors are by far the most realistic system-level tests. Design engineering can simulate ESD pulses (SPICE or equivalent software) and determine the protection needed. Prototypes can be tested as you mentioned. The final verification is the applicable ESD standard. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset NY -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org@PITTWAYNOTES On Behalf Of wo...@sensormatic.com@PITTWAYNOTES Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:28 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESD Immunity Testing Since my last posting on trying to find an ESD expert, I have had to become that expert. After reading the ANSI ESD standard and its references, it is clear that ESD experts are mostly in agreement on how to correctly perform ESD immunity testing. It is also clear test methods in the EN/IEC specifications do not follow that advice. ESD testing is a statistical process, so the test methods and the analysis of the results must be based upon statistics. There are three basic causes. 1) The distribution of ESD events in the operating environment has a non-uniform distribution where the number of expected events per hour is inversely proportional to approximately the square of the voltage. This implies in testing that the number of applied zaps in testing and their levels should also follow this distribution. 2) Digital devices are state machines and some states may be less immune to ESD than other states. This implies that each state should be tested. However, most digital devices have a huge number of states and they change very quickly; therefore, the only way to ensure that even most of the states have been evaluated is to apply a very large number of zap. 3) There may be a probability distribution for the locations on the machine where an ESD discharge is likely to occur. That is, it is not always equally likely that a person or an object will come in contact with any given point on any given surface. Statistics can be used to determine the voltage levels that should be applied and the quantity required at each level in order to provide a specified confidence level that a machine will have no more than a specified number of errors per unit time. However, the number of zaps required is very high, usually in the order of one to ten thousand. The drawback, of course, it that the testing can be time consuming. However, applying in the order of one hundred zaps to a machine according to the EN/IEC specifications will provide such a very, very low confidence level that one cannot reasonably predict the expected error rate in the field. Worst, the results are not repeatable since some states may be tested during one test session and others may be tested during another session. The only predictable case where this might not occur would be with a machine with an ESD robustness level for all states that are far above the actual test levels. So here is my question to those of you involved in the EN/IEC standards - why have these statistical test processes not been acknowledged in the standards? Richard Woods --- 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:
RE: WTC - voice alarm system?
Paul, American Society for Quality ( website, http:/www.asq.org ) is asking for professionals to volunteer for a panel to do this type of analysis. Probabilistic evaluations (Reliability, Quality, Fault Tree) are more ASQ than EMC. We all want to do something constructive and are frustrated by our inability to contribute. Here is a chance for us to help. David -Original Message- From: paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com@PITTWAYNOTES Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 9:54 AM To: Whitehouse, Terence (Terry) twhiteho...@avaya.com Cc: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com; 'david_ster...@ademco.com' david_ster...@ademco.com; j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: WTC - voice alarm system? Folks, The subject discussion is appropriate for the audience if it can be focused on possible methods to continue to ensure safety compliance. Several Standards (including SEMI S10, EN 1050 etc. ) require that a written risk assessment also be provided to demonstrate compliance to the relevant safety standard. Many compliance engineers are also involved in risk evaluations of one type or another of the following. 1. ) Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) 2.) Risk Assessments 3.) Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) 4.) Reliability and /or Quality Assurance Regards,Paul J Smith, Teradyne, Boston Whitehouse, Terence (Terry) twhiteho...@avaya.com@majordomo.ieee.org on 09/18/2001 04:05:23 PM Please respond to Whitehouse, Terence (Terry) twhiteho...@avaya.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org To: 'Price, Ed' ed.pr...@cubic.com, 'david_ster...@ademco.com' david_ster...@ademco.com, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: WTC - voice alarm system? Ed, The name of this forum is EMC-PSTC - EMC and product safety. For us a group, speculating on general matters of security is not appropriate. There are other professional bodies and organizations created and staffed specifically to address this very sensitive subject. Let us focus on what were are here to do - promote the design and placement of our products in the global marketplace. Design of annunciation systems hardened against (i.e. immune to) unauthorized external signals is what we should be endeavoring to create. Human dynamics should be the province of those specializing in the subject. I am sure that, with the enormous wealth of experience that exists within this group, there are some real meaningful contributions that can be made to the general safety topic. However, I respectfully suggest that the potential creativity be focussed into other more appropriate groups. Terry Whitehouse -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:46 AM To: 'david_ster...@ademco.com'; j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: WTC - voice alarm system? -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:07 AM To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: WTC - voice alarm system? This is not a secure forum. I strongly urge people not to post security information for buildings here. All of us in the NYC area still grieve for our loved ones, or have close friends who are grieving. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset, NY -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org@PITTWAYNOTES On Behalf Of John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk@PITTWAYNOTES Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:06 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: WTC - voice alarm system? I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 20010917141507.LMHT9391.femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27] ) about 'WTC - voice alarm system?', on Mon, 17 Sep 2001: I'm not certain (I wasn't there) but I heard that there were announcements in the 2nd tower that was hit after the first tower was hit to sit tight and not evacuate because at that point they still thought it was an accident and they didn't need a whole bunch of people evacuating the 2nd tower and then getting in the way of rescue operations on the street below. Thanks to you and others who replied to my post. The point about voice alarm with central control is that instructions can be quickly changed and everyone gets informed simultaneously. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! David: I
RE: WTC - voice alarm system?
Visit ASQ's website, http:/www.asq.org. They are setting up a program and are requesting input from professionals. Here is a way we can make a difference and be part of the solution. David -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org@PITTWAYNOTES On Behalf Of plaw...@west.net (Patrick Lawler)@PITTWAYNOTES Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:16 PM To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: WTC - voice alarm system? For those who feel this list isn't the place to discuss issues like these, can they suggest another forum? I immediately thought of the newsgroup comp.risks, dealing with risks to the public in computers and related systems. However, the newsgroup only posts a digest of items, and is not really a forum. Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net --- 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: WTC - voice alarm system?
This is not a secure forum. I strongly urge people not to post security information for buildings here. All of us in the NYC area still grieve for our loved ones, or have close friends who are grieving. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset, NY -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org@PITTWAYNOTES On Behalf Of John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk@PITTWAYNOTES Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:06 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: WTC - voice alarm system? I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 20010917141507.LMHT9391.femail30.sdc1.sfba.home.com@[65.11.150.27] ) about 'WTC - voice alarm system?', on Mon, 17 Sep 2001: I'm not certain (I wasn't there) but I heard that there were announcements in the 2nd tower that was hit after the first tower was hit to sit tight and not evacuate because at that point they still thought it was an accident and they didn't need a whole bunch of people evacuating the 2nd tower and then getting in the way of rescue operations on the street below. Thanks to you and others who replied to my post. The point about voice alarm with central control is that instructions can be quickly changed and everyone gets informed simultaneously. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! --- 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: FCC Standards
FCC CFR-47 Parts 15 and 68 are posted on FCC's website http://www.fcc.gov Part 68 (telephone terminal) administration was officially outsourced to ACTA (Administrative Council for Termianl Attachments) July 23, 2001. ACTA's website http://www.part68.org has draft versions of the revised Part 68, administrative procedures and minutes of their meetings. Eventually a self-declaration route will be available, but during the transition period telco approvals must process through a TCB. A list of TCB's is also on the ACTA site. Some TCB's also have websites. David -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 1:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: FCC Standards 002e01c1196f$154cbf20$b168bfc8@marx, Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@eel.ufsc.br inimitably wrote: I'd like to know what requirements apply to the following standards: - FCC 15 (47 CFR 0-19) - FCC 68 (49 CFR 40-69) You can't expect anyone to reproduce here all the requirements in a standard. You have to obtain your own copy and read it. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk This message and its contents are not confidential, privileged or protected by law. Access is only authorised by the intended recipient - this means YOU! The contents may be disclosed to, or used by, anyone and stored or copied in any medium. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender yesterday at the latest. --- 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: Oils for the 950 Hot Flaming Oil Test
These are available on Exxon-Mobil's website, http:\\www.exxon.com . Kerosene is listed under: http://www.exxon.com/exxon_productdata/msds/index.html Exxon's descriptor is: EXXON LOW S DIESEL 1. F.Y.I. Holes with dimensions requiring UL/EN60950 hot oil testing usually fail. Openings which are not round fail because of unequal surface tension around the perimeter. Wear protective gear and use a safety enclosure, preferably with mechanical arm manipulators. Do not try this at home. David -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:19 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Oils for the 950 Hot Flaming Oil Test Dear All, Does anyone have the MSDS for Kerosene # 1? This is the oil used by UL to conduct the Hot Flaming Oil Test in the UL60950/EN 60 950 ITE standards when the bottom openings do not comply with some of the bottom cfonstructions specified in the standard. I am also trying to determine other types of oils (and relevant MSDSs) which may be suitable for the test. 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 --- 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: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ?
Here are several 60950 issues: 1) Are exposed hot terminals accessable when P/S is removed? Depending on whether the power supplies are 'shared' or switchover' and types of diode protection, there may be hazardous voltages or currents on the connectors (check the amperage and joule availablity). If so you need hazard and alert stickers, plus warnings in the manual. Is there a door in case one P/S is rotated for replacement? A removable cover will be discarded so a door is better. 2) Are there dual linecords? Dual linecords require an alert sticker and warning in all languages (MULTIPLE POWER SOURCES; DISCONNECT BOTH POWER SUPPLIES BEFORE SERVICING). Define any limitations or recommendations for using separate branch circuits (great redundancy but possible international earthing problems). 3) If unit is hard wired to mains, there are more considerations (disconnect device (double-pole circuit breaker), fusing, etc). David Sterner -Original Message- From: Dan Teninty [mailto:dteni...@dtec-associates.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:16 PM To: Emc-Pstc@Majordomo. Ieee. Org Subject: Hot Swappable Power Supplies ? Do any of my esteemed colleagues know of any specific requirements in 60950 (UL/CSA or EN) relating specifically to hot swappable power supplies? A search in the PDF version of UL/CSA 60950 reveals nothing specific when searching for hot, swap, or power supply. A visual search of the TOC also reveals nothing specific. 2.6.5.4 deals with : Parts that can be removed by an operator Protective earthing connections shall make earlier and break later than the supply connections in each of the following: - the connector of a part that can be removed by an OPERATOR; - a plug on a power supply cord; - an appliance coupler. Compliance is checked by inspection. This is the most I could find that was related, and then it is referring to the AC side. Thought I would triple check with the collective brain trust to be sure. Appreciate any pointers to passages that I missed. Thanks, Daniel E. Teninty, P.E. Managing Partner DTEC Associates LLC Streamlining the Compliance Process 5406 S. Glendora Drive Spokane, WA 99223 (509) 443-0215 (509) 443-0181 fax --- 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: Conducted EMI on telecommunication ports
Don, Since you did not identify your LAN protocol (Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, Token Ring, ArcNet, etc.) I will give you a general answer. I know of three approaches to generate traffic: 1) Diagnostics programs from NIC vendors e.g. http://www.smc.com/smc/pages_html/homef.html You can send specific size packets for error checking. Short packets are good for EMC because various frequencies occur frequently. The old diag program timed out after 2500 packets, 250ms. 2) LanTest software - various web sources This software continually exchanges files between two or more PCs (one acting as a server). Disadvantage is that some frequencies occur sporadically, making it difficult to interpret results into pass/fail (i.e. pulses). It is good for immunity tests because you can log a bit-error rate to measure degradation. 3) Traffic generator - Stand-alone boxes that simulate various percents of bandwidth usage are available to check network switches and routers. These are not necessarily real world. Isolate the output with an EMI-clean hub; the traffic box may be Class A. Bottom line You probably need 250ms sustained to perform any EMC test, but all these approaches can be set for over an hour running time. Any of the above will generate more than 10% utilization. Some hubs have a LEDs to indicate occupied bandwidth to verify utilization. David -Original Message- From: Don Rhodes [mailto:don.rho...@infocus.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 6:26 AM To: 'emc-pstc news group' Subject: Conducted EMI on telecommunication ports Dear colleagues, I am looking for a little of your collective understanding and experience on CISPR 22, 1997-11, Section 9.5.3. Regarding the requirement for 10% LAN utilization, sustained for 250mS, can you provide any guidance on development of the EUT software used for this test? Furthermore, our EUT is used only to receive data (with the exception of LAN protocol comm.), similar to a printer. Also, any thoughts on pitfalls and/or success of measurement and compliance to this portion of the requirements? Thanks in advance for your time. Don Rhodes --- 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: Ethernet baluns
Paolo, You need a mini hub with 10Base2 and 10BaseT connections. A balun will not work because 10BastT is a 4-wire connection (T1, T2 R1, R2) whereas 10Base2 is a 2-wire connection. Also 10b2 supports daisy chain but 10bT is point-to-point. What kinds of EMC problems are you having with 10b2? Emissions or immunity? David -Original Message- From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Ethernet baluns Hi everyone: I'm looking for a passive (no ac/dc power supply needed) balun to convert from an Ethernet 10b2 (unbalanced coax 50 ohm) to an Ethernet 10bT (balanced, twisted pair, UTP, 100 ohm). Anyone knows if this kind of box exists ? So far I came up with a perfect match, but for the impedance of the coax connector (75 ohms instead of 50 ohms). We need this in order to improve the EMC behavior of the 10b2 Ethernet that we have to live with (you bet it's a real damn pain in the neck EMC-wise !!!). Thanks Paolo --- 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: Remote Hazrdous Secondary Voltage Power Feeding on Lan Cablin g
Peter, The only widely used, potentially unsafe cabling for 802.x is shielded twisted pair (STP) --- sorry, Europeans. Since STP shield termination is undefined in 802.x; there is no prohibition against connecting two pieces of Class 2 equipment, potentially connecting dissimilar earth potentials. Adding a circuit breaker to the shield termination offers no safety protection since chassis-shield offset voltage increases when the short is removed. Unshielded twisted pair is transformer-isolated at both ends (Ethernet, F-E, T-R). Coax (10Base2) shield is isolated from system ground at each node (per 802.3 the shield may be earthed at a single point but not at a node). The trend for faster LAN's is lower voltages. Fast Ethernet voltage is about half the voltage of 10 Mb. Non-telco LANs do not communicate directly over telephone lines, however LAN transformers are designed to take telco surges in case someone puts an RJ-11 plug into an RJ-45 LAN jack. Any telco interface (e.g. ISDN, xDSL) must have telco approval. The safety solution is unshielded twisted pair for LAN's; the transformer isolation was designed for safety and has been evaluated by many test laboratories. David -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:36 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: Remote Hazrdous Secondary Voltage Power Feeding on Lan Cabling Peter - 1) Agreed. Keep in mind that IEEE 802.3 compliant signals are unearthed SELV and how SELV is derived in the power source was not specified. 2) There are potential problems, but this is not to say insurmountable. I doubt, however, that LAN cable meeting Reinforced insulation requirements is commercially available. Please note that communications cable in the US and Canada carry ringing signals, far in excess of SELV. Many Type CM (with or without suffixes) cables are also rated for NEC/CEC Class 3 circuits. 3) I don't know, but my discussions with people involved in the IEEE 802.x standards development seem to indicate a problem, since safety _is_ on their minds. Also, it is likely that undetermined (generic/nonproprietary) terminal equipment, or whatever is connected to the far end of the cable, will expect only IEEE/safety standard compliant currents/energies/powers/voltages in/on the cable. If they have an end-to-end product offering and all appropriate instructions and warnings to use only with their equipment and to not mix with other vendor's equipment, then perhaps there is an out. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:02 AM Dear All, snip An ITE manufacturer would like to use the extra leads on a LAN cable to power up his proprietary units in the LAN system through a splitter which can deliver up to 50 Vac (max 3.0 A) power dervived from a power supply unit. Other ITE manufacturers' equipment may be connected to the same LAN by means of the cabling (not 50 Vac powered) coming out of the splitter. Question 1: I sense a problem in that the SELV voltage limits are exceeded and that a stnadard LAN cable may not have the reinforced insulation between the 50 Vac secondary hazardous voltage leads and the SELV leads. Does everyone agree? Question 2: Assuming manufacturer found a LAN cabling which meets the reinforced insulation requirements and he specifies the use of this cabling in the building, does anyone see a problem with any country code requirements (USNEC, Canada CEC, Europe, etc.)? Question 3: Does anyone see in problems with meeting the LAN international perfomance standards (IEEE, etc.)? Thank you. PETER S. MERGUERIAN --- 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
RE: commercial surveillance video cameras
EUROPE The directives are the easy part: 73/23/EEC for safety; 89/336/EEC for EMC; and if it has a transmitter, 99/5/EC Choosing the EuroNorms is more complicated. We expect camera vendors to comply with: EN 55022:1998 for RF emissions EN 50130-4:1995/1998 Alarm systems immunity (scope includes CCTV for security applications) EN 50132 Alarm systems - CCTV surveillance systems EN 60950 for safety Although not part of a directive, EN 50130-5 environmental requirements are indirectly applicable if the system goes for ANPI, IMQ or VdS approval. FCC Part 15 applies whether unintentional or intentional (transmitter) radiator. There is a section on TV cameras. Vibration is difficult to answer without more information about the product. Potholes in Nassau County, NY streets could be used to prove out (shake down?) the equipment, however. David -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:jco...@silent-witness.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: commercial surveillance video cameras Hello, Three questions relevant to commercial video cameras, typically in surveillance operation: To sell in Europe what directive is applicable to obtain CE. To sell in North America, what FCC part applies. To install a video camera in an automobile, what vibration standards apply? John Coyle --- 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: Translation Requirements
Safety related instructions for the user should be in the vernacular under 73/23/EEC. There is more latitude on language for safety-related instructions for an 'installer'. However if installer's instructions have life-threatening consequences you reduce legal exposure by using a widely-understood language of your target country. David -Original Message- From: Finn, Paul [mailto:fi...@pan0.panametrics.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:35 PM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: Translation Requirements Can some one point out the specific requirements, if any, that are imposed on translating manuals into the language of the country they are to be used. Specifically if you CE label in accordance with 89/336/EEC (EN 61326) and 73/23/EEC (1010-1). In reviewing the archives I could only find mention that the manufacturer is to supply a version of the manual which is agreed upon in that country and English is most common. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Paul Finn Panametrics Inc. --- 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: switching NRTLs
Assuming original approval is to UL1950 you might try adding an NRTL, then after a period of time drop the original NRTL. This way you take advantage of any agreements between the NRTLs. Typical costs for adding another NRTL using shared data are 60% of the cost of the original investigation. You may need to send a sample or photographs of the sample. If the original report is not in CB format, or if it is to an early version of 1950, the costs for review are higher. As was pointed out in other remarks, if the original NRTL is aware of the sharing up front they will format the data so it is acceptable, and perform whatever additional tests are needed. Component traceability requirements vary among NRTL's; switching may introduce sourcing restrictions. If the product is part of a larger system, mixing and matching NRTL's may void system-level approval. At least one NRTL disclaims approval if units with its logo are connected to equipment approved by another NRTL. David Sterner -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:03 AM To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Subject: switching NRTLs Has anyone had any experience of switching NRTLs? Is it possible to do so without incurring huge expense for retesting products ie is there a NRTL that would accept test reports/certificates of another? I would be grateful to hear from anyone that has attempted or done this you can't all be satisfied customers. Regards Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com * http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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: 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, --- 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: EN55022 vs. FCC Part 15
Chris,
My point was EUT-related, not spec-related. You must perform FCC conducted
RF emissions testing with the correct US mains interface, or be prepared to
justify that the 230V test results are sufficiently equivalent (e.g. based
on past history).
Your point on limits is valid, but moot if you use CISPR RF-radiated test
results; FCC explicitly forbids mix-and-match, i.e. CISPR radiated and FCC
conducted {see CFR 47 paragraphs 15.107(e)(2) and 15.109(g)(4)}.
David
-Original Message-
From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 4:51 AM
To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
No.
The class B FCC limits for conducted disturbance at the mains ports are
lower than EN55022 class B.
QP limits:
FCC - 0.45 to 30MHz = 48dBuV
EN - 0.15 to 0.5MHz = 66 to 56dBuV (decreasing linearly with the log of
frequency)
0.5 to 5MHz = 56dBuV
5 to 30MHz = 60dBuV
Radiated disturbance is performed at 3m for FCC and 10m for EN55022. The
limits and are different.
QP limits:
FCC @ 3m - 30 to 88MHz = 34dBuV/m
88 to 216MHz = 37.5dBuV/m
216 to 960MHz = 40dBuV/m
960 to 1000MHz = 48dBuV/m
EN @ 10m - 30 to 230MHz = 30dBuV/m
230 to 1000MHz = 37dBuV/m
I'm afraid the only way to compare the two standards is to buy copies of
them.
Chris Colgan
EMC Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
United Kingdom
* Phone: +44 (0)1480 415627
* Fax: +44 (0)1480 415689
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com
* http://www.tagmclarenaudio.com
-Original Message-
From: Keith Zell [SMTP:zell...@pmifeg.com]
Sent: 18 October 2000 14:53
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: EN55022 vrs. FCC Part 15
Will a product certified to EN55022 class B necessarily comply to FCC Part
15 Class A limits? Where might I find a valid comparison of these two EMC
standards.
As always, thanks for your help.
B. Keith Zell
Electrical Design Engineer
PMI Food Equipment Group
Troy, OH 45374
(937) 332-3067 (ph)
(937) 332-3007 (fax)
zell...@pmifeg.com
**
Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.com
**
The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive
use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error,
please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either
by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or
otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail.
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, 11 Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600)
Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159)
**
Please visit us at www.tagmclarenaudio.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: A1 of EN61000-4-3
I recommend getting the version that incorporates A1. The IEC version of A1 conflicts with the remaining text on field uniformity calculations if you simply replace the indicated paragraphs. david -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 8:53 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: A1 of EN61000-4-3 Barry, I don't have a copy of A1 either, but the dow is listed on the CENELEC web site as 2001-05-01. Richard Woods -- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:30 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: A1 of EN61000-4-3 Hi, I don't have a copy of A1 of EN61000-4-3 at hand. Please help me. (1) let me know when is the DOW of A1 for EN61000-4-3? (2) confirm the difference of A1 and ENV50204. A1: 800 - 960 MHz, and 1.4 - 2.0 GHz. ENV50204: 900 MHz at 200Hz/50%. Thank you. Best Regards, Barry Ma ___ Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html ___ --- 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 --- 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: Compliance Global list information
That should be www.cbscheme.org -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 7:49 AM To: r...@terawave.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Compliance Global list information Go to www.cbscheme.com and click on Countries George rlee%terawave@interlock.lexmark.com on 10/09/2000 05:54:10 PM Please respond to rlee%terawave@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Compliance Global list information Dear Group, Where can I get a global agency certification list that showed all coutries accept CB-Scheme or CE marking? Thanks in Advance! Richard Terawave Communications 30680 Huntwood, CA 94544 --- 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 --- 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: Application of agency safety markings
My understanding is that (at least in the USA) agencies own the copyright to their logo. Their weapon is the copyright law against infringement. They license a manufacturer for a well-defined but limited use of their logo. Most of the agencies certify manufacturing locations and perform periodic follow-up surveillance of these manufacturing locations. I am aware of emergency situations where the agency sends its field representative to inspect and apply logos to equipment already installed (a Canadian Hospital). This was a very expensive procedure; the TE for the agent exceeded the value of the equipment. David Sterner ADEMCO -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Application of agency safety markings As we know, IEC 60950 only addresses Marking and instructions for the safe use of ITE. It does not address agency marks, or when and where they are applied. If I were starting the first certification agency in the universe, common sense would dictate that the mark of conformity be applied at the time and place of safety testing, viz. hi-pot, earthing resistance, and leakage. This generally takes place immediately before the product is packaged for warehousing and/or shipment. However, assume that an ITE product is built at location A, and shipped to location B for final safety testing. If my new agency is going to require factory inspections, it would require going to location A to verify the components used are correct, and to location B to verify that appropriate production testing was taking place. I would still want the mark applied at location B, even though the mark is based on successful inspections at both locations. In today's world, agencies have provisions for split inspections to deal with such a situation. It would be hard to justify applying a mark of conformity anywhere other than where the product is manufactured and/or tested. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. [My personal opinions.] --- 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: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing
Requirements are product dependent. Check the governing document, either generic or product-specific immunity requirements. EN61000-6-2 is a normative reference, not a governing document, e.g.: EN50130-4 Immunity requirements for Alarm systems calls out .5, 1, 5, 10 periods @ 60% reduction and 0.5, 1, and 5 periods @ 100% reduction David Sterner Alarm Device Manufacturing Co. Syosset NY -Original Message- From: plaw...@west.net [mailto:plaw...@west.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 3:05 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: EN61000-6-2: Voltage dip immunity testing I was reviewing the voltage dip/interrupt requirements of BS EN61000-6-2:1999, and noticed that one test condition is a 60% dip for 5 periods (0.1s at 50 Hz), while another is 60% for 50 periods (1s at 50Hz). Both tests require Performance Criteria C. - Wouldn't a single test at 50 periods cover this requirement? - Is there a special operating condition or situation intended for this test that isn't mentioned in the standard? --- 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: PCB fuse trace
Doesn't it depend on the purpose of the fuse? If the circuitry is non-telco and voltages are 42V you have wide design latiitude. Even if the agencies do not care, you should characterize the performance under abnormal conditions. At least one company uses printed fuses on PC accessory cards to prevent runaway combustion (fires) when ceramic by-pass capacitors crack and short. The cards were recognized by well-known US and European safety agencies. Mains and telco have special IEC-950 rules and testing likely has poor ROI. Since the 'fuse' is not a recognized component, sufficient characterization may be a problem with most safety agencies. David Sterner Ademco, Syosset NY -Original Message- From: Joshua Wiseman [mailto:jwise...@printronix.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 2:42 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: PCB fuse trace Hi group, I am sure that Ken appreciates all the pointers, but no one is answering his question. He is asking for a reference to a standard that allows him to do this. If I knew one I would certainly tell him. Josh -Original Message- From: mr...@ix.netcom.com [ mailto:mr...@ix.netcom.com mailto:mr...@ix.netcom.com ] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 8:30 AM To: E Eszlari Cc: matsu...@curtisinst.com; free...@broadcom.com; ptar...@nortelnetworks.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RE: PCB fuse trace Keep in mind the possibility of the trace shorting to dead metal parts before vaporizing creating a momentary high leakage current. Bob E Eszlari bosesaf...@hotmail.com wrote: Ken, From my experience with UL, if a trace opens during a fault test, the first test you must pass is the hipot, then UL will jump the portion of the trace that opened and perform the same test. If the trace opens in another location the same process is repeated (I guess until there is no longer a trace to open or if another device fails and protects the unit). If some other device (unapproved) protects the unit, you will have to repeat the fault 3 times with the same result in order for it to be acceptable. If the trace opens up to the input, you may discover that you really should have designed in a protective device. Ed From: Matsuda, Ken Reply-To: Matsuda, Ken To: 'Jim Freeman' ,Peter Tarver CC: Matsuda, Ken , emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: PCB fuse trace Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:09:07 -0400 Thank you all for responding to my inquiry thus far. Here is an update on my findings. I have since had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a few different NRTLs in regards to particular standards. The uniform concensus thus far from these agencies are that they test to standards, not necessary impose restirctions that are not in the standards. Thus many agencies have agreed that a fuse trace, although discouraged, can be used as a primary means of protection, unless specifically referenced not allowing such use. But once again, this comes down to the particular standard that you apply too. Some may require abnormal tests, etc... -Original Message- From: Jim Freeman [ mailto:free...@broadcom.com mailto:free...@broadcom.com ] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 11:38 AM To: Peter Tarver Cc: Matsuda, Ken; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: PCB fuse trace In all of this discussion, no one has mentioned the possibility of fire from blowing a PCB trace fuse. I know that there are flame retardants in the PCB material that protect to a certain flashpoint but to rely on that mechanism for fire prevention is a bit far fetched. From my limite experience with fuses, there is generally a large structure that is enclosed in sand to prevent a fire from spreading. Jim Freeman Peter Tarver wrote: My experience with safety agencies is they do not want to rely on traces opening to act as fuses and no standards have been developed, that I am aware of, to address this issue. Fuses certification gets involved in the metallic alloys used, to the fraction of a percent, the conductor size, additional construction features, such as heat sinking elements for time delay characteristics, tension loading for fast action, blah, blah, blah. Most of these issues are far too difficult to control for pwb traces, especially considering the etching processes don't lend themselves to the level of control necessary to be a reliable fuse of specific ratings. Additionally, the heat sinking from pwb layout of one product to another or varying copper thicknesses in a product line, adding or subtracting ground planes for emc, the variability of soldering processes and location/thermal capacity of components on the pwb make this seem far too cumbersome to want to work with. BTW, this is a very different world from repeated twice, same result single-fault testing, where a pwb trace opens. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE ptar...@nortelnetworks.com -Original Message-
RE: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
The defined I/O coupling methods for EN55022:1997 do not appear to accurately depict real-world shielding provided by twisted pair wiring, almost as if the test method were rigged against passing EMI with T-P cable. Considerable study went into development of twisted pair connectivity rules for each ANSI/IEEE 802.x LAN technology, emissions, immunity, cable grade etc., including coupling (remember TokenRing was 4 and 16 MHz, and Ethernet was 10 MHz so the harmonics were there). David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Ken Javor SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/8/2000 5:31 PM The point is that RE/CE protect broadcast bands. Making an RE measurement (E or H field, regardless) from a LAN line a couple meters long is not representative of what you would measure if the LAN line were significantly longer, as it might be in situ. Therefore a CE measurement can be better correlated to predicted RE from a much longer line (at frequencies where the tested LAN line is electrically short. -- From: Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it To: 'Ken Javor' ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, 'Cortland Richmond' 72146@compuserve.com Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2000, 3:51 AM Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject : First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted) measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's not all (resonances, cable layout etc. count a lot). Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change your opinion ! Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered. If you wanna take care of lower frequencies ( 30 MHz) take a loop antenna (remember the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps, current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current measurements and more) in the new CISPR22. As for the question of outside world, I think in this ever more connected world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies, otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing (hope some CISPR/CENELEC member gets it). If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions requirements are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an intra-system (what's the system ? that's another good question to be settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a product (system) that works properly and reliably. One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports. Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic... or not My personal opinion ... Paolo -Messaggio originale- Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43 A: Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in the comments to which I am responding. The purpose of controlling common mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE. In turn, the purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception. -- From: Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it To: 'eric.lif...@ni.com'
RE: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Paolo, You bring up an interesting point about FCC. FCC recognizes CISPR 22:1985 is as an alternative test method. The 1985 version does not specify emissions on LAN or telco. FCC Part 68 specifies conducted emissions only on mains cables over 450kHz to 30MHz with slightly different limits. There seems to be considerable interest in requesting a review of the need for conducted emissions requirements for LANS, not to mention installation cost (STP cost differential, clumsy routing, earthing considerations). What is our next step to get a formal review? David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: R: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Paolo Roncone SMTP:paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/8/2000 6:51 AM Ken and Cortland and many others that entered this subject : First, radiated emissions are best measured with radiated (not conducted) measurements. There is a correlation between CM currents and RE but that's not all (resonances, cable layout etc. count a lot). Second, you say that CE are easier to measure than RE ? Agree if you talk about emissions on AC power cords (as per CISPR22 and FCC part 15). But for the new requirements on telecom ports, I suggest you to take a look at the new (3.ed.) CISPR22 or EN55022 (sec. 9.5 + annex C.1) and may be you change your opinion ! Radiated emissions above 30 MHz are already covered. If you wanna take care of lower frequencies ( 30 MHz) take a loop antenna (remember the old VDE rules ?) and measure radiated H-fields with your system in the same (typical) layout used for the higher frequencies (with whatever cables you specify, UTS, STP etc.). I am sure that is much quicker, easier and repeatable than all the nonsense (ISNs, CDNs, clamps, current probes, capacitive probes, ferrites, 150 ohm resistors, signal generators, impedance measurements, voltage measurements, current measurements and more) in the new CISPR22. As for the question of outside world, I think in this ever more connected world the border line between INSIDE and OUTSIDE is getting more and more blurred, BUT I also think that a line must be drawn by the standard bodies, otherwise it's gonna really get too much confusing (hope some CISPR/CENELEC member gets it). If we spill over the line (office, floor, building... whatever), emissions requirements are triggered. But within that line it's to be considered an intra-system (what's the system ? that's another good question to be settled) interference potential and the manufacturer should take care of it without need of enforcement because he has all the interest in making a product (system) that works properly and reliably. One last point: based on David Sterner's note, looks to me that North America has a pretty extensive Ethernet and-the-like network. I honestly don't know if the FCC has already enforced emission limits on LAN ports. Anyway, based on David's note looks like there are no complaits of interference with TV and telephones. And please note, this is the very bottom line of it. Emission limits should be intended to protect public services ... and physics works the same on both sides of the Atlantic... or not My personal opinion ... Paolo -Messaggio originale- Da: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Inviato: giovedì 7 settembre 2000 18.43 A: Paolo Roncone; 'eric.lif...@ni.com' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Oggetto: Re: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Although I don't work commercial EMC on a regular basis and I do not know over what frequency range the telecom port CE are controlled (I assume here 150 kHz - 30 MHz), I believe that there is a mistaken premise inherent in the comments to which I am responding. The purpose of controlling common mode CE on any port is not to protect equipment at the other end of the cable, or other co-sited cables, but rather to control radiated emissions in a frequency range in which CE are easier to measure than RE. In turn, the purpose of controlling RE is to protect broadcast radio reception. -- From: Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it To: 'eric.lif...@ni.com' eric.lif...@ni.com Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: R: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2000, 9:45 AM Hi Eric, I 100% agree with you. The scope of emissions standard should be to protect the outside (i.e. public) environment from interference. So only ports that connect to public telecom networks should be covered by the standard. The problem is (as pointed out in one of the previous notes) that the new CISPR22 / EN55022 standard clearly includes LAN ports in the definition of telecommunications ports (section 3.6) no matter
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
Hello Group, North America has likely the largest installed base of Ethernet, Fast-ethernet, Token-Ring and Arcnet in the world. STP cable is seldom installed (some use it for secure installations to inhibit listening devices). We have no complaints of interference with our TV or telephone systems. Grounding? I doubt if grounding problems are the culprit, since physical layer specifications define transformer isolation of STP cables. Certainly you can get coupling into long parallel runs of telephone and Arcnet (2.5 MHz), 10BaseT Ethernet (10 MHz) and Token-ring (4/16 MHz). The 125 MHz nominal of 100BaseTX lies above the EN55022 conducted emission band and the transient is lower so it can theoretically pass, however most cards auto-negotiate between 10BaseT and 100BaseTX. Connectivity Supposing your product manages to meet conducted emissions w/o STP, what does it connect with? The other end of the cable can connect to any compatible network product. If a PC hub or switch is relocated can a company replace UTP with STP? To protect the installation you must use STP everywhere. Therefore invoke the STP loophole. David Sterner ADEMCO Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Gert Gremmen SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/6/2000 2:53 PM Hello Group, From EMC emissions point of view, any cable connected to any device is prone to conducted emission problems. The is because grounding problems in a PCB exist or enclosure currents flow between shielded connectors. This leads to CM currents that will be measured. The criterion for testing is if any cable gets that long that frequencies below 30 Mhz can get out : l lambda/4 This requires cables to be longer than 2m50 at 30 Mhz to over 750 m at 150 KHz. This requirements is easily met by LAN and other ports. In the past no electrical equipment had any cable but the mains. The ITE equipment was recognized to have PSTN cables that long. Now antenna cables on Radio/TV gets the same treatment (and more) Cable television distribution system need conducted testing too. My opinion is that any network connection needs testing for Conducted emissions. In the case of the PC and the LAN card: definitely test. The attenuation of ground noise in any slot of the MB by the LAN card to the LAN cable, shielded or unshielded is unknown. In one MB it may pass, the other may fail. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Chris Allen Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 10:40 AM To: Pryor McGinnis Cc: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com; John Moore Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Pryor, Unfortunately, I don't think the definition is in question. It specifically states, that for the purposes of the standard, LANs are to be considered as telecomms ports as per section 3.6. It probably would have been less ambiguous if the standard defined Telecomms ports as Ports which are intended to be connected to the telecomms network OR LANs OR similar networks. As far as enforcement goes this will not change from the current method of enforcing compliance, primarily via the end user requesting DoCs and the relevent test data to back this document up. I believe the requirement goes back to a test that was performed under either VDE 0805 or 0806 (it was a long time ago that I had to perform the test). It was specifically aimed at unscreened cables over a certain length being placed in cable ducts and their impact on adjacent telecomms cables (if anybody remebers StarLan this was the product I was involved in). Chris. Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net on 05/09/2000 20:54:51 Please respond to Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net Sent by: Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net To: david_ster...@ademco.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com cc:(Chris Allen/GB/3Com) Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports I do not disagree with the positions posted on this subject. My question is how does the EU interpret and enforce this requirement/definition. Pryor - Original Message - From: david_ster...@ademco.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org; gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: RE:
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
If LAN's cause interference, the mechanism would be radiated, not conducted. Testing may be moot on LAN's whose fundimental frequency lies between 150kHz and 100MHz; STP is the only way to 'pass'. Of course STP has safety implications due to earthing potentials. David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Mowbray; John H SMTP:jm134...@exchange.canada.ncr.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/5/2000 12:06 PM Gary If you read the definition of telecomm ports in CISPR 22 (sect. 3.6) it includes Local Area Networks, and other similar networks. Some people have even tried to extend this to RS 232 because of past abuses of this interface (like stretching the cable length to several hundred feet). There is a great concern in some European Countries that LAN cables can cause interference. John Mowbray -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:55 AM To: 'Pryor McGinnis'; Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Define telecom port. A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort of bridge that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual metallic connection. That birdge has the only telecommunication ports on it. Gary -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Confusing isn't? - Original Message - From: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com To: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look at the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance to conducted emissions yet. __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Pryor McGinnis SMTP:c...@prodigy.net at ADEMCONET Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM Hello All, The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end products. I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board manufacturer ask for second opinions. Many thanks for your answers. Best Regards, Pryor -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM To: emc-pstc Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest the LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his
RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports
LAN ports Testing Conducted RF Emissions on LAN twisted-pair lines is almost contrary to the intent of EN 55022 as Gary pointed out. Conducted emissions is more appropriate for asynchronous analog lines. LAN transmissions are digital and synchronous (except maybe ATM); the receiver part of the interface circuitry locks onto the frequency of data, rejecting spurious frequencies. The signals are truely digital, not analog as in a modem. Arcnet, Ethernet, and Fast Ethernet TP cabling links two points (node, hub, switch, bridge) which digitally reconstitute the signal, eliminating spurious cable frequencies. Token-Ring is peer-peer, usually through a passive hub. Each node (peer) reconstitutes the signal as above. Ethernet, F-E and Token-Ring ANSI/IEEE or ISO/IEC physical layer requirements define interfaces, cable lengths/type(s) and timing. Coax cable rules for Arcnet, 10Base2 Ethernet) permit connection to multiple nodes but again, the digital nature of the signals and the well-defined connectivity rules prevent problems. David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Gary McInturff SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:9/5/2000 10:54 AM Define telecom port. A LAN port isn't neccessarily a LAN port. Ethernet ports do not connect directly to the Telecommunications network - a necessary condition before being a telecommunications port. LANS and MANS operate all of the time without any use of any telecommunications equipment. Generally, Ethernet or Fast Ethernet for short distances and Gig Ethernet for longer distances. IF -- the telecommunications lines are needed there is some sort of bridge that takes the ethernet and its digitized Voice over Internet Protocol (Voip) and does all of the phone stuff and makes the actual metallic connection. That birdge has the only telecommunication ports on it. Gary -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [mailto:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 6:24 AM To: Pettit, Ghery; david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Confusing isn't? - Original Message - From: Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com To: david_ster...@ademco.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 5:40 PM Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Actually, it's August 1, 2001 as posted in the OJ on January 25th of this year. You've got 1 less month to start testing to the new standard. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 2:04 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; c...@prodigy.net Subject: RE: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports The date of withdrawal of EN 55022:1998 is September 1, 2001. Look at the NIC manual's DofC --- the mfgr. may not be declaring compliance to conducted emissions yet. __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Author: Pryor McGinnis SMTP:c...@prodigy.net at ADEMCONET Date:8/30/2000 10:31 AM Hello All, The question originated from a manufacturer of LAN boards who sells to end users and to manufacturer's who integrate the LAN boards into end products. I advised the LAN board manufacturer that conducted emissions would be required (with boards installed in typical host) on all LAN boards sold to end users and manufacturers of products that integrated LAN boards should test the ports for conducted emission in their end product. The LAN board manufacturer questioned double testing of the LAN boards. His concern is that boards that pass CE in a typical host may not pass in another manufacturer's end product (rub of the green). The LAN Board manufacturer ask for second opinions. Many thanks for your answers. Best Regards, Pryor -Original Message- From: Pryor McGinnis [SMTP:c...@prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 12:35 PM To: emc-pstc Subject: Conducted Emissions on Telecom Ports Below is a message from a non emc-pstc member. If a manufacturer purchases LAN boards which have been tested for conducted emissions in a host, is the manufacturer required to retest the LAN Ports for conducted emissions if the manufacturer sells his product with the LAN board installed? I am very interested in your comments. Best Regards, Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net mailto:c...@prodigy.net www.ctl-lab.com http://www.ctl-lab.com
RE: Re(4): EN 61000-4-6 CDNs for a high speed bus.
Derek, I agree. Engineering analysis should evaluate fiber cable construction specifications. If coating is unspecified you need to investigate available types and justify your conclusions. Also be sure to test fiber I/O connectors for ESD susceptibility. David --- 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: R: R: Voltage Breakdown
For many topical staticides (on IC tubes and containers) to function, the RH must be 25%. David Sterner Ademco Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: R: R: Voltage Breakdown Author: Jim Hulbert SMTP:hulbe...@pb.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:7/12/2000 8:40 AM I must admit I am also confused. It is a fairly common practice and has proved quite effective to install humidifiers in enclosed environments to reduce the propensity for static electricity generation. Why does this work? Jim Hulbert Senior Engineer Pitney Bowes Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it on 07/12/2000 04:39:08 AM Please respond to Paolo Roncone paolo.ronc...@compuprint.it To: 'Rich Nute' ri...@sdd.hp.com cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Jim Hulbert/MSD/US/PBI) Subject: R: R: Voltage Breakdown Hi Rich: thanks for your reply. Now I regret to say that I am a bit confused. Based on what you say I don't understand why in dry weather you have more chances of high voltage ESD than in humid weather. As I said this is a common experience that anyone can confirm. I thought the explanation is that dry air has higher dielectric strength so higher electrostatic fields need to build up before a discharge. Another point suggesting the dependence from humidity is that the ESD standard EN 61000-4-2 specifies relative humidity among ambient conditions to control during ESD tests. Regards, Paolo -Messaggio originale- Da: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Inviato: marted --- 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: NEBS: Trans\Vib ISTA standards (International Safe
ISTA uses standard ASTM specifications for vibration so most labs can set it up. You can perform their drop test yourself on a concrete floor. ISTA also has a membership program and certified laboratories if you want full test documentation for insurance purposes. We perform an in-house ISTA-equivalent shipping and handling test, giving us the assurance that our packaging is adequate. Downside of an in-house test is you must establish your own credibility in event of shipping damage. These procedures are available from the ISTA website, www.ista.org. Series 1 tests cover most electronic products. Procedure 1A - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing 150 lb. (68.2 kg) or Less: Basic requirements include fixed displacement vibration and shock testing Procedure 1B - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing Over 150 lb.: Basic requirements include fixed displacement vibration and shock testing. Procedure 1C - Performance Test for Extended Testing for Individual Packaged-Products weighing 150 lb. (68.2 kg) or Less: Basic requirements include fixed displacement or random vibration, shock and compression testing (atmospheric conditioning optional). Procedure 1D - Performance Test for Extended Testing for Individual Packaged-Products weighing Over 150 lb. (68.2 kg): Basic requirements include fixed displacement or random vibration, shock and compression testing (atmospheric conditioning optional). Procedure 1E - Performance Test for Unitized Loads: Basic requirements include vertical linear or random vibration and shock testing Procedure 1F - Developmental Test for CLosed Reusable Transport Containers for Loads of 150 lb. (68.2 kg) or Less: Basic requirements include fixed displacement or random vibration, shock, compression testing and atmospheric pre-conditioning. Procedure 1G - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing 150 lb. (68.2 kg) or Less (Random Vibration): Basic requirements include random vibration and shock testing Procedure 1H - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing Over 150 lb. (68.2 kg) (Random Vibration): Basic requirements include random vibration and shock testing Procedure 2A - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing 150 lb. (68.2 kg) or Less: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, fixed displacement or random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 2B - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products weighing Over 150 lb. (68.2 kg): Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, fixed displacement or random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3D - Performance Test for Small Packaged-Products 1 lb. (453.6 g) or Less Bagged for Parcel Delivery System Shipment: Basic requirements include random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3C - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products 150 lb. or Less for Parcel Delivery System Shipments: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3E - Performance Test for Unitized Loads of Same Product: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3F - Performance Test for Individual Packaged-Products 100 lb. (43.5 kg) or Less Shipped Non-Unitized from Distribution Center to Retail Outlet: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3G - Thermal Performance Testing of Transport Packaging: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3H - Performance Test for Products or Packaged-Products in Mechanically Handled Bulk Transport Containers: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, random vibration and shock testing. Procedure 3J - Performance Test for Reusable Intermediate Bulk Containers: Basic requirements include atmospheric conditioning, compression, random vibration and shock testing. Guide 5B - Focused Simulation Guide for Thermal Performance Testing of Temperature Controlled Transport Packaging David Sterner ADEMCO, Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: NEBS: Trans\Vib ISTA standards (International Safe Tra Author: John Juhasz SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:
RE: Evaluation Boards - again
Eval boards must comply with FCC requirements. Legally this does not mean they must meet Class A/B emissions levels. It is your call whether to meet Class A/B or mark the evaluation boards with the disclaimer of Section 2.803, see (e)(1)(v) under paragraph 2.803. From a customer's perspective your decision should be based on how much assistance is needed. - do you know the final mechanical design (shielding)? - will the circuitry end up in a PC? - are you sharing PWBA layout files with the customer? - does the circuitry contain a chip that cannot easily be EMI-tamed? - would customers be upset if the eval board has an FCC disclaimer? David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Evaluation Boards - again Author: Vic Gibling SMTP:v...@virata.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:6/14/2000 4:04 AM Hi, Thank you for your previous comments regarding Evaluation Boards. Could I raise one issue for further comment. It has been stated that Evaluation Boards must comply with FCC emc requirements CFR 47 Part 15. Another view is that Evaluation Cards are exempt as defined by section 15.103 (c) which states; -- A digital device used exclusively as industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment. -- In Europe I know one Evaluation Board manufacturer gained CE compliance through the Technical Construction File route. The product exceeded recognised industrial emc emission levels but was 'passed' by a Competent Body on the proviso that it's use was restricted to industrial development premises. Unfortunately I don't now how he dealt with this for the US. Knowing how these boards are often used - external cables to logic analysers, additional circuitry connected to expansion ports - the EU approach is reasonable Has anyone any comments to offer or suggested sources of information. Vic v...@virata.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: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995
CD-ROM title IEEE EMC Society Volume IEEE001 through IEEE004 subjectSymposia Records 1955 to 1995 from Applied Microfilm Corporation Phone 617-893-7863 FAX893-0084 web site amc.bx.com e-mail a...@bx.com FYI Symposia records 1996-1999 are on a different format, IEEE Catalog Number: 99CH36261C ISBN: 0-7803-5638-1 The older records have a useful subject search engine. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Author: Gert Gremmen SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:6/8/2000 2:30 AM Can anyone tell me how to obtain a copy of such a CD ? Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Barry Ma Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 12:26 AM To: david_ster...@ademco.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org; jk100...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com Subject: RE: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Jim and David, Yes! the re-setup works. Thank you very much. Barry -- On Wed, 07 June 2000, david_ster...@ademco.com wrote: We were unable to print after upgrading from Win95 to Win98. Changing printer options, changing pritners both were futile. A re-install solved the problem. David Sterner, ADEMCO __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Author: Knighten; Jim L SMTP:jk100...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com at ADEMCONET Date:6/7/2000 1:10 PM Barry, I AM able to print papers from the EMC Symposia Records CDs 1955-1995 (40 years for $40), although it is a bit tricky. The program is a bit clunky by today's standards. I had difficulty printing the paper and not all the abstracts recovered in a query. It took reading the instructions that came with the CD set to print the paper, itself. Perhaps you need to re-install the program on your computer? Jim Dr. Jim Knighten e-mail: jim.knigh...@ncr.com jim.knigh...@ncr.com Technical Consultant - Design NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com http://www.ncr.com Tel: 858-485-2537 Fax: 858-485-3788 -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Hi list members, I have difficulty to print EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 that I bought for $40. I have no problem to read them on my PC screen. But when following the instruction to print them from my PC, I can only get blank paper. Do you have the same problem? Thanks. Regards, Barry Ma m...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- 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: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995
We were unable to print after upgrading from Win95 to Win98. Changing printer options, changing pritners both were futile. A re-install solved the problem. David Sterner, ADEMCO __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Author: Knighten; Jim L SMTP:jk100...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:6/7/2000 1:10 PM Barry, I AM able to print papers from the EMC Symposia Records CDs 1955-1995 (40 years for $40), although it is a bit tricky. The program is a bit clunky by today's standards. I had difficulty printing the paper and not all the abstracts recovered in a query. It took reading the instructions that came with the CD set to print the paper, itself. Perhaps you need to re-install the program on your computer? Jim Dr. Jim Knighten e-mail: jim.knigh...@ncr.com jim.knigh...@ncr.com Technical Consultant - Design NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com http://www.ncr.com Tel: 858-485-2537 Fax: 858-485-3788 -Original Message- From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:09 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 Hi list members, I have difficulty to print EMC Symposia CD of 1955 to 1995 that I bought for $40. I have no problem to read them on my PC screen. But when following the instruction to print them from my PC, I can only get blank paper. Do you have the same problem? Thanks. Regards, Barry Ma m...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- 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 --- 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: EN 55022: 1998 Conducted Telecom
My previous company made Token Ring NICs for PC's. These met CISPR22 Class B. Compliance was achieved with capacitor networks. You need to filter bus noise from the card and high frequencies at the RJ jack. The PC bus filter (passive components) needs optimization to current PC motherboard frequencies. Ferrites are difficult because of back emf - you get strange cable length effects. They are practical only if cable length is a constant (i.e. in an integrated system). David Sterner __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EN 55022: 1998 Conducted Telecom Author: Hart; Michael SMTP:michael.h...@usa.xerox.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:6/5/2000 11:38 AM I am searching for potential design solutions for Network Interfaces (Token Ring Ethernet) related to the new EN 55022: 1998 Conducted Emissions Telecom requirements. We are performing the measurements on various network interfaces using Category 5 cabling and ISNs. Are designers able to reduce the emissions using external low frequency ferrites (common mode or differential mode) on the interface cables or are designers adding additional filtering at the board level or ? Is anyone involved in the design of Token Ring Network systems, that can tell me how much filtering can be added to a board interface without corrupting the communications? I would appreciate any feedback regarding potential design techniques. Regards, Michael Hart Xerox Corporation 800 Salt Road Building 843 Mail Stop 843-16S Webster, NY 14580 716-422-3760 716-422-6449 fax michael.h...@usa.xerox.com http://www.xerox.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: Smoke Alarms
APPLICABLE STANDARD
NFPA-72 available from National Fire Protection Association, Quincey
Mass. I also recommend the National Fire Alarm Code Handbood also
published by NFPA - it is more user-friendly.
REQUIREMENTS
output:85dBA of 10 ft (3m)
temporal pattern: triple burst as follows
0.5s ON
0.5s OFF
0.5s ON
0.5s OFF
0.5s ON
1.5s OFF
{repeat]
NFPA-72 has more detail regarding chimes, light- and tactile signals
for hearing impaired and interaction of signals from other alarms in
the building. There are also requirements for connection to a control
panel, tamper etc. which apply to a complete alarm system.
David Sterner
Alarm Device Manufacturing Co.
__ Reply Separator
_
Subject: Smoke Alarms
Author: Ralph Cameron SMTP:ral...@igs.net at ADEMCONET
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:5/31/2000 3:41 PM
Not sure if this is apprpriate for this group.
Can anyone tell me what the audible requirements are for standard approved
smoke
alarms?
Is there a spec for them ?
Mny seniors have difficulty hearing a high pitched tone and I am attempting
to
determine alternatives.
Thanks
Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics
(After sale)
---
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: Evaluation Boards
John, For developmental boards the pertinent paragraphs of CFR47 immediately follow the text you transcribed. FCC clearly exempts boards used for development at a customer facility under paragraphs (v) and (2), however the marking requirement applies. (iv) Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability, provided such operation takes place at the manufacturer's facilities during developmental, design, or pre-production states; or (v) Evaluation of product performance and determination of customer acceptability where customer acceptability of a radio frequency device cannot be determined at the manufacturer's facilities because of size or unique capability of the device, provided the device is operated at a business commercial, industrial, scientific, or medical user's site, but not at a residential site, during the development, design or pre-production stages. A product operated under this provision shall be labeled, in a conspicuous location with the notice in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) For the purpose of paragraphs (e)(1)(v) of this section, the term 'manufacturer's facilities' includes the facilities of the party responsible for compliance with the regulations and the manufacturer's premises, as well as the facilities of other entities working under the authorization of the responsible party in connection with the development and manufacture, but not marketing, of the equipment. 'Marketing' is subject to interpretation; many companies have technical marketing departments with their own development labs. My interpretation: to demonstrate ~ in front of customers, the marketing paragraphs apply. David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: RE: Evaluation Boards Author: jestuckey SMTP:jestuc...@micron.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/23/2000 10:56 AM I had forwarded this to Vic upon receiving his request last week, but viewing some on the responses that I have seen, I feel it would be appropriate to put it out for general viewing. Look at 47 CFR 2.803 Marketing of radio frequency devices prior to equipment authorization. (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) In the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter; or (2) In the case of a device that is not required to have a grant of equipment authorization issued by the Commission, but which must comply with the specified technical standards prior to use, such device also complies with all applicable administrative (including verification of the equipment or authorization under a Declaration of Conformity, where required), technical, labeling and identification requirements specified in this chapter. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section do not prohibit conditional sales contracts between manufacturers and wholesalers or retailers where de-livery is contingent upon compliance with the applicable equipment authorization and technical requirements, nor do they prohibit agreements between such parties to produce new products, manufactured in accordance with designated specifications. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (f) of this section, a radio frequency device may be advertised or displayed, e.g., at a trade show or exhibition, prior to equipment authorization or, for devices not subject to the equipment authorization requirements, prior to a determination of compliance with the applicable technical requirements provided that the advertising contains, and the display is accompanied by, a conspicuous notice worded as follows: This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained. (1) If the product being displayed is a prototype of a product that has been properly authorized and the prototype, itself, is not authorized due to differences between the prototype and the authorized product, the following disclaimer notice may be used in lieu of the notice stated in paragraph (c) introductory text of this section: Prototype. Not for sale. (2) Except as provided elsewhere in this chapter, devices displayed under the provisions of paragraphs (c) introductory
RE: Evaluation Boards
Vic, There is no US legal obligation for EMC/safety on development boards so long as they are offered for sale. If a system containing the board is offered for sale, then the system must pass EMI requirements any market-imposed safety requirements (e.g. UL1950). If the customer usually incorporates the development board circuitry into a larger PWBA, app. notes will prevent frantic calls at the end of the development cycle about not passing EMC and safety. EMC If the development board fails applicable requirements, you should provide an app. note explaining how to meet the requirements. SAFETY Any special markings, warnings, telco restrictions, etc. should be explained in an app. note. David __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Evaluation Boards Author: Vic Gibling SMTP:v...@virata.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/22/2000 11:34 AM Hi All As a chip manufacturer we provide Evaluation Boards to licencees for product development. I would appreciate any advice, guidance or comments regarding safety and emc issues with regard to these boards. Thank you. Vic Gibling v...@virata.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: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . .
IEC950 is not officially withdrawn yet. We received a draft CB-scheme test report February 2000 based on IEC 950, with 97-06 amendments. EN 60950 is based on IEC 950. Eventually IEC 950 will become IEC60950 to simplify the numerology. Provisional and draft documents are subject to change. As I noted before, certification to an issued document is preferable; even if the document is superseded, the conditions of acceptance are well-defined. David Sterner Alarm Device Manufacturing Co. Syosset NY __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: EN60950, 3rd Edition, and . . . Author: Ron Pickard SMTP:rpick...@hypercom.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/15/2000 2:23 PM Carla et al, I had recently asked a similar question regarding IE60950 3rd Ed. and its acceptabilitty, which also included the CB Scheme. I received very little response which I think was due to many not knowing themselves. After thinking about this while this thread has now resurfaced, I feel that IEC60950 3rd will not and should not enter into the CB Scheme arena until the member countries have national/regional versions of IEC60950 3rd Ed. in place. The only region I know that is pursuing this is North America with its UL60950 3rd Ed. The rest of the regulatory standards making bodies appear to be silent regarding this (unless I've been keeping my head in the sand). This apparent reluctance to proceed may jeopardize the one-basic-standard approach the ITE community has grown familiar with. So, to all those out there with their ears to the grindstones of the standard-making bodies, is IEC60950 3rd Edition being adopted into, say, EN60950 3rd Ed. or AS/NZ 60950 3rd Ed.? Any others? Just some added questions and opinions thrown in and tossed about. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com Carla Robinson Carla_Robinson@mwTo: emc-p...@ieee.org .3com.comcc: Sent by: Subject: EN60950, 3rd Edition . . . owner-emc-pstc@iee e.org 05/15/00 08:46 AM Please respond to Carla Robinson Greetings! I am seeking information on when will the 3rd Edition of the EN60950, L.V. Directive, go into effect? When will it be ratified for the European Community? Carla Robinson 3Com Corp. 847-262-2494 carla_robin...@mw.3com.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 --- 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: Network Card Certification
Dan, It seems we are on a tangent here. For a network card you should first determine whether the card is sold OEM/retail and the countries where you intend to market. AGENCIES, DELIVERABLES UL/cUL/DEMKO approves to most I.T.E. safety specifications: UL1950, CSA22.2#950, IEC950, EN60950 and IEC60950. Other NRTL's offer equivalent services; the choice is a marketing call. Do not used proposed documents because the released version will differ from the draft. A US and international listing mark provides the traceability needed for system level approval (and that insertion of card does not negate system level approval). 950-SERIES DIFFERENCES NIC approval is basic: max. voltages, flammability, traceability of jacks and Xformers. The trend is toward harmonization of technical requirements. There are national deviations on voltage sources; you need to current limit a direct output from the 12V internal supply (e.g. AUI port). UL60950 I read the draft UL60950; changes affect telco connections, spacings for various voltages, national exceptions, marking. Most are no-brainers on a low voltage NIC. EMC FCC accepts CISPR22 as an alternate method so you can test to the harmonized requirements. I recommend the EN50082-1 immunity tests as a market requirement if you sell retail; most mfgrs go for international approval. Filtration of PC motherboard frequencies from the network port tends to favor only a portion of the spectrum - optimization is needed for Class B, especially at the system level if the card must pass with motherboards of different frequencies and layout. Read the section of CFR47 carefully regarding differences between assembled from 'FCC-B' components and full FCC-B approval. This is as far as I can go without knowing details of the card or your marketing plans. David ---end of text- Unfortunately, there is a UL60950. I had the draft copy, which was sent to me direct from UL, but not the final copy. My draft was misplaced in a change of companies. I have spoken to UL about getting another copy. I also understand that this standard went into effect on April 1st, 2000. http://www.wll.com/teupdate0100.pdf Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- 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 --- 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: Network Card Certification
Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- 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: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ?
Early BW monitors were tested with scrolling H to produce maximum emissions and reproducibility. With the newer monitors, noise does not appear to be so pattern-dependent. For an unknown unit, I would experimentally try several screen displays to determine pattern dependence (if any) and note the reasoning for your choice in the test report. A color pattern may emit more than a simple text (e.g. letter H) pattern. David Sterner __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ? Author: Benoit Nadeau SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/9/2000 1:06 PM Bonjour de Montreal, In CISPR22:1997 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. 8.2.1 Operation of visual display units If the EUT includes a visual or monitor, The following operating rules shall be used. - Set the contrast control to maximum. - Set the brightness control to maximum or at raster extinction if raster extinction occurs at less than maximum brightness. - For colour monitors, used white letters on a black background to represent all colours. - Select the worse case of positive or negative video if both alternatives are available. - Set the character size and number of characters per line so that typically the greatest number of characters per screen is displayed. - For monitors with graphics capabilities, a pattern consisting of all scrolling Hs should be displayed. For monitors with text capability, a pattern consisting of random text shall be displayed. If neither of the above apply, use typical display. The EUT shall be operated in the operating mode that generates the greatest level of emission while satisfying the above operating rules. In BS EN 55022:1998 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. | | | | | | ??? There is no section 8.2.1, although it is referenced in the text. What happen to 8.2.1? obviously it has been deleted, without editorial review, when CENELEC adopted CISPR22:1997. What is the rational behind this? Should visual display unit be configured as in CISPR22:1997 or is this field wide open? The CISPR22:1997 is quite similar to ANSI C63.4 requirements. Is this deletion some sort of denial of the ANSI method? What should visual display units (or graphic cards as in my particular case) do? Any comment will be helpful. Regards, -- Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.) Conformity Group Manager Matrox Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475) Fax: (514) 822-6275 Chairman 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001 -- --- 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: EMC Directive
Be careful of declarations that include a specific model manufactured by another company. Without engineering control or intercompany agreements the other product could change without notice, technically negating your declaration. Nothing prevents the competent body from insisting on a cooperative agreement between both companies to assure future compliance. Is this related to your earlier question about an UPS? David Sterner __ Reply Separator _ Subject: EMC Directive Author: wo...@sensormatic.com SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/4/2000 10:18 AM Assume a product requires the use of an external device in order to comply with a particular immunity test. Assume that the product is marketed without the external device and the device is readily available in the EU member states. Is it acceptable to create a TCF for the particular essential requirement, obtain an opinion from a Competent Body, and declare compliance with notes in the declaration and installation instructions that the product is compliant if and only if it is used with the specified external device? Richard Woods --- 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
