Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] confused about the following exempted equipment from the FCC

[Gary McInturff]

Thanks Jim. To the most part that’s how I interpret it as well. Power and 
telephone utilities have their own set of rules the get to play by, but 
excluding equipment in an industrial plant seems odd. There was at least one 
interpretation that B only applies to test equipment for the three categories.

I believe that the in-situ testing is what would actually be required to 
satisfy the FCC and that is what I’ve advised our customer and my design team 
but I’m doing some double checking to see if my facts are straight. (that would 
be once this year).


From: Jim Bacher [mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Gary McInturff
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] confused about the following exempted equipment 
from the FCC

Gary,  my understanding is section B applies to electric utilities only, or 
electric utility hardware.  In some cases a company might have their own 
electric generation capability so it would apply to that equipment as well.  It 
does not apply to generic industrial equipment.

Something to big to fit in a chamber may be tested at the location where it is 
installed.  Several of the test houses have mobile test vehicles to do such 
testing.

Jim

On Dec 16, 2016 1:51 PM, "Gary McInturff" 
<gary.mcintu...@esterline.com<mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com>> wrote:
This seems to imply that as long as your sticking a device normally subject to 
the published limits and tests can be ignored if it is going into a large 
industrial park. So for example and automated box sealing equipment located 
inside of an industrial part is exempted from the limits and tests normally 
associated with digital equipment. There is still the caveat that it can’t 
interfere but I assume that this would only happen because of a complaint from 
adjacent users. How about theme parks etc. The public utilities in the US have 
many exemptions to the regulations but not industrial locations. I presumed 
that testing in those case for large equipment that didn’t fit in a chamber was 
subject to at least in-situ testing. But I’m clueless how those measurements 
would include or exclude the devices EMC performance.
15.103 Exempted devices.
The following devices are subject only to the general conditions of operation 
in §§15.5 and 15.29 and are exempt from the specific technical standards and 
other requirements contained in this part. The operator of the exempted device 
shall be required to stop operating the device upon a finding by the Commission 
or its representative that the device is causing harmful interference. 
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference 
has been corrected. Although not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the 
manufacturer of an exempted device endeavor to have the device meet the 
specific technical standards in this part.
(a) A digital device utilized exclusively in any transportation vehicle 
including motor vehicles and aircraft.
(b) A digital device used exclusively as an electronic control or power system 
utilized by a public utility or in an industrial plant. The term public utility 
includes equipment only to the extent that it is in a dedicated building or 
large room owned or leased by the utility and does not extend to equipment 
installed in a subscriber's facility.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer










Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d’Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923<tel:(800)%20444-5923>
Tel:  (208) 635-8306<tel:(208)%20635-8306>
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance…
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer





-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DwMFaQ=0

[PSES] confused about the following exempted equipment from the FCC

[Gary McInturff]

This seems to imply that as long as your sticking a device normally subject to 
the published limits and tests can be ignored if it is going into a large 
industrial park. So for example and automated box sealing equipment located 
inside of an industrial part is exempted from the limits and tests normally 
associated with digital equipment. There is still the caveat that it can't 
interfere but I assume that this would only happen because of a complaint from 
adjacent users. How about theme parks etc. The public utilities in the US have 
many exemptions to the regulations but not industrial locations. I presumed 
that testing in those case for large equipment that didn't fit in a chamber was 
subject to at least in-situ testing. But I'm clueless how those measurements 
would include or exclude the devices EMC performance.
15.103 Exempted devices.
The following devices are subject only to the general conditions of operation 
in §§15.5 and 15.29 and are exempt from the specific technical standards and 
other requirements contained in this part. The operator of the exempted device 
shall be required to stop operating the device upon a finding by the Commission 
or its representative that the device is causing harmful interference. 
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference 
has been corrected. Although not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the 
manufacturer of an exempted device endeavor to have the device meet the 
specific technical standards in this part.
(a) A digital device utilized exclusively in any transportation vehicle 
including motor vehicles and aircraft.
(b) A digital device used exclusively as an electronic control or power system 
utilized by a public utility or in an industrial plant. The term public utility 
includes equipment only to the extent that it is in a dedicated building or 
large room owned or leased by the utility and does not extend to equipment 
installed in a subscriber's facility.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Which Safety Test Agency Reports are accepted by City of LA Test Lab (please provide text of requirement or code)

[Gary McInturff]

It was always my impression way back then that the case was if you had no NRTL 
then you had to have a LA investigation for items within its jurisdiction. Of 
course back then the only NRTL was UL as defined by the NEC(?). Several now 
appear.
I could have that backwards.

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Which Safety Test Agency Reports are accepted by 
City of LA Test Lab (please provide text of requirement or code)


Hi Leo:

LA requires NRTL certification.  (I saw no reference to the city test lab which 
LA has had in the past.)
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT27ELCO_ART83REINETMA

Rich


From: Leo Eisner [mailto:l...@eisnersafety.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:22 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Which Safety Test Agency Reports are accepted by City of LA 
Test Lab (please provide text of requirement or code)

Hi All,

I am working with a client that will be installing a pretty big medical device 
in various types of locations across the country and so they want to make sure 
to meet all city and state electrical codes.  From my memory of when I used to 
work at UL many many years ago I remember that City of LA has a test lab and 
they won’t just take anyone’s test reports but they I believe accepted some of 
the NRTL test reports.  Does anyone have any info on this detail and also if 
there is a written requirement or language on this specific issue.  A weblink 
or a reference to a City of LA code or similar would be really great to get too.

Thx much,

Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
Phone: (503) 244-6151
Mobile: (503) 709-8328
Email: l...@eisnersafety.com
Website: 
www.EisnerSafety.com

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Public view of this email server?

[Gary McInturff]

Actually the 1st amendment says that congress can’t prohibit speech. It says 
doesn’t address public or businesses restricting speech.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
the Government for a redress of grievances.


From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Public view of this email server?

An employer seeking to restrict  personal communication on the Internet  may 
violate the First Amendment..

To replace the sesquipedalian disclaimers imposed by corporate lawyers, I 
coined the TLA OOO which has appeared in my sig-tag since time immemorial.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 3:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Public view of this email server?

I work in an environment where it is reasonable for me to assume that anything 
I write may be accessed by a plaintiff during the discovery process of some 
future lawsuit. It makes me more careful what I say, but it generally doesn’t 
prevent me from responding to a forum such as this. The disclaimer I use is 
based on guidance given by my current employer and is similar to what has been 
required at past employment when responding publically. I can say what I want 
as long as I indicate that it is a personal response and not necessarily the 
opinion of my employer. Despite the environment, my employer does not prohibit 
open communication on public forums. The employees are encouraged to speak 
responsibly and recognize that they may be seen as representatives of Microsoft.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online 

Re: [PSES] Paper Manuals?

[Gary McInturff]

I haven’t tried in a while but at the time - 10 years ago and got the same 
mixed results you appear to have gotten. When pressed about the only reason 
they could give me was concern was that not all people have access to computers 
etc.  to read the manual even if given a disc in the shipping container nor 
could they even go on line to find the manual on a web site. I suppose that 
might still be the case and kind of a tough argument to defeat in the extreme 
but it doesn’t match the changing reality of interconnectedness. Especially for 
professionals. By the way I Just bought an expensive spectrum analyzer and 
everything, operation manual, compliance and safety etc. was either on disc or 
website. Maybe lab equipment allows electronic everything I don’t know because 
I don’t have the standard.

If you happen to have competitive equipment you can always ask why they are 
being selective in their decision or claim previously accept constructions. But 
you are going to have to push the issue up hill. The poor sole evaluating the 
equipment is often blocked by the simple black and white of the issue, that 
doesn’t mean he has the ultimate authority on it. Reviewers and managers above 
them have the ability to alter decisions. Should they be able to, that’s 
another question.

Gary

From: Kortas, Jamison [mailto:jamison.kor...@ecolab.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Paper Manuals?

Good Morning,

Has anyone had any success in getting standards writers and/or evaluation 
organizations to accept an electronic version of a manual as an equivalent 
alternative to a paper version even when the standard refers to a paper manual? 
 I am getting mixed signals from various individuals within organizations and 
wanted to pool ask the group for any insight.

I would think, particularly for equipment that is installed by trained 
professionals and not lay people, there might be an appetite for this sort of 
change.

Thanks,

Jamison
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For 

[PSES] Humidity test.

[Gary McInturff]

Stymied over a simple question.
I'm going to do a MIL-810 humidity test for 10 days. But reading the details of 
the pertinent section I can't really determine if the product is supposed to 
operational the whole time or just brought up during the required 5th and 10th 
cycle functional tests. My presumption is that it would be off during the rest 
of time (they do discuss long term storage in humid areas) so that the humidity 
the self-heating of the product while on doesn't ameliorate any of the negative 
of the effects of humidity fungal growth, deposits from external sources, 
hygroscopic issues et al.
They spend time discussing tailoring the test but this really isn't a 
tailorable consideration. It either is or it is not. So the devil is in the 
details and I think they left one out.

I can't afford the time or cost of running this twice and my direct customer 
doesn't know either - and getting answer from his customer is egregious

Anybody?

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

[Gary McInturff]

The cars compare value and thus the presumed value of the occupants and the 
cheaper car drives off the cliff. I only wish that won’t be at least a 
consideration.
Generally I’m more optimistic than this.
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 9:03 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

With a little imagination, I can come up with many scenarios that appear 
“no-win”. Imagine you are driving down a mountain road with a rock face on one 
side and a long drop off a cliff on the other. Vehicle to vehicle 
communications allow your self-driving vehicle to stay close to the car in 
front of you. It is a straight road and high speeds are allowed. Now imaging a 
rock slide starts dropping a large boulder onto the roadway. The vehicle in 
front of yours may hit the rocks, but it remains intact enough to protect its 
occupants. Your vehicle can either hit the vehicle in front of you potentially 
injuring its passengers or take evasive action risking your health. What does 
the vehicle do?

I live in the state of Washington where rock slides are common.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-and-services/geology/geologic-hazards/landslides
http://komonews.com/news/local/rock-slide-closes-highway-2-in-central-wash
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9957369/ns/us_news-life/t/rock-slide-closes-major-highway-washington/#.WCCyMIWcGeE

Maybe vehicles will need to be programmed to have a much greater following 
distance in areas where there is a rock slide risk. However, there are many 
places where a tree can fall on the road, large animals can jump out or a child 
could run out into the road unexpectedly.

These aren’t situations that are new with self-driving cars. They just create a 
new issue of liability.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

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

From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

Obviously I can't think of all possibilities, but it seems to me that these 
sort of situations must be corner cases. After all I have never found myself in 
a situation where my only options are to hit a person or go down a 300 m cliff 
at 100 km/h. Further more, I won't be driving at 100 km/h when there is a cliff 
where I can go down!It's called defensive driving. I am sure defensive driving 
is programmed into all self driving cars so they are much less likely to be in 
this sort of situation. The only exceptions that I can imagine are deliberate 
acts on the part of the person.
On November 7, 2016 5:06:36 AM PST, Jim Hulbert 
> wrote:
So a Mercedes automated vehicle would make the decision of who lives and who 
dies. That’s incredible.


Jim Hulbert


From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 6:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.


This article in The Guardian is related to your first point regarding human 
drivers “gaming” driverless cars to gain an advantage


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/30/volvo-self-driving-car-autonomous


“The first self-driving cars to be operated by ordinary British drivers will be 
left deliberately unmarked so that other drivers will not be tempted to “take 
them on”, a senior car industry executive has revealed.”


Also


“Meanwhile, Mercedes has made it clear that if a situation arises where a car 
has to choose between saving the lives of its occupants or those of bystanders, 
it will 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

[Gary McInturff]

That just adds a third dimension to the issue

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:26 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

By that time, flying cars will be normal.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Automated vehicles.

Regardless of consumer inclination, the inclination of the increasingly 
authoritarian powers-that-be will be to mandate such automation when it is 
available, so that regardless of the consumer's preferences, automation will be 
all that is available. This will be done in the name of "public safety"
and I can see a day when the remaining non-automated cars will be ordered off 
the roads as a danger to the modern fleet.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=fjYhPx0QysZsaaOUH1gY-cAMLJmugXuh9AbQ1kvZoFc=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=72tJjFONrtgv5K1oEX2mj2aqtk0-NxC7idqKLxIqkpg=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=yz0NhhtB9z7vWfPmKZhhIlgybUX4wkEFiyYd-jdLkmY=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=EAwdqsLSSoseRXWdPKMXqvhOoo3WSSsEzfWyYiRr4pU=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DgICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=wnHqCD2wDXrHNJsjn6rQl4LHN4YMg-ZDwHc0DsM-3No=d08TMyJEvPvMbJYscAruIV65Vd1Gq-4XuKy6Tf5_UuI=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & electrical appliances

[Gary McInturff]

Mil-310 Climatic conditions might be an interesting read for you. Granted you 
aren't talking about military equipment but this standard has a lot of useful 
information about temperatures, altitudes etc. all around the world. It won't 
tell you what your product should be rated from but it will give an idea of 
what the temperatures etc. are likely to be in the 20. 10. 5%, cases etc. and 
breaks them down by regions. It's free so not a bad reference to have around - 
even when the product is commercial

Gary 

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 12:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer 
electronics & electrical appliances

In general 10-40 degrees Celcius is sufficient for indoor use.
Most batteries keep enough energy to get the product started/operating, but I 
personally have experienced Iphones that crash when taking pictures outdoors in 
winter.
( below say 5 degrees Celcius)
Same for (some) canon cameras (probably others too) operating from ordinary 
rechargeable penlites. 

It did not prevent most manufacturers to just specify 10-40 degrees, and since 
consumers never read this stuff (do consumers ever read ? If they did so we 
would not call them consumers !) it obviously does not stop them from consuming 
when it's cold anyway. 

When integrating products into larger systems I use this range for 
non-specified products. It means that the inside temperature of these systems 
should not exceed 40 degrees, and this is very confronting to some 
manufacturers, used to integrate OEM stuff inside. 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
    - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
    - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
    - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
    - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday 5 November 2016 17:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & 
electrical appliances

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your views/comments!

In summary, most of suppliers produce uniform products for all countries 
including very cold weather ones.  If the products are used indoors, the 
ambient temperature would not go to low temperature extreme.  Thus general 
consumers including those lived in very cold areas do not need special design 
of products.

If the product is transported from outdoors to customer house, a once-off 
warm-up time could be tolerated by most of consumers.

For products used in tough environment, special design is required and cost is 
higher for small group of users only. 

Regards,

Scott


From: Adam Dixon 
Date: Saturday, 5 November 2016 at 7:21 PM
To: Scott Xe 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Operating temperature range for consumer electronics & 
electrical appliances

Hi, Scott,

 
Apple informs its customers about temperature extremes and battery/device 
performance in an easy-to-find article titled "Keeping iPhone, iPad, and iPod 
touch within acceptable operating temperatures."  Apple users in Norway should 
have the same hardware as those in the US, so should be no unique thermal 
design for Norway. 
All consumer electronics manufacturers should have 
transportation/storage/operating temperature ranges, though it is difficult 
sometimes to locate the numbers in their documentation.  I designed with LCD 
panels for several years and there are similar design challenges with liquid 
crystal temperature behavior at high/low temperature extremes.  There was one 
panel design for worldwide use.  Only when the panel was being designed into a 
product for outdoor use (ex:  digital signage), were additional heating/cooling 
hardware added to ensure the panel itself stayed 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Fwd: ESD, part of our training Enjoy!

[Gary McInturff]

At least you were annoying somebody else.

I was demonstrating, from a personnel safety standpoint, the need for the 
bleeder resistors and the ESD bench insulator. Charged the horizontal plate up 
to about 30K (good old Andy Hish ESD gun) and was pushing back the insulator. I 
accidentally came in contact with the charged plate at the just below my waist 
level. That made the point much better than the method I had intended. Don't 
try this at home

-Original Message-
From: Cortland Richmond [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Fwd: ESD, part of our training Enjoy!

On 11/1/2016 8:53 AM, N. Shani wrote:
> Well, I don't know if he's an idiot or a fool:

About 30 years ago, we got a brand-new ESD test gun at Wang Laboratories in 
Massachusetts, and I found it necessary to prove that the simulator delivered a 
similar waveform as a human.

I got to be the human.

My technique was to discharge the tip of the gun to a Pellegrini target feeding 
a 1 GHz delayed sweep 'scope.  These were the days when one needed a Polaroid 
camera (with 3000 speed film) whose shutter was triggered from the sweep.

We had a linoleum floor with no attention paid to ESD discharge, so it was 
pretty easy to charge myself up to 5 kV and discharge the potential from my 
outstretched finger to the target.  None of us will be surprised that it was a 
very close resemblance to the waveform the simulator produced.

However… A lot of us got into this line of work by playing.  Yes even as I 
dictate this, I can hear people thinking "Oh, that's what he's going 
to do!"   We'll see.

I put the sharp-pointed contact discharge tip on the simulator, and set up the 
gun at 25 KV continuous, aiming it to the mechanical doors some 5 m away and 
locking down the trigger.

When high-ranking visitors decided to drop by and interrupt every kind of test, 
some of them classified, they would perforce have to walk through the area 
iwhere ions were most plentiful, and the accumulated charge would make them 
jump.  This had the desired effect.

The number of visitors dropped precipitously.

Did you get it right?


Cortland Richmond

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DgIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=Tm8P8thuZNOYYWAOCQ1YreUawMjLdsOObTLvEZFEwQ8=FTIgNdgCJOM1QuS92uHHwUEG2QyUOry9XHYzMxKytIE=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DgIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=Tm8P8thuZNOYYWAOCQ1YreUawMjLdsOObTLvEZFEwQ8=jJCqWYMHLQyy6s9ci6wy_NMEqgDtr6xf03oDGW8DuZw=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DgIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=Tm8P8thuZNOYYWAOCQ1YreUawMjLdsOObTLvEZFEwQ8=KQx1ysU4HcmdNYpBtlPnLQAToCFSNZcF02HaOZZWk58=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DgIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=Tm8P8thuZNOYYWAOCQ1YreUawMjLdsOObTLvEZFEwQ8=NaIlkY7Gcly3_0zi_09o66p65VUpQCvr0QhHCl2W3pc=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DgIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=Tm8P8thuZNOYYWAOCQ1YreUawMjLdsOObTLvEZFEwQ8=6vqHTZktKaB-BdcluXxqoUNUhI-i4hL9PDuI5BJ13Gg=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 2nd hand or refurbished products

[Gary McInturff]

John
Given that standards in EU have a Docopocoss, I would think that refurbished 
equipment can ship to and around the EU only if the current EMC and safety 
directives have been met. So it is more than just replacing worn-out or failed 
parts and shipping willy-nilly, but must demonstrating compliance to the 
current directives, correct?

Even for currently manufactured devices at the very date of changeover I 
believe EU manufactures can only ship those items that are currently in a EU 
warehouse. The next unit off the assembly line has to comply with the new 
standards. I presume that would be the case for refurbished as well.


From: john Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 10:49 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 2nd hand or refurbished products

IIRC the regulations  for such products are essentially that they must comply 
with those that were in place when they were placed on the market in the 
EU/EEA, and provided that they are in the “same” configuration and modification 
state as that when placed on the market – OTOH, if they have been modified 
(e.g. updated components/assemblies providing more/different capabilities than 
as when originally shipped – and even updated s/w could be an issue if that 
affects the safety/EMC/etc., Directives requirements compliance), in which case 
they are required to meet the requirements that are current at the time the 
modifications are made, and  updated compliance documentation, including 
possibly a new CE DoC, to adequately confirm compliance with those current 
requirements.

That’s a generalization but that is from where I would start when assessing 
whether further compliance work is required - I would also refer to the latest 
edition of the Commission’s “Blue Guide” as I think that does provides relative 
guidance.

John E Allen
W.London, UK

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 27 October 2016 18:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 2nd hand or refurbished products

This is quite complicated.  Unless it causes a major problem, assume they do 
apply. Second-hand and refurbished products are not treated in the same way, 
because second-hand products may be offered for private sale by people who 
don't have all the necessary resources.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 6:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 2nd hand or refurbished products

Are EU chemical directives such as packaging directive, RoHS, REACH and safety 
directives applied to 2nd hand or refurbished products?

Thanks and regards,

Scott
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

[Gary McInturff]

That is the preferred method for Mil-810 testing. The rational is that they 
would like this thing to work within its actual environment not as a lab queen, 
I have not seen it required in commercial work. In  my opinion it is one of the 
reasons that major manufacturer's like Dell and others often fail after a few 
shipping cycles between labs, or even after sitting around for a while. They 
are designed not for EMC robust but to be quickly manufactured and easily 
opened to have upgrades added etc. All of this fights against the enclosure 
retaining its shielding effectiveness. I'm sure many of us have spent time 
cleaning seams, gaskets, and blank panels, and other mating surfaces because of 
all the shipping vibration etc. 
If none of you have then neither have I :)
Gary

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 8:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

No personal experience, but I have heard of this procedure. It might also apply 
to safety testing. Logically, EMC and safety testing won't affect the 
environmental test results, but the opposite is not so very improbable.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M 
Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England

Sylvae in aeternum manent.


-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 3:35 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] When is EMI testing performed?

Have any of you ever seen EMI qualification intentionally scheduled at the end 
of environmental qualification for the purpose of assessing EMI performance 
after the suite of environmental tests has taken its toll?

Thank you,

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=eFBhIDRbUiQQWUthtygJAX3S-3intLxHElGYcETkXI4=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=E6CcIU14S9yLPfbpFzuparDkGbioft8yshPwVw-ZRBg=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=jy3DC7RAV2IFtEpdsd3nh6i_DPfM7YdXrK7lD-RXDDY=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=yurKEGAyVyiTpBrjHIak_J59TKBChz-v_ZprlVhBHNg=
  (including how to
unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=GCrgYEbSrU4xspwgdOgB-OWuvYw_eAAKZALUIRu8kEY=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=eFBhIDRbUiQQWUthtygJAX3S-3intLxHElGYcETkXI4=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQICAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=xwcAbHkMD5AxquQH7XOEZoqh5W9aTfFVZbdMBBqPxSw=E6CcIU14S9yLPfbpFzuparDkGbioft8yshPwVw-ZRBg=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  

[PSES] capacitive touch equipment

[Gary McInturff]

Does anybody have any experience with us military electromagnetic immunity or 
emissions for P cap front panels. I understand from the water rain side of 
things but haven't yet been involved from emc end. mainly looking for it's a 
big issue or small issue for the p cap itself. Pcbs etc. I'm familiar with mil 
emc testing just not the pcap itself

thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Spark Ignition Source

[Gary McInturff]

Doug
Don’t have the answer to your actual question, but are you sure its natural gas 
and not N Hexane gas? I presume you're working on LN system or something but 
you may want to confirm, the gas type

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Spark Ignition Source

All,

I am looking for a supplier of electrical spark ignition sources used in 
flammable vapor or dust testing.  It needs to have a calibrated energy level 
and be able to provide two sparks per second with sufficient energy to ignite 
natural gas.  Any help is much appreciated.

All the best, Doug



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by ....SOFTWARE

[Gary McInturff]

Well software types are devious by nature and probably one of the reasons the 
FAA kinda-sorta strong arms developers in to using ASICS, PALS and EPROMS and 
the like. The theory is that this devices are not Von Neumann architecture with 
various entry/exit decision points that lead to a plethora of test cases, and 
as such have a finite number of test vectors which have exact outputs which can 
be measured and verified. 2^N (number of data pins). Test vectors can be 
written and run which report the output state of the device exactly and 
repeatably. They also have a software standard that would be used for 
multipurpose processors etc - but as I understand it is really pretty ugly and 
intensive.
One might consider putting the safety critical features inside a PAL etc.

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE

Dear Hardware People on the third rock from Sol,

Software beings (self included) are idiotically clever and tend to be rather 
subversive. We can devise profoundly evil schemes that can 'go around' fault 
conditions in electrical components that forces our equipment to pump out 
giggle watts of power while the surrounding creation melts down.

Pro-tips for future compliance engineers:
0. Never trust any software types; not even a single one among us. If your 
significant other is a software engineer, learn to sleep with eyes open.
1. learn how to read code like a book (which means you will need to understand 
the language's basic syntax and structural characteristics).
2. learn how to run code in an emulator that can run under fully static clock 
conditions.
3. learn how to determine code coverage.
4. carry a large hammer to meetings with the s/w dev team.

Brian


From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:41 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE

I have virtually no experience in software safety.  I'm a hardware guy.

I suggest simulating failures in the sensors (hardware) that gives the software 
info about what state the battery is in.  And, simulating failures of the 
hardware controlling the charging, discharging, and overcharging the battery.  
In this way, you have accounted for the worst-case failures of both the 
hardware and the software.  

Rich


From: Bolintineanu, Constantin [mailto:cbolintine...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 7:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SAFETTY FEATURES controlled by SOFTWARE


Dear Colleagues,

I would like to kindly ask those who have an extensive experience regarding the 
above subject, to share their opinion about the following aspect:

Having a circuit which is charging a battery, and having it controlled and 
protected  by SOFTWARE ONLY from the point of view of CHARGING , DISCHARGING, 
OVERCHARGING,

1. How do you think that SINGLE FAULT CONDITIONS shall be applied? (without 
SOFTWARE working at all? Or by providing a fault on the component where the 
SOFTWARE is stored? OR BOTH
2. Which conditions do you think that shall be imposed to the software and/or 
to the memory in which it is stored?

Any other suggestions/observations/comments are more than welcome.

Sincerely,

Constantin Bolintineanu P.Eng.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=pD2wSnFXUmVkQB8h5ertW_RK4ptOozJ-HN2sWmBgPKs=2EtpqHlHsbBzEW7Vu60_HiLObTq2aLXL9L94UEl8-T4=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=pD2wSnFXUmVkQB8h5ertW_RK4ptOozJ-HN2sWmBgPKs=WMXX2VvsVuyyd_Gmg9Ln19r4hBv5L_F7fHmKTB-WMwA=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=pD2wSnFXUmVkQB8h5ertW_RK4ptOozJ-HN2sWmBgPKs=OretaT5SWyRHp30PTid8liHJgc5F8Jo0FmJq5e67aiA=
 
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=pD2wSnFXUmVkQB8h5ertW_RK4ptOozJ-HN2sWmBgPKs=AlAFNbmrkao0w_NpmHaQidcWU6_lt0RKEg41pFsrbsc=
  (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 

Re: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

[Gary McInturff]

Think you just need to click on the language button in the upper right corner – 
more or less. I use this all the time and they are in English and significantly 
cheaper than other sources – IEC etc. They are members and these are official 
standards not some sort of change the cover letter and call it a standard.
I highly recommend them – but get the multiple license – it’s literally a 
couple of bucks extra and it can be put on the server so that many user can 
access it
Gary

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

Everything I have bought from EVS has been in English (or maybe both).

From: Dan Roman [mailto:danp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

Thanks to everyone who responded both to the list and directly.  I looked at 
several IEC standards and they were the same price on evs.ee as the IEC store.  
The ENs were priced much lower but the amendment I was looking for was not 
available and the ENs of the other IEC standards were translated to Estonian at 
the nice price.  Since I can’t read Estonian even free would not be of much 
help.

I guess if I want to avoid DRM I can purchase from evs.ee for twice the price 
of a single copy.  Networkable copy from the IEC is not twice the price, they 
use a sliding scale, but not sure what kind of DRM they use. What a bother.

__
Dan Roman, N.C.E.
Senior Member
IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
mailto:dan.ro...@ieee.org





From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:30 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

I buy whatever I can from 
https://www.evs.ee/shop
 , 2 licenses so PDF is not locked and is allowed t be put on server.

I bought a PDF recently from NFPA and it was not locked, only watermarked.

On occasion I have scanned hardcopy to PDF, then run the OCR scanner on it to 
make it searchable.

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

It depends very much on who publishes the standards. For example, many European 
and IEC standards can be obtained from the Estonian Standards body in English 
at attractive prices and a choice of means of delivery. 
https://www.evs.ee/shop

ITU and ETSI standards are downloadable and free.

Any standards publisher that makes it difficult to use their standards 
qualifies for a Darwin Award. How stupid can you get? (We don't know, we aren't 
extinct yet.)

It's obviously possible to scan even a very large hard-copy document if you 
have access to an automatic scanner. Or you can scan bits of it, as and when 
you need to. Legal issues, yes, but that's because the law is based on what 
King Henry VIII's lawyers thought was a good idea. Will anyone find out? Since 
everyone knows that micro-scale copyright violation for personal (even if 
job-related) purposes is endemic and uncontrollable, it seems unlikely.

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
 J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
We live in exiting times

From: Dan Roman, N.C.E. [mailto:danp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Electronic versions of standards and DRM

All,

The topic of where to buy standards comes up every once in a while on this list 
and usually is based on price or licensing type requirements.  I understand 
that DRM is a necessary evil these days but I am looking for a vendor of 
standards that does not require that software be installed in order to protect 
their standards licensing.   The IT Department where I work is very oppressive 
and refused to install the DRM software for me to use the last standard I 
purchased.  The vendor would 

[PSES] Retirement and subsequent job opening

[Gary McInturff]

I have announced my pending retirement and we are now looking for my 
replacement. I will be here another few months and the hope is to find a 
candidate and have them on board before I leave so that I can get them up to 
speed before leaving. I work with good people and the company supports its 
employees

The particulars are here


  *   External applicants are welcome to apply at 
www.esterline.com/careers<http://www.esterline.com/careers>, click on the blue 
"Search Openings" rectangle, there are actually two positions one here in Coeur 
d'Alene, and the other in Everett. ( I used to do that one until I moved over 
here)

I can tell you this is a great place to live and work, lots of outdoor 
activities, great place to raise a family, lower cost of living, but big enough 
that there are major entertainment opportunities. A few hour drive to Seattle 
gets you Major league sports - baseball (Seattle Mariners), Football (Seattle 
Seahawks), and Soccer (Seattle Sounders) and then you can leave the mayhem and 
return to Spokane/Coeur d'Alene for stress free living. (My opinion)

Candidates only please, and if you prefer you can send the resume as noted 
above or you can send it to me but please do so privately rather than spamming 
the list

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue Light

[Gary McInturff]

Redoing by basement. I looked for lights with a 3000K temperature. I didn't 
like the lower temp yellowish lighting. Once you notice it you can't stop 
thinking about mortuaries and the dim yellow light they use. Nobody else in the 
family has noticed but they sure like playing ping pong and reading etc. under 
the those lights. 
Please don't tell the AMA - there is bedroom down there and my guests seem to 
sleep well enough - maybe they are comatose from the lighting in the other 
room. 

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue 
Light

Found the AMA release here:
www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2016/2016-06-14-community-guidance-street-lighting.page

Almost ten years ago, saw an article that AMA says color over 3000 K not good. 
And much external LED stuff seems to be 4000 K or more. Am still waiting for 
data indicating actual disruption of circadian rhythm and/or decreasing visual 
acuity in humans. LED magazine was talking about this over five years past, and 
the IES published this in 2010: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ies.org_PDF_PositionStatements_PS-2D03-2D10.pdf=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=mPG4MhtSoCKBfDq6HHxk4qE5tits_xNTKqgntWNdw9E=
 

Suspect LED implementations will see a period where humans learn to accept a 
new norm. Those that cannot adapt will be submitted to the Klingon High Command 
for disposition. My professional recommendation is to not stare at the street 
lamp. Anecdotally, we had a few complaints about blue hue of new office 
lighting for a few weeks, but all are now happy as a gopher in soft dirt, and 
have become decidedly compliant with all corporate edicts. But most 
importantly, LED lighting, when done correctly, reduces wide-spectrum light 
pollution, so for sake of my desert trips, all must use LEDs.

But, have noted that some of the LED drivers are serious noise problems (both 
RE and CE).

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 10:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] AMA Warns of Harm from LED Streetlights’ Blue Light

Just had a routine info email from the ECM Web highlighting an interesting 
American Medical Association (AMA) article on the potential harmful effects of 
LED streetlights - see here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electricalmarketing.com_blog_ama-2Dwarns-2Dharm-2Dled-2Dstreetlights-2Dblue-2Dlight-3FNL-3DECM-2D07-26Issue-3DECM-2D07-5F20160622-5FECM-2D07-5F825-26sfvc4enews-3D42-26cl-3Darticle-5F1-5Fb-26utm-5Frid-3DCPG0400025478-26utm-5Fcampaign-3D8880-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26elq2-3D0cf944f7f4f14ecbb045b2dbb57fc4de=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=QEN60DixQxuQteFgvpHepVR_UIe41u5J04oXwNvFO1Q=
I wonder what the effects could be in the future – and if anyone else, 
anywhere, has already picked up/investigated this subject?

John E Allen
W.London, UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=vHoco1zgtFhu6XTJ-jD6KrfuyNOE1T0v0d_T7tKBRiE=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=xWskAOBePqoOudqraAxiNixmcXm4_tUaqBs36JCEv-Y=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=0yX7PVDdqQIvDEYi8k2L0d2S0RRlSgFwyJFEeCz7rOw=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=6sITjH_nHTLDtZcEb2ijcg-y8EtUTMe21n3HjQJudWE=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DQIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=3nHJ9rqCrfmMc1wuofBqy_ouVzYrudVpqUw7ikFxWcE=sCxWslMzQS7ssKLbJhA6jo9oZTIYoqu1tDitE8PurhY=
 

For 

Re: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

[Gary McInturff]

Hey Don,
Thank you for the information very enlightening and surprising. I was going to 
have my ME's check the pressure (force) because the unit under test will be an 
unsupported touch panel assembly and I was a bit concerned that the water 
pressure would distort the touch sensors and pull them free of the bezel. If 
that was the case I was thinking about 3D printing a backstop for the panel. 
(We don't have the full assembly at this plant so doing the test on a subset of 
the equipment)

Again thank you for the effort and for teaching me something new
Gary

From: Gies, Don (Nokia - US) [mailto:don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: slightly off target but NEMA 4

Gary,

The short answer for the difference in tests is because the NEMA 250 and IEC 
60529 standards evolved separately and became the norms for North America and 
the rest of the world, respectively.

A mechanical engineer colleague of mine once pointed out that the pressure 
coming out of the nozzle for the IPX6 test nozzle, 100 liters per minute 
through a 12.5 mm diameter circular opening, is actually higher than that of 
the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, conducted at 240 liters per minute (65 gallons 
per minute) through a 25 mm (1 inch) diameter circular opening.  I can confirm 
this because when we put a set-up in our facility at Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ 
by having a fire-hose spigot put into the main water line, we had enough water 
pressure to conduct the NEMA Type 4 Hosedown Test, but not enough to conduct 
the IPX6 test. We installed a fire pump in the water line to boost the pressure 
up in order to conduct the IPX6 test.

Best regards,

DON GIES
NOKIA Bell Labs
SENIOR PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ENGINEER
GLOBAL PRODUCT COMPLIANCE LABORATORY
600-700 Mountain Avenue
Room 5B-104
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 USA
Phone: +1 908 582 5978
Mobile: +1 732 207 7828
don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com<mailto:don.g...@nokia-bell-labs.com>


From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:51 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

Have a request from a customer to do a NEMA 4 Spray test. I had always equated 
NEMA and the EU IPX series as roughly equivalent - and in fact have pumps and 
equipment to do the IPX6 test but was double checking to see that it was 
sufficient for NEMA 4. Turns out NEMA is about double the flow requirement of 
IPX6 requiring 65 gallons per minute. Yikes! Anybody know a reason why that, to 
me, outrageous flow rate.

I'll get the pumps etc. but that just seems way overkill so I'm just trying to 
put some reasoning behind the number.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer










Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>

Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."

Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer





-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=OPciQj4UmSB57oppICtLLZ__ln3Tj08uzB5QS-fQx3A=tqjxQ7aK0pE3b0OQLDm7L3v3W1_5LN3W2Rdc_dg11Qs=>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=OPciQj4UmSB57oppICtLLZ__ln3Tj08uzB5QS-fQx3A=b9bYbKeI45QAlNZyJnEyDuuJdZRW8H6gvRN6dOJ7Uw4=>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ur

[PSES] slightly off target but NEMA 4

[Gary McInturff]

Have a request from a customer to do a NEMA 4 Spray test. I had always equated 
NEMA and the EU IPX series as roughly equivalent - and in fact have pumps and 
equipment to do the IPX6 test but was double checking to see that it was 
sufficient for NEMA 4. Turns out NEMA is about double the flow requirement of 
IPX6 requiring 65 gallons per minute. Yikes! Anybody know a reason why that, to 
me, outrageous flow rate.

I'll get the pumps etc. but that just seems way overkill so I'm just trying to 
put some reasoning behind the number.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] another MDD question

[Gary McInturff]

I'll go a second burrito for the guys that came up with the info
Thanks

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 11:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] another MDD question

Appreciate the link to last med standards list per OJ. You people deserve an 
excellent burrito for lunch.

Noted that EN60601-2-12 still has no withdrawal date and nothing for 
EN80601-2-12. But there are some EU states have published national versions of 
EN80601-2-12 that indicate a DoW for EN60601-2-12. Geez EU peoples, how can we 
do 60601-1 4th edition updates without the associated Particular Requirements 
standard?

Comments on legal requirements where nothing in OJ, but individual states have 
requirements?

Thanks,
Brian

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=DQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=gfBT76AR5DUZ5QFEC51gnPcu1HE3gegseqy_wXD-lts=GKNSM9uaxm24utguKOsqv7y5wtBpTQdOSf-ZhQrB-qM=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=DQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=gfBT76AR5DUZ5QFEC51gnPcu1HE3gegseqy_wXD-lts=TkaO5ZTmWwx542zRuVYiebWrfXUuUMdd5lr3kSVHVpY=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=DQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=gfBT76AR5DUZ5QFEC51gnPcu1HE3gegseqy_wXD-lts=35jfDXmTC5ay899xZ-K2JZUkkPQifU0dX692x-uAdZQ=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=DQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=gfBT76AR5DUZ5QFEC51gnPcu1HE3gegseqy_wXD-lts=JfdHFeuqcP2JOwRHq4IEoLE4nuCK1LxJrA0Dfbm9-Hc=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=DQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=gfBT76AR5DUZ5QFEC51gnPcu1HE3gegseqy_wXD-lts=YDyI6ouR-C6atfryAYf-Ne0yQ7ZCmUMdgNxVqnOoQ2c=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

[PSES] 60601-1-2 edition 4 acceptance dates and DOW of edition 3

[Gary McInturff]

Are these dates still valid?
US and Canada requiring 4th edition in 2017?
EU accepting 4th edition but 3rd edition still acceptable for new products. 
What is the EU DOW. I tried hunting through the EU journal but could never find 
the standards dates. A link please?


In February 2014, the IEC published IEC 60601-1-2:2014, ed 4.0 for Medical EMC. 
There are a number of changes in the 4th edition, including new immunity and 
risk analysis requirements.
Dates
For new products in the U.S., the FDA will make a decision on the 4th edition 
this July, with a likely 3-year transition period (2017 recognition). The FDA 
does not currently require retesting of legacy products unless changes are made 
to the product that may affect its compliance.
Canada is planning to review the 4th Edition sometime in 2015 so it will not be 
accepted before 2015/2016. It's typically 3 years before accepted standards are 
required for new submittals.
In Europe, CENELEC has voted affirmatively to accept the 4th edition but has 
not set a date to withdrawal (DOW) the 3rd edition. The DOW of the current 3rd 
Edition is expected in the 2017-2018 timeframe. There is no grandfathering in 
Europe.


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies
Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products


600 W. Wilbur AvenueCoeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>

Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."

Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer








-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer?

[Gary McInturff]

I interpreted the original post correctly this was a system that was developed 
by the original posters company expressly to be used in the industrial market. 
It might look like a personal computer but there is another factor to be 
considered.
The OEC document provides an escape clause, if you will, in a couple of places 
if you read it carefully enough. The term “marketed” is important in this 
context.  Since I don’t know who can see snippets of a PDF file and I don’t 
want type out the paragraphs I’m going to just refer you to section 15.3 (h), 
15.3 (i) and 15.3(s)
Section (s) defines a personal computer stating “computers that are “marketed” 
through retail outlets, mail order, and advertised to the general public.
If the original poster is building a computer that isn’t marketed to 
the average consumer, advertises in trade magazines rather that Best Buy type 
circulars, and/or is too big or bulky or even lacking consumer esthetics then 
it’s not a personal computer is industrial equipment. The marketing can also 
include price and supported software functions. 3X the price of an average 
computer, optimized to support only a CNC machine etc. takes it out of the 
personnel computer definition.

Section h and I essentially do the same thing: Class A digital devices are ones 
that are are “marketed Exclusively” for use in Business, industrial and 
commercial environments.

I had this discussion many years ago with the FCC. We were building banking 
automation systems, and we developed our own workstations hardware (IBM 
compatible) and banking specific software. I believe it was running MS O/S, and 
one could play with Excel or Lotus if you bought those applications and loaded 
it onto the computer but the marketing was as I described above, advertised in 
trade journals, was pricey, and was supplied only with our custom designed 
banking automation software. The agreed FCC agree it was not a personal 
computer and was in fact an industrial machine.

For what it’s worth
Gary

From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 
applicable/mandatory for an industrial personal computer?

There is an intriguing aspect of Michaels original question. He states the 
object is an “industrial personal computer in an industrial plant for 
measurement purposes.” There seems to be significant ambiguity related to what 
“test” means in 15.103c… particularly, is it to mean A. test device for other 
equipment (such as an oscilloscope), or B. anything that tests another object 
(such as a camera attached to a computer that does dimensional analysis of work 
pieces as they pass by) or both? There may even be a third possibility, and 
that is C. test in the sense of prototype.

I have seen A defended as the correct reading because it implies there is other 
equipment ‘in the equation’ that might be opened or in a state of failure when 
the test equipment is being used and so it make sense to carve out the 
exemption.

I have seen B defended in some contexts by the FCC such as a test noise source 
in an anechoic chamber, and I have received FCC guidance by email also 
supporting this idea.

However, I have not been able to find a definitive public guidance statement 
from the FCC

The definition given for test equipment does not resolve the ambiguity – “Test 
equipment” is “equipment that is intended primarily for purposes of performing 
measurements or scientific investigations [and] includes, but is not limited 
to, field strength meters, spectrum analyzers, and modulation monitors.”

It also seems important that the language of FCC is in terms of ‘devices’ more 
often than ‘products’ or ‘equipment’, thus a product or equipment might contain 
several devices each of which must have their particular FCC concerns addressed.

Regards,
Lauren Crane

KLA-Tencor
Public | Unrestricted

From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 47 CFR Part 15 Subpart B / ICES-003 applicable/mandatory 
for an industrial personal computer?

Dennis is 100% right. The exemption applies exclusively to products which are 
industrial, commercial, or medical test equipment.  The "test equipment" 
classification applies to all of these categories, not only medical devices - 
at least this is my interpretation.  So if the digital device is not test 
equipment, the exemption does not apply.  If the exemption applies, it only 
pertains to the technical requirements of Part 15.  The general operation 
requirements of 15.5 always apply. As to the Class A/B application, you have to 
look at how the device is marketed. If it is not marketed to the consumer and 
is not intended to be used in the home, then Class A applies.

Bill Stumpf


From: dward 

Re: [PSES] Agilent/Keysight repair sources?

[Gary McInturff]

I'd be most curious as well. I just developed a problem with my analyzer and 
looking for repair and cal.

From: Schaefer, David [mailto:dschae...@tuvam.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:21 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Agilent/Keysight repair sources?

All,

I'm looking for a company with experience repairing test equipment, especially 
Agilent and Keysight. I don't like seeing the quotes I get from Keysight for 
10% of the cost of a new piece of equipment every time something needs to be 
repaired. And considering the analyzer I need repaired is 10 years old, the 
quoted repair price is more like 40% of a used one on ebay.
Thanks,

David Schaefer
EMC Chief Technical Advisor
TÜV SÜD America Inc
Office: 651 638 0251
Cell: 612 578 6038
Fax: 651 638 0285


The mail and/or attachments are confidential and may also be legally 
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or 
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you were not the intended recipient, 
please notify us immediately by email at 
helpd...@tuvam.com and delete this message and all 
its attachments.   ­­
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE

[Gary McInturff]

Iec 60945 has immunity requirements as part of the standard and calls out iec 
60533 as a normative reference..

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:09 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE


thank you, very helpful information!!



John


From: Amund Westin >
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 11:24 AM
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: SV: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE


Important standards for Wheel marking:



* IEC/EN 60945 (as previous mentioned)

* IEC 60092-504 

* IEC 60533 





Latest COMMISSION DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/559 of 9 April 2015 amending Council 
Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment

(listing all test standards)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0559=EN





Also check out 
www.mared.org





B.regards

Amund





Fra: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sendt: 2. februar 2016 16:31
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE



Thanks guys!!



John also confirmed several IEC Standards.  Most seem to be geared toward 
Radiocommunications, distress and safety systems.



It's new to me as well.  When I learn more I'll share.









From: John Allen 
>
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 3:29 AM
To: John Allen; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE



Good morning



I'm not at all an expert of marine equipment safety, but  here are a few 
comments:



-Annex I of the Marine Equipment Directive (and its predecessor) calls 
for the Wheelmark, and not the CE marking.



Therefore you could check out the Notified Bodies for that Directive.



-   As for other equipment, I think it might be that equipment safety is 
also addressed more by the relevant maritime classification societies (Lloyds 
Register of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas, American Bureau of Shipping, 
Germanische Lloyd, etc) as they are ones that effectively permit what can and 
cannot be installed on the ships which they register and insure. So you might 
want to check some of those out as well because they might allow the "normal" 
equipment safety standards to be used but with additional modifications to deal 
with the more severe maritime environmental conditions.



-   One standard that does seem to come up a lot is IEC/EN 60945 "Maritime 
navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems - General requirements 
- Methods of testing and required test results"



John Allen

W.London, UK



From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: 02 February 2016 00:12
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Marine Equipment for CE



Hi,



I found the Marine Equipment Directive 2014/90/EU.



For Standards it refers to IMO Standards.  In searching through the IMO 
Standards, they seem to be more guidelines for how to use equipment vs 
evaluating the equipment for safety, etc.



Any guidance in finding Standards for Marine Equipment would be appreciated.



Best Regards,



John Allen

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] AU CISPR 22 Class B Interpretation

[Gary McInturff]

These vehicles travel between residential and commercial zones on a regular 
basis, so on that alone I would agree with the class B assessment, but I'm 
wondering if you don't have lots of other EMC issues to deal with - automotive 
immunity etc.

The only time I've personally seen an exemption for Class A in a residential 
zone was for telecommunications equipment installed into a room or facility 
owned by a telecom company. Doesn't mean there aren't other exemptions it just 
means I am unaware of them. So I think you stuck with Class B IMHO

-Original Message-
From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] AU CISPR 22 Class B Interpretation

Group,

My customer builds vehicular laptop and tablet docking stations intended for 
hard mounted use within emergency vehicles such as police and ambulance, as 
well as work trucks and forklifts.  The vehicular power supply narrowly missed 
CISPR 22 radiated Class B limits.  Then their AU Responsible Party told us they 
called the ACMA and they "insisted" this is a Class B device.  I then sent my 
own request to ACMA and received the reply below.

In my opinion the ACMA individual is clearly biased toward the Class B rating, 
but the fact that he leaves the door open to the Class A rating is enough proof 
for me that he agrees that it is a Class A device.  However, my customer is 
looking for safety in numbers.  The author raises a valid note of caution 
concerning receivers within vehicles, but these systems are already compliant 
with CISPR 25 and are widely used within North America and Europe with no 
interference problems so we're not concerned with that warning.

I would appreciate it if some of you would review this information and provide 
your professional opinion as to whether vehicle mounted ITE qualifies as Class 
A or Class B:

+++

Dear Mr Newton

Clause 4.1 of AS/NZS CISPR 22 (which is identical to CISPR 22, Ed. 6.0
(2008)) includes the following;

Class B ITE is intended primarily for use in the domestic environment and may 
include:

-  Personal computers and auxiliary equipment.

Note: The domestic environment is an environment where the use of broadcast and 
television receivers may be expected within distances of 10 m of the apparatus 
concerned.

Given that the class B limits apply to “personal computers” (which would also 
include “tablets”) it would seem logical that your mounting stations “for 
computers and tablets” (which I would think fall within the definition of 
“auxiliary equipment”) should comply with the same limits as the devices they 
are intended to hold.

I would also think that, because police and ambulance vehicles will probably 
have a broadcast (AM/FM) receiver installed in them this would probably 
constitute a “domestic environment”.  I would also question whether it would be 
prudent to have a device meeting the class A limits installed in a vehicle that 
relies heavily on two-way radiocommunications equipment where said device may 
interfere with the operation of this on-board radiocommunications equipment.

Having said that, clause 4.2 of AS/NZS CISPR 22  includes the following;

Class A ITE is a category of all other ITE which satisfies the class A ITE 
limits but not the class B ITE limits.  Such equipment should not be restricted 
in its sale but the following warning shall be included in the instructions for 
use:

Warning

This is a class A product.  In a domestic environment this product may cause 
radio interference in which case the user may be required to take adequate 
measures.

It is up to you whether you wish to comply with the class A or the class B 
limits however, I would personally err on the side of caution – if an ambulance 
or a police car were unable use its radiocommunications equipment and it turned 
out it was due to interference from your device the legal ramifications could 
be costly.

Regards

XX X
Technical Regulation Development Section
Australian  Communications & Media Authority

++

Thanks group,

Carl



-- 
Using Opera's mail client: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.opera.com_mail_=CwIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=REUwjO0LTxWeIU83i2YXyzJMPGAxuZ7a28IucaYKbwk=0MbearJBi5wfoWkXsEGbNWE2p_AP1g2xgVqxv3W1eJc=
 

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=CwIDaQ=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=REUwjO0LTxWeIU83i2YXyzJMPGAxuZ7a28IucaYKbwk=Q4p7eszn6yUBkAtLjbpwW1zi3G4X9tDx1NkmiNzYeB4=
 

Attachments are 

[PSES] Highest clock frequency in a device.

[Gary McInturff]

I was looking through standards I have but can't find an absolute description 
of highest clock frequency.

The overall device has clocks well below 105MHz, the point at which the 
spectrum above 1 GHZ must be investigated during radiated emissions.
However one of the IC's has an internal frequency well above that.

My understanding of highest clock would include this IC internal, contained 
within the chip and not provided to any I/O pins.  Others disagree, but I can't 
find any explicit documentation that defines this.
Can anyone pin point a textual definition?

Thank you


-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] Highest clock frequency in a device.

[Gary McInturff]

And the winner of the coveted "Hearty McInturff handshake" goes to . . . . !  
Chuck McDowell. For the finding this note  in BS EN 55032:2012 with 2014 update 
 This includes frequencies which are solely used within an integrated circuit". 
(consider yourself shook Chuck)

Hearty McInturff participation backslaps to Mike Sundstrom and Brian O'Connell 
for the FCC clause but the CFR47 phrasing is still a bit ambiguous  "Highest 
frequency generated or used in the device or on which the device operates . 
Without the express wording above it's pretty easy to draw a different 
conclusion and hence my question about exact phrasing.

Thanks folks. I truly do appreciate the assistance.

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer












Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products


600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306
www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies<http://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies>
Technology, Innovation, Performance...
"Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me."
Click 
here<http://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx>
 to read disclaimer





From: Chuck McDowell [mailto:chu...@meyersound.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:43 AM
To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Highest clock frequency in a device.

To quote from

3.1.19
highest internal frequency
Fx
highest fundamental frequency generated or used within the EUT or highest 
frequency at which it operates
NOTE


Chuck McDowell
Compliance Specialist
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Highest clock frequency in a device.

I was looking through standards I have but can't find an absolute description 
of highest clock frequency.

The overall device has clocks well below 105MHz, the point at which the 
spectrum above 1 GHZ must be investigated during radiated emissions.
However one of the IC's has an internal frequency well above that.

My understanding of highest clock would include this IC internal, contained 
within the chip and not provided to any I/O pins.  Others disagree, but I can't 
find any explicit documentation that defines this.
Can anyone pin point a textual definition?

Thank you

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org<mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=CwMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=D2qzNjgRb8j5658OHTVEIkrG_Sm4qEhIr9qlyzas7qM=W6YU8HiqIxHtRRgVOHqfkRYu4uZtsG9tcHlMvB0fcwg=>

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=CwMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=D2qzNjgRb8j5658OHTVEIkrG_Sm4qEhIr9qlyzas7qM=5NmwOug9jySu49ebOKsFdg3cQSMMzzMZy4Hv7bgTYOk=>
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=CwMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=D2qzNjgRb8j5658OHTVEIkrG_Sm4qEhIr9qlyzas7qM=OWIhKBKHW0NV3Mr-FP8grH2MF0a_jkWztawr08tBOE0=>
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=CwMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=D2qzNjgRb8j5658OHTVEIkrG_Sm4qEhIr9qlyzas7qM=I1xE_dKI1j51Y8uZYYL3mxlnr2uVYGqK_XsvPkfksSE=>
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=CwMFAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=D2qzNjgRb8j5658OHTVEIkrG_Sm4qEhIr9qlyzas7qM=Ekd6iVOTeN3XwBTjj1iVm1cq2oIm

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Generic EMC Precedence over Basic Standards and Fast Transient and Surge Immunity Questions

[Gary McInturff]

From the link suggested below.
“In some cases they may be completely adequate in themselves for use with 
particular products and may be used for product certification. This in turn 
relieves a product committee from developing a new standard and is very much in 
line with the IEC's forward-looking approach to its EMC work.”

From the scope of EN6000-6-1
“This generic EMC immunity standard is applicable if no relevant dedicated 
product or product-family EMC immunity standard exists”

So if no product standard exists use EN6000-6-1, but I would use the product 
standard if it is available, for example for ITE, audio and video there is 
66032 emissions and sometime in the future 66035 (I think) will describe the 
immunity requirements for those products in their typical environments. Really 
the difference between the two is the analysis done by the standards groups on 
what is or is not appropriate for that product usage.

I don’t have any real argument with Bill’s over-test to protect yourself, but 
there is a time and cost associated with that in production entry, including 
test fees, to unit cost if unnecessary components are shipped with every 
product. So choose wisely but take advantage of the standards writers knowledge 
that may exist for your product classification.




From: Rajneesh Raveendran [mailto:rajneesh.raveend...@seagate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] Generic EMC Precedence over Basic Standards and 
Fast Transient and Surge Immunity Questions

Hi Philip,

The precedence is EMC product standards --> Generic EMC standards --> Basic EMC 
publications.

The Basic EMC publications act as building blocks for Generic EMC standards & 
EMC Product standards.

The Generic EMC standards act as building blocks for EMC Product standards.

You can get more info at the link - 
http://www.iec.ch/emc/basic_emc/

Regards,
Rajneesh

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Philip Stevenson 
> wrote:

Dear List Members



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 references  a number of 
"Basic Standards" which are associated with each of each of the EMC Immunity 
Test Requirements.



I have been advised that the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 
test requirements have precedence over the referenced "Basic Standards". Is 
this correct?



My reason for asking relates to the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 
61000-6-1 Surge and Fast Transient Immunity Test Requirements for a DC Power 
Input of a product. This test requirement references "Basic Standards" IEC 
61000-4-5and IEC 61000-4-4  in Table 3.



The following questions relate to a product which is powered from a 28V dc 
output from a 230V ac Mains Powered COTS DC Power Supply.



Surge Immunity Question:



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Table 3 Surge Immunity 
Test Requirement refers to Basic Standard IEC 61000-4-5.



As previously stated the Product is powered from a 28V dc output from a 230V ac 
Mains Powered COTS DC Power Supply via a shielded cable assembly which is less 
than 10 metres in length.



In the Basic Standard IEC 61000-4-5: 2014 Section 7.6 it states that "No test 
shall be required for cables according to the manufacture's specification are 
less than or equal to 10 metres."



Whereas the Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Surge Immunity 
Test Requirement caveat "c" states that "Apparatus with a DC power input port 
intended for use with a AC-DC Adaptor shall be tested on the AC power input to 
the AC-DC Adaptor".



As the products DC power input cable assembly is shielded the Basic Standard 
implies no testing is required. Whereas the Generic EMC Immunity Standard 
implies the AC power input to the COTS DC Power Supply needs to be tested. My 
question is which of these test requirements has precedence?



Fast Transient Question:



The Generic EMC Immunity Standard BS EN/IEC 61000-6-1 Table 3 Fast Transient 
Immunity Test Requirement caveat "d" states that "Apparatus with a DC power 
input port intended for use with a AC-DC Adaptor shall be tested on the AC 
power input to the AC-DC Adaptor".



I have been advised that the Fast Transient Immunity test needs to be performed 
on the DC Power Input cable.



My question again is which of these test requirements has precedence?



I would be grateful for any advise or guidance the members can provide on these 
matters. If you prefer to reply to me be directly instead of via the list my 
personal Email address is pw...@hotmail.co.uk.







Regards





Philip Stevenson

-

Re: [PSES] EN 55035/CISPR35

[Gary McInturff]

I certainly wouldn't assume that. Korea already wanders pretty much to its own 
drum. The test voltage for example requires testing at their specified voltages 
that don't match up with the rest of the world even though it is within the 
tolerance bands. (if I remember correctly)

The last time I did a emc test requiring Korea approval along with the rest of 
the world I had to run many of the tests three times, US, EU, and Korea.
From: itl-emc user group [mailto:itl...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] EN 55035/CISPR35

Hello All
I received a notice that starting in 2016, Korea will only accept test reports 
to KN32 and KN35.
I assume that these are the equivalents of CISPR 32/EN 55032 and CISPR 
35/EN55035.
>From searching on the internet, I have not been able to find  CISPR 35/EN 
>55035 in final form.
Has CISPR 35/EN55035 been published as a standard in final form (not draft).
Thanks in advance
Season's Greetings

Regards,
David Shidlowsky | Technical Reviewer
Address 1 Bat-Sheva St. POB 87, LOD 71100 Israel
Tel 972-8-9186113 Fax 972-8-9153101
Mail dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il  Web 
www.itl.co.il

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




-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas >
Mike Cantwell >

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  

[PSES] Cable retention force

[Gary McInturff]

Does anybody know of a standard which describes cable retention force other 
than safety standards such as 60601-1 (Medical General Safety) or 60950 (ITE 
general safety) and if so can you give me the numbers. The product is about 2 
pounds. ITE would say that the value is about 6 pounds.

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc.,) Where?

[Gary McInturff]

I think I have told this story before but you asked so now you have to read it. 

Back around 1975 I was minding my own business when I got a letter from the FCC 
stating that the police department's car radios could not transmit when in the 
vicinity of a bank in Fallon Nevada. This was for a class A computing device - 
bank teller and back room automation. I don't remember the whole letter and but 
they obviously wanted to know what we were going to do about it. There was 
urgency to the letter but not a specific date or a direct turn off the 
equipment requirements.

We had a very specific signal to look at from the letter. I reviewed our test 
reports and the signal was not found, certainly not on the suspect list or 
final measurements. We had a 3 dB of margin requirement in our design process. 
We were measuring on our own 10 meter site that was registered with the FCC.( 
It really didn't take much to register in those days, site attenuation, 
physical description of the site etc.). EMC design and control was in its 
infancy for digital devices and this system had 6 to 10 cable interconnected 
devices - a real rat's nest.  

So I jumped on a plane to the Fallon. with the analyzer, antenna, and close 
field probes.  We set up the antenna near one of the teller platforms and 
started looking - nothing, switched to close field probes - nothing. Next 
station - nothing. It was nearing midnight so we started to shut down the 
equipment preparing to come back the next day. All of a sudden as I was 
starting disconnect the antennas a huge spike appeared at the suspect 
frequency. I asked my cohort what he was doing and he responded that he was 
shutting things down. I had him turn them back on and very quickly the spike 
disappeared. Equipment off - large spike, equipment on no spike. Came back the 
next day and called the police radio room again and had her hold the phone to 
their receiver. As soon as I turned off the suspect equipment I could hear the 
tone coming from the receiver via the telephone. I asked them to check their 
logs to see if they could identify any particular time when things seemed to go 
hay!
   wire. All of the complaints were after the bank closed for the day and had 
turned the equipment off.

A little investigation found that a video display was  changed from a +12 Vac 
only unit to one that required +  and -12Vdc. The switch being used to power 
the old display only had a single pole and perfectly acceptable for the old 
single voltage design. From the designers aspect things were working just fine. 
Turn off the power and the display went blank. Undetected by them was that the 
video amplifier was being driven into oscillation when the plus voltage was 
removed. The solution was simply, we could get dual pole switches that fit the 
unit and could be replaced in the field. We determined the number of field 
units, built up power switches and cables and instructed the field service guys 
to make the change. I responded back to the FCC that the problem was found, 
what the root cause of the signal was, and our field updates and projected 
timeline for complete retrofit, along with a note that any new complaints would 
be retrofit immediately. 
I don't really remember whether we got a response back from the FCC saying the 
accepted our resolution - I think we might have - but other than that we never 
heard from them again.
The short of it was - actual field complaint sent to the FCC, they tracked us 
down, we responded with the root analysis and repair information within two 
weeks and life went back to normal.

This and the one other incident does bring up the test modes issue though. The 
requirements at the time were for operating, scrolling H's to all peripherals, 
printers, disc drives etc. all variable control set to maximum etc. at least as 
a minimum
The above is an example of a mode one would never consider - the equipment 
turned off. I also had a problem with a vendor who was selling us a monitor and 
I kept pointing out a signal 30 dB over the limit. He insisted it wasn’t there, 
I insisted it was. Again I jumped on a plane with the offending monitor with 
me. Went to the suppliers test facility and started running tests. Again it was 
a single frequency of concern. He set everything up using a set of support 
equipment he had and turned everything on. He kind of smirked when the 
offending frequency wasn't there. I walked out to the monitor and adjusted the 
contrast form the required maximum to a more user preferred level. The smirk 
was quickly replaced with a whole different look as a plus 30 dB signal sat 
right where I told him it would be.

The point is one has to try to standardize the test setup and modes as much as 
possible - but there are a huge number of permutations that can apply and the 
highly unlikely will undoubtedly  bite you in a sensitive part every so often.



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: 

Re: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?

[Gary McInturff]

Cispr 22 die, and maybe still does talk about statistical sampling during test 
in lieu of pulling some off of the assembly line. I’ve seen the big kids (HP, 
Intel etc. ) do this on complete personal computer systems. In fact I witnessed 
in when I was in Europe working with HP when one of our components had a 
problem. We resolved it but HP would not accept the product until they tested 
in on 5 complete systems including our part. If I remember correctly it was 
called the 80/80 rule because 80% had to pass 80 % of the time. The highest x 
number of emissions had the RMS value resolved and I think some other magic 
(sorry it’s been awhile) but it was the case that a unit could have an 
emissions that was beyond the specified limit but when the simple statistical 
analysis was done the item was deemed acceptable. Again this was in the CISPR 
documents and HP was simply following them. I’ll have to look to see if it 
still exists, and if not maybe one of my old copies will have the 80/80 rule 
discussed. I’ll try and find it.


From: Douglas Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 4:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?

Patrick,

In your story, what you did was a small statistical study. Multiple samples 
allow you to do this. It is similar to the problems of EMC. One possibility is 
to test  multiple units and record the results as a probability or simply 
record the worst case. When dealing with large expensive equipment that can 
take days to evaluate, it is far simpler to build confidence by simply adding, 
pause for effect, margin.

Doug

‎Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



From: Patrick
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 5:13 PM
To: doug...@gmail.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?


Ahhh, our old friend: "Margin".
Margin is one of those timeless EMC topics.

IMHO- there is simply no evidence that margin is helpful.

In a practical sense we all know that a "single-measurement-plus-margin" is not 
a confidence builder.
As an example, think about the last time you worked on your home wiring.
How many times did you read that multi-meter before you touched the wires?
Did you read it just once?  Then add some margin?

Nope- I'll bet you did like me:  I read that meter, and double-read it.
Then I read it again.
One measurement is simply not enough to build confidence.

Next time someone asks you for "reasonable margin" ask them about their last 
wiring project

-Patrick
OOO.


On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Douglas Powell 
> wrote:
Ted,

Very good points. If minimum passing margins are a result of ‎edge rates on 
transistors, diodes or ICs, then a second source or "upgrade" to a faster 
device can be counterproductive with regard to the emissions profile.

If such engineering changes or supplier changes have occurred, then a retest is 
often the best policy. I was also aware that several cumulative engineering 
changes over time can result in a non-compliance.‎Each change, when 
evaluated by itself was inconsequential. But in aggregate, result was a 
failure. This is often the reason I would require a retest after some number of 
engineering changes had been applied to a product.  Of course, keeping full 
data test reports on each passing result is really the only way to do this well.

Doug

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

From: Ted Eckert
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 2:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Reply To: Ted Eckert
Subject: Re: [PSES] Stricter limits than legal (CISPR11, IEC, etc,) Where?


In addition to the responses from Doug, Ghery and Brian, I will note that 
margin protects you from unexpected or unknown changes from component 
suppliers. To some extent, this falls under the manufacturing variance Doug 
mentioned, but component changes is just another area that can be hard to 
control.

I’ve had IC vendors do a die shrink on a part resulting in sharper edge rates 
on the outputs. At a previous employer, I was running emissions testing on a 
number of samples where Motorola did a die shrink on the microcontroller we 
were using. Some of my test samples had the old part and some had the new. It 
took a long time to figure out why some samples were significantly worse than 
others after controlling for all other variables. Having 6 dB margin to begin 
with provides some protection against this type of 

Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

[Gary McInturff]

Brian

Have you tracked the time to failures and put it on a Weibull analysis to see 
if these are truly random failures. I'm wondering if the power supply 
components are not properly derated and are overstressed. Maybe they are 
failing not from a transient event but components are being overdrive. I 
presume a similar set of components are failing - could be a few rather than a 
single one - in these units. I know you could reproduce the failures in-house. 
I would, if you haven't, get a hold of the manufacturers reliability folks and 
talk about their anticipated failure modes.

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

James,

No. We are seeing a high fallout of purchased power supplies across most (but 
not all) product lines regardless of the furnace type.


John,

The power supplies have an internal fuse. We add a supplementary over-current 
protector upstream of the power supply but it is sized to protect the wiring, 
connectors, and traces on the distritrabution board; not the power supply 
itself. So, yes, the OCP can be 2x or 3x the size of the fuse in the power 
supply.

When these power supplies fail (BAM!), the black soot is a 2" diameter area 
between the AC input connector and the bridge rectifier. The input traces are 
often vaporized off the PC card and the rectifier has failed shorted and of 
course the fuse(s) on the power supply are open. It is hard to tell if the 
damage was caused by high voltage arcing or by high current turning the traces 
into a flash bulb.

These power supplies are power-factor corrected. I will check with engineering 
if such components are damaged.

The large line filters are internal to our instruments so yes, they are always 
in the circuit ahead of all AC within the instrument.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Hi Brian,

Is the furnace type common to all the failed pieces of equipment? If not 
common, similar?

Reading on with interest
James



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 17 September 2015 14:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Bob and all.

Good question. Before I answer your questions, let me describe the typical 
architecture of the products that we make.

Our instruments (laboratory equipment) are single phase 230VAC 50/60hz which 
powers two separate internal circuits; one being a relatively low current 
electronics powered by a purchased over-the-shelf 24Vdc power supply, and 
second, a high current furnace of some type; inductive, electrode, resistive 
heating elements, etc.. Because of the high overall current of the instruments, 
typically between 30A and 50A, the instrument is plugged into a high current 
branch circuit with a huge high current line filter. Internally, we usually 
have a smaller supplementary over-current protector (5, 10 or 15 amp) driving 
the lower current non-furnace electronics such as the dc power supply, cooling 
fans and blowers, etc..

The issues we are having are with these purchased power supplies blowing up. 
And because we pre-test power supplies and our finished products so extensively 
and we are not able to cause a power supply failure with the same damage 
pattern as we are seeing in the field, we believe that in the real world our 
products are seeing some kind of condition that we are not able to simulate in 
our EMC Lab. Identifying and understanding such conditions is our goal at this 
time.

We use no additional inrush limiting other that what is built into the power 
supplies themselves. Other than a thermistor of some kind, how can the inrush 
be limited?

We have also seen on several occasions in the field where a power supply will 
blow up in one instrument which causes the power supply in a nearby instrument 
to also fail.

Two weeks ago we had an "event" occur right here at our own campus in our 
Application Lab where 40-50 instruments of different models and ages are being 
used daily to develop test methods. An instrument was power on but was not 
running an analysis (high current furnace wasn't running in what we call 
Standby-mode). BAM!! The 24Vdc power supply blew up. We sent two R engineers 
who have been working on our fallout problem in the field to investigate. They 
found the power supply had failed in the same way as those in the field. No 
other failed component in the instrument was found. The power supply was 
replaced and the instrument was once again functional. AS THE Engineers turned 
to walk back to their office, BAM!! The power supply blew up in the instrument 
installed 

Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

[Gary McInturff]

I've had unexplained high fallout with those controllers - bwaaahha

-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

>Methinks Gary's statistical/analytical approach is relevant. After 
>desperation, despair, and panic have set in, you may want to consider building 
>a small microcontroller module with an SD >card to constantly log stuff. Have 
>resorted to this several times with customers' field failures that made no 
>sense. And in one case, we identified a very hazardous condition that could 
>have >trashed the customer's site.

Or just buy a microcontroller data logger, I think there are lots of them out 
there.

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:34 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

>From one Brian to another, we gotta get a root cause for your problem.

Methinks Gary's statistical/analytical approach is relevant. After desperation, 
despair, and panic have set in, you may want to consider building a small 
microcontroller module with an SD card to constantly log stuff. Have resorted 
to this several times with customers' field failures that made no sense. And in 
one case, we identified a very hazardous condition that could have trashed the 
customer's site.

Easy to do with some of those amazing chips from Atmel, TI, Freescale, etc (do 
not recommend Microchip stuff). Favorite chip is the Cortex M4 (MK20 series) 
from Freescale. Very versatile, powerful, and much I/O.

Wishing much luck to the other Brian

Brian

-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Brian

Have you tracked the time to failures and put it on a Weibull analysis to see 
if these are truly random failures. I'm wondering if the power supply 
components are not properly derated and are overstressed. Maybe they are 
failing not from a transient event but components are being overdrive. I 
presume a similar set of components are failing - could be a few rather than a 
single one - in these units. I know you could reproduce the failures in-house. 
I would, if you haven't, get a hold of the manufacturers reliability folks and 
talk about their anticipated failure modes.

-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

James,

No. We are seeing a high fallout of purchased power supplies across most (but 
not all) product lines regardless of the furnace type.


John,

The power supplies have an internal fuse. We add a supplementary over-current 
protector upstream of the power supply but it is sized to protect the wiring, 
connectors, and traces on the distritrabution board; not the power supply 
itself. So, yes, the OCP can be 2x or 3x the size of the fuse in the power 
supply.

When these power supplies fail (BAM!), the black soot is a 2" diameter area 
between the AC input connector and the bridge rectifier. The input traces are 
often vaporized off the PC card and the rectifier has failed shorted and of 
course the fuse(s) on the power supply are open. It is hard to tell if the 
damage was caused by high voltage arcing or by high current turning the traces 
into a flash bulb.

These power supplies are power-factor corrected. I will check with engineering 
if such components are damaged.

The large line filters are internal to our instruments so yes, they are always 
in the circuit ahead of all AC within the instrument.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

-Original Message-
From: Pawson, James [mailto:james.paw...@echostar.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Kunde, Brian; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Hi Brian,

Is the furnace type common to all the failed pieces of equipment? If not 
common, similar?

Reading on with interest
James



-Original Message-
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 17 September 2015 14:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Unexplained High Fallout of Power Supplies

Bob and all.

Good question. Before I answer your questions, let me describe the typical 
architecture of the products that we make.

Our instruments (laboratory equipment) are single phase 230VAC 50/60hz which 
powers two separate internal circuits; one being a relatively low current 
electronics powered by a purchased over-the-shelf 24Vdc power supply, and 
second, a high current furnace of some type; inductiv

Re: [PSES] Decoupling cap

[Gary McInturff]

I wish I could find the article by Bruce Archambeault and decoupling and the 
PCB board inductance contribution but unfortunately I haven't the time but it 
was a great extension of the ESR curves of capacitors to include the effects of 
vias, and other inductance "adders" to the base capacitor curves. But in lieu 
of that here are a couple of articles that are available on line that may help. 

http://www.interferencetechnology.com/distributed-decoupling-capacitor-effectiveness/
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r4/se_michigan/emcs/DL-ARCH-decoupling3.pdf


-Original Message-
From: CR [mailto:k...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Decoupling cap

On 9/16/2015 2:37 AM, Amund Westin wrote:
> Any good / bad experience by adding different cap values for decoupling? 

Amund,

You may not need *more*; I once fixed a similar problem, a design re-used on a 
PWB of a different shape and size, by moving a capacitor that had been 
separated from the device it was bypassing.

I liken the technique to putting electrons back before they scream for their 
Mum. People remember it.

Cortland Richmond

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=BQIC-g=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=6hV0sy5ESrJK0RTG-hACBCUGgPYtknMCrTcQli9KiWI=7Va-gc6MuOpgIPtAKhRCg02LTuDGZk4VR-XYtadKFx4=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=BQIC-g=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=6hV0sy5ESrJK0RTG-hACBCUGgPYtknMCrTcQli9KiWI=TkEQmqwyBUepy0r6bSWVqxji-TTLMn0WIc4ceKCzO8U=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=BQIC-g=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=6hV0sy5ESrJK0RTG-hACBCUGgPYtknMCrTcQli9KiWI=Oqz3sBrEgvKP9jHxdoa9r7DLaU8nNVEQZ64vjtjYMPM=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=BQIC-g=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=6hV0sy5ESrJK0RTG-hACBCUGgPYtknMCrTcQli9KiWI=na5lCQcrZPNRjaS6GTVJSJGaFvp3V-N7YHjWouMcQ34=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=BQIC-g=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=6hV0sy5ESrJK0RTG-hACBCUGgPYtknMCrTcQli9KiWI=yAJ1eSkn8JWLj9FMmaCrF49ohf32jeqQrg1yFhHSdhc=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:32 AM
To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Ted I was thinking about this on the drive in this morning - not from a power 
grid build out - more pragmatically instances of failure. Most companies do 
have ESD programs, both on the manufacturing floor and for product design. This 
developed not because of regulation but ESD failures. It was likely spurred on 
with the introduction of CMOS devices which in the day came shipped with the 
chip leads inserted through aluminum foil or other hopefully equipotential 
material to reduce damage. It took a lot of care getting them from the shipping 
"pallets" if you will onto the PCB. Yields were still low because the inputs 
were extremely sensitive. More were lost on the floor, and ESD or "no problem 
found" field problems were high. So ESD became a big problem and manufacturing 
floors were ESD hardened and so was the products. Even though the CMOS was 
eventually hardened by the chip manufacturers this particular lesson was 
learned and continuous design efforts and evaluation have continued in most 
companies.
While I have seen as a young engineer computers that would lock-up when metal 
cabinets across the carpeted office would lock-up or reboot and other examples 
of severe ESD upset. I have never experienced other immunity problems, other 
than the occasional and somewhat rare instance of dirty power - and even that 
has mostly been addressed by power supply manufacturers long before the 
immunity requirements of the EU came into play.
The point being when immunity problems have been identified the US has 
addressed the problem - for the most part - with the need for regulation, but 
again it took a demonstrated problem to drive it.

This isn't really meant to be a treatise on should regulation be required as it 
is in EU or self-driven. Just an observation from the past, when I worked on 
the prototype for dirt. Certainly others may have different observations.

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 7:10 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

Let me add yet another point of view.

In the United States and Canada, the step-down transformer that serves any give 
house may only supply 5 - 12 other houses. Residential and commercial customers 
are on separate transformers. Even in the denser cities, it is unlikely that 
any commercial or industrial equipment will be connected directly to mains that 
supply residential customers. This reduces the likelihood of transients from 
industrial equipment affecting consumer equipment. In Europe, there are many 
places where commercial and residential customers share a connection. The 
consumer equipment will be more directly affected by transients from industrial 
equipment. There is a similar difference that could explain why radiated 
immunity is not required in North America. Consumer products are typically 
further from noise sources.

That said, I don't see a difference for ESD or lightning surges. However, it is 
possible that there just are fewer cases of interference in North America 
because of the different ways we build cities and power grids.

This is just my theory, but I would expect that if interference were a problem 
in the United States, we would hear more people complaining about it. If there 
is one thing Americans like to do, it is to complain. They are even happier if 
they can blame somebody else for a problem. As such, I am taking the lack of 
visible complaints for a possible lack of the problem of interference.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com<mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com>

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity

[Gary McInturff]

The telecommunications industry has always had serious concern over product 
robustness: mechanical, safety, and EMC which was reflected in their private 
industry NEBS program. These were developed long before the wireless devices 
proliferated.  These were private industry standards were developed between 
ATT, Verizon, Southwest Bell and a host of RBOCs (Regional Bell operating 
companies) or CLECs (Co-locators - competitors using their facilities) They 
were both profit driven because they had burned down a couple of central 
offices affecting literally 100,000s of thousands of customers. In addition the 
FEDS could fine them if certain performance metrics weren't met and burning 
down a central office pretty much assures that they won't be met for some 
period of time. The FEDs however didn't develop or even suggest any standards.  
The test included a whole series of stress tests - corrosive gasses, shock, 
earthquake, vibration and intentionally sticking flame inside the enclosur!
 e and capturing not only flame but smoke density and toxicity etc. ( I set a 
$250,000 test sample on fire at their labs more than once) They included 
emissions testing that was different, but not dramatically, from FCC and EU ITE 
measurement process. But other than ESD I don't remember additional EMC 
immunity tests. Doesn't mean that they weren't there just that I can't remember 
15 years ago. 

The point is that this is a case where private industry developed very harsh 
standards that were imposed upon suppliers. If you didn't go through this NEBS 
standards testing process and by approved independent laboratories - there was 
no way in heck you were going to sell to Ma Bell in any of her forms. This 
suite of tests could easily run over $100,000 USD and that was just the 
hardware side. There were a host of software performance tests as well. Even at 
that cost the NEBS labs had a pretty brisk business because there was even 
bigger money in supplying the telecoms with equipment.  In the EU there were 
some ETSI standards that were similar.

Gary
 
-Original Message-
From: Sykes, Bob [mailto:bob.sy...@gilbarco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:26 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity

John Woodgate writes (in part):
>Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency 
>services, because of their importance and because they are
 >probably well-founded, not lunatic.

Yes, and not just emergency services...  I want my MTV via 4G!  The 
Cellular/mobile industry spends billion$ for precious spectrum and they 
aggressively protect that investment.  Frequencies that were once occupied by 
UHF channels are now home to advanced wireless services using base stations 
that log signal impairment data 24/7/365.  Cellular (and other related) 
industries are motivated and well equipped to track down interference to their 
services.  Revenue stream is directly proportional to throughput.

In the US;  Often these interference issues are resolved without FCC 
involvement by contractors such as:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.signalfinders.com_info_=BQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=NEBvlkek5qjU9CZItDpf2kFiW3JjOVQkrFf9anpvQhc=J9g727v4Ds_6ANNEHg0k0cyfblXFLNDSKVY3q_tDogc=
 

Sometimes the FCC helps:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__apps.fcc.gov_edocs-5Fpublic_attachmatch_DA-2D13-2D2077A1.pdf=BQIDAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=NEBvlkek5qjU9CZItDpf2kFiW3JjOVQkrFf9anpvQhc=LyTf4WDLObg5FJjDiK-j1nQn3UAuJqWEM2syvGIeeLw=
 

As spectrum cost rises, I think we can also expect interference complaints from 
more sophisticated, informed, funded and connected entities to supplant Joe 
Consumer's problems with his rabbit ears reception.

My opinion only,
Bob Sykes



-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

Well not really John - ANSI has no regulatory authority but money does. A 
business isn't likely to simply add either NRE cost or cost per unit without 
justification - poor product performance, competitive advantage, regulation. 
Poor performance isn't even a clean definition - if I have one failure out of 
10,000 because of ESD for example - just ship them another one etc.

My personal opinion is that proper operation in the field is as important as 
any other functional specification but whether it's done through 
self-enforcement or governmental regulation is a thorny question.

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message <009601d0ef5d$3dc51eb0$b94f5c10$@cox.net>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 
Ed Price  writes:

>True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of
>1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren?t so important 
>anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is.
>We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important 
>issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts.

It is interesting that the US (ANSI) participates fully in the IEC committees 
on immunity, having four experts on each and holding the Convenership of one.

Immunity is for other people, right?just
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=t7oXi6LZLk9QUYcMWGf13x8Qxh9Cq5N3LJRz-eY1hQ8=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=dpVzl3vy7Ty2lVA_Mtsf22T9AlmIrq7VSjkKFoiZeok=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=MBC-PWkSTEdeV_H3SE5E5EPsKwSScsy8M4MdESoVsWI=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=LjdwUv5zHYB3ySMXNcEZdm5qwGtHal09S1fn1PyFDE8=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=BQIBAg=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=DfV_m4hH3uYrcwXDEL2oYYcUiAvH2GMGZPgMEluXep8=tT_yY90TkyzdkSVMHn2qyiXL4O15CdyApX6TfWVVI9Y=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

[Gary McInturff]

IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a far 
different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions coming 
from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be detrimental to the 
public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They were never set up or 
intended to protect the general public - even the CB and Ham radio stuff was to 
protect the public communications and not our neighbors TV. Although proper 
design, frequency allocation and usage would cut down on that type of 
interference. They do mention immunity but only in so much as to let you know 
that properly operating public communications equipment could cause problems - 
and the consumer should deal with it because the FCC has no authority to 
mandate it for non- public telecommunications equipment. 

Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the minute 
I suppose.


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question

In message
, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis 
writes:

>Hi guys, in simple English.. the  FCC does state in section
>15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for 
>reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference.

Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough' 
without immunity standards?
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.html=BQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4=WwN2MFQ_50HdcUpMj7HyHU_hj9Sv2ASXXbnDpiQY6Ug=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_=BQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4=Yqpn35vzdmwXm5TeOB1nI1sSgOY3SeQZ7yD6oL9SsYY=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_=BQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4=AKsj7S25tFtqV--Ka7-cgiW_m-NUSWmKvqXu1JHcRbs=
 
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.html=BQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4=gwwr3PeoPTI7zfJUJ48VcE3J1tni6bEtf6zIC2xbWLQ=
  (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.html=BQIDAw=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k=5_ql7S3GQCOOe-R1rz4QsSipWlx_XRXXc75Rn89iEK4=cSeJt_Z-30_Ju_ITgmO-l3xQ0N4BY8DPHapabrSmKzY=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

-

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


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

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

Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

[Gary McInturff]

You'll need translation of some documents, but the test house I use provides 
that as well.

From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 1:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi all,

Thanks for the info.

It would be ITE, so I guess KN22/KN24.  Under my understanding, these are 
almost identical to EN55022/EN55024, apart from:

-radiated emissions must be tested at 10m, not extrapolated data from 3m
- a mains supple of 220V/60Hz must be used
- emissions at least a 2dB margin under the limits

All the testing done at an accredited RRC test house, then I would imagine a 
fair bit of paperwork to complete to achieve a KCC mark?

Thanks again,

Rob.




From: Allen, Chris [mailto:chris.d.al...@hp.com]
Sent: 21 August 2015 08:02
To: Robert Dunkerley
Subject: RE: EMC requirements for Korea

Hi Rob,

Not sure what your equipment is, but for IT equipment, testing to S. Korean 
standards at a RRA accredited test house is mandatory. S. Korea does have a MRA 
in place with the US so there are accredited labs available.

Standards are based around CISPR / ETSI standards e.g. KN 22  (CISPR 22) / KN 
24 (CISPR 24).

Attached is a list of standards and they are all recognizable Nos. The last 
paragraph in this document does state that other internationally recognized 
standards can be used but I'm sure that the tests will have to be carried out 
an accredited test facility.

Cheers,
Chris.

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: 20 August 2015 18:22
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Brian
That has not been my experience in the past with Japan via VCCI. One joins with 
VCCI as an associate(?) or something and they will then take reports from you, 
but the labs VCCI registration numbers need to be included. I sent the data and 
really overnight I had notice that they received it and I was on my way. 
(presuming this was data within the last 6 months, nobody will take really old 
data of a year or more) While I found it annoying that I would have to pay to 
be part of a voluntary program I suppose they have to pay the data entry 
folks, I found the process smooth and seamless.
But it has been a few years, and we were talking about ITE equipment without 
intentional transmitters etc. So things may have morphed. Korean on the other 
hand - I just don't have anything nice to say about their process and test 
voltage restrictions.

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi Rob,
With regards to your last statement - Japan also will retest EMC at their 
in-country lab, in spite of an accompanying EMC test report. I suspect that 
there are other such countries as well.

Also, be prepared for a long wait in Korea and Japan, while the testing is 
done, and results reported. It can take months, and the approvals are not 
inexpensive.

Best Regards,
Brian Ceresney



Brian Ceresney
Regulatory Lead
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

My own opions are represented here, not those of Delta-Q Technologies.


Phone: +1.604.566.8827
E-mail: bceres...@delta-q.commailto:bceres...@delta-q.com
Website: 
www.delta-q.comhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.delta-2Dq.comd=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=DWHHDX-JCo6B9UxUABv6Pay4ADTcH7CjtTY0pgkSExce=





From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com]
Sent: August-20-15 8:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi,

Has anyone had experience of the EMC requirements for selling goods to South 
Korea?

There is conflicting information online on what is actually required.  I always 
thought if you had CE and FCC covered, that would pretty much cover you for 
most of the world?

Thanks

Rob.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=w5j7CR3y2UuL_4n4c2nXm9za7vfrOkB5LoXSFZo_roAe=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwMFAgc

Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

[Gary McInturff]

Brian
That has not been my experience in the past with Japan via VCCI. One joins with 
VCCI as an associate(?) or something and they will then take reports from you, 
but the labs VCCI registration numbers need to be included. I sent the data and 
really overnight I had notice that they received it and I was on my way. 
(presuming this was data within the last 6 months, nobody will take really old 
data of a year or more) While I found it annoying that I would have to pay to 
be part of a voluntary program I suppose they have to pay the data entry 
folks, I found the process smooth and seamless.
But it has been a few years, and we were talking about ITE equipment without 
intentional transmitters etc. So things may have morphed. Korean on the other 
hand - I just don't have anything nice to say about their process and test 
voltage restrictions.

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:43 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi Rob,
With regards to your last statement - Japan also will retest EMC at their 
in-country lab, in spite of an accompanying EMC test report. I suspect that 
there are other such countries as well.

Also, be prepared for a long wait in Korea and Japan, while the testing is 
done, and results reported. It can take months, and the approvals are not 
inexpensive.

Best Regards,
Brian Ceresney



Brian Ceresney
Regulatory Lead
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

My own opions are represented here, not those of Delta-Q Technologies.


Phone: +1.604.566.8827
E-mail: bceres...@delta-q.commailto:bceres...@delta-q.com
Website: 
www.delta-q.comhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.delta-2Dq.comd=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=DWHHDX-JCo6B9UxUABv6Pay4ADTcH7CjtTY0pgkSExce=





From: Robert Dunkerley [mailto:robert.dunker...@snellgroup.com]
Sent: August-20-15 8:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC requirements for Korea

Hi,

Has anyone had experience of the EMC requirements for selling goods to South 
Korea?

There is conflicting information online on what is actually required.  I always 
thought if you had CE and FCC covered, that would pretty much cover you for 
most of the world?

Thanks

Rob.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=w5j7CR3y2UuL_4n4c2nXm9za7vfrOkB5LoXSFZo_roAe=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=pEe2qUrNx0IQY7hWKFLxszKgYdR7jxcMStwPsi-sh0we=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=PZBGOcSEZYkPNTf3uKEVtFTlYjOUNp5bZw7IEtQGUrke=
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=vlmprfp_PvOZ0vgF4QvD-cXIeTm4vL-hIrX3E1tbzNQe=
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=xKqw12rCEAP6ZgZwze9lyOKwD7_PaCRlDRA4v5AB3j4s=DRzm7ndaFbIbhAGDJKMMA0qBwwVEl54TzM4Tlq7uVKke=

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

Re: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

[Gary McInturff]

Long story short. They are trying to directly tie down the blame here.
A statement that the declaration is issued under the sole responsibility of the 
manufacturer (so don't blame the lab or the distributor (or even an outside 
contract designer)
Signed for and on behalf of - the CEO doesn't get to claim plausible 
deniability you are signing this for him.

If you have the list and the statements about who signed the document and under 
whose authority you still haven't said anything about whether or not you meet 
any of the actual requirements - just that you legally wrote them down.

What I'm surprised by is that a statement is required that says something on 
the order of I attest that the requirements of the list were fulfilled - in 
other words I didn't just write down some directive numbers I'm telling you I 
comply with them.

To be a witness in a court in the United States you have to attest to three 
things actually

Do you promise to:

*Tell the truth (bold faced lies are not acceptable)

*The whole truth ( you can't lie by omission)

*Nothing but the truth (you can't tell the truth
Interestingly enough the officers of the court prosecution and defense lawyers 
don't have to take the same oath about their questions.

Did you quit beating your wife. A half truth question with no winnable yes, or 
no answer. Assuming you aren't a wife beater so you answer no, then the 
impression is that you continue to beat your wife. If you answer yes, the 
impressions is that you are a recovering wife beater.





From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:44 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] New EMCD DoC Requirements

To All,

It is strange how the simplest things seem to take up the bulk of my time. Once 
again we are looking at the information required on the Declaration of 
Conformity. We are trying to determine if the New EMC Directive will force our 
current DoC format to change from what we currently have.  Changes in the DoC 
format can be costly to some companies and requires re-translations into 20+ 
languages.

Please review the 2014/30/EU, Annex IV:

I do not understand the new way this annex is trying to convey what it wants on 
the DoC. For instance, points 1, 2, 4,6,  7 seems like just a list of 
information they want on the DoC. But points 3, 5, and 8 seems like a 
Statement or text that we are supposed to quote on the DoC. Is this how you 
read it?

For example, point 3 says, .  The Blue Guide says, A statement that the 
declaration is issued under the sole responsibility of the manufacturer.  So 
the guide would seem to imply that this Statement is required.  Is it?

Point 5 is also written as a Statement, yet the Blue guide says nothing about a 
statement. Only that we list the harmonized standards and dates.

And lastly, point 8 says, Signed for and on behalf of . . . . . :  Again, is 
this a statement we are required to place  in the DoCs?

If these are Statements which we have to specifically quote on the DoCs, are 
any of the other points required text and I'm not reading them correctly? For 
instance, it is ok that I have our company's name and address or do I have to 
prefix it with Name and Address of the Manufacturer:??

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Because of the time it takes to 
change the DoC format and the  cost of translations, we try to keep the 
unnecessary text to a minimum.

The Other Brian





LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=jRthqyP3IjmeSY5dkdUizIM4I-LO9LGiM-Yts13-cxws=N_DgJyj_ahAMePg_Cqpz9l051BwY6ZnUTM7gge_hs0Ee=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=jRthqyP3IjmeSY5dkdUizIM4I-LO9LGiM-Yts13-cxws=Zh20p4TfpoXjOKO2qO3eAvrGphLhFUwpyQRV_68jjZ4e=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 

Re: [PSES] ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

[Gary McInturff]

Thanks Brian, our customer required the TR document just saying use these - 
didn't even give me specific symbol. If they didn't pay my paltry salary I 
could really learn to hate customers, especially when they send a standard 
requirement but then won't answer your questions about it. 

Thanks to all who responded.

mac

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

Do not have either standard, and have relied on the test lab's or the 
customer's marking requirements (life is much easier for a component mfr).

As both are called for in 60601-1 in several places, would go by Annex D and 
use 60878 unless the clause specifically specifies 15223-1 (which seems to be 
intended for marking packing materials).

Brian

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two documents

ISO TC 15223-1 and TR 60878
The both have similar titles and scopes I have the 15223-1 document but can 
only read the scope of the TR 60878, which is similar to the 15223-1 also. I 
don't want to purchase another standard if the one I have is sufficient for 
medical icons. 
Does one subsume the other? I tried to look at dates and history of both hoping 
they would somehow refer to each other - but no such luck Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer

Esterline Interface Technologies
Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products
600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] FW: ISO TC 15223-1 TR 60878 iso/CD 15223-1

[Gary McInturff]

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two documents

ISO TC 15223-1 and TR 60878
The both have similar titles and scopes I have the 15223-1 document but can 
only read the scope of the TR 60878, which is similar to the 15223-1 also. I 
don't want to purchase another standard if the one I have is sufficient for 
medical icons.
Does one subsume the other? I tried to look at dates and history of both hoping 
they would somehow refer to each other - but no such luck
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.






-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] D of C and product safety warnings and caution markings

[Gary McInturff]

We put a copy in the user manual, a web address, and an address from which you 
can get an actual signed DoC, rather than a copy of the signed DoC that you 
would download off the website. Additionally along with the shipping documents 
we include a copy of the DoC, along with printing the CE logo on the outside of 
the master shipping box but no separate DoC sheet with each product within the 
master box.

The last two lessons were hard learned, because we didn't mark the master box 
with CE, nor have anything with our shipping or import papers France stopped 
about 3/4 of million dollar shipment. This was about 20 years ago, and took 
about week to get resolved by sending the appropriate documentation. The 
customer was a little cranky because of the delay but no hitches-in-the 
get-along after that with importation to the EU and to France in particular.  

Haven't seen you since Santa Clara Ron. Hope all is well, going to play some 
golf in you old neighborhood this weekend.

mac

-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] D of C and product safety warnings and caution markings

In message
0d0d5aa1cae3104f96217cad19023ec8fbf35...@vf2wdexmb2.verifone.com,
dated Thu, 28 May 2015, Ron Baugh ron...@verifone.com writes:

Also, if the D of C is NOT physically in the shipping box, how does the 
country customs inspector know if we meet the required EU LVD 
requirements?

That is why you are advised to put it in the box, and for me that advice still 
stands. BUT this is completely optional, in fact such DoC copies really have no 
legal significance. The only valid DoC is the signed original, which is what 
you have to produce in a reasonable time to the regulatory authority ON REQUEST.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn 
my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and 
Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=9EXFfMYjDo6cWsSrR6C_QDmgcXMBwKkncsvNpgp2Jmss=pV2qbxdrmlqHOll3IcfB_vu35lL3LFn_etCDQENb10Me=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=9EXFfMYjDo6cWsSrR6C_QDmgcXMBwKkncsvNpgp2Jmss=tZ4z70ecO449Xo93sUfEtMmLp7jikv9kb9t7xRxgXb4e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AwIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=9EXFfMYjDo6cWsSrR6C_QDmgcXMBwKkncsvNpgp2Jmss=fqZ24ez49367A8RdUEpiRBJ_AvpU-ommmZPQmd98M34e=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AwIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=9EXFfMYjDo6cWsSrR6C_QDmgcXMBwKkncsvNpgp2Jmss=v2wc7Wq1p12TjFao8fOojAhKPRnbUaEA5mkXB4Co7hAe=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AwIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=9EXFfMYjDo6cWsSrR6C_QDmgcXMBwKkncsvNpgp2Jmss=cRkLi00iC67QqEo-QMstBKm9tf9dg3PDtwh7gBF7w7Qe=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

[Gary McInturff]

Don't believe the cost differential is significant - but cost control is only 
an ancillary activity and only in the general sense. But I've never had a 
failure except for vibration induced and even then it was generally the copper 
but the wire still kept from flopping around. QA practices when done in house 
dictate the crimp tooling to be used, the verification or calibration of the 
tool etc. For out of house the use of a recognized cable harness facility also 
insures all of those are done, and depending on volume various amounts of 
products in the cable factory are subject to pull test and other similar 
audits. 
Obviously we have our own QC inspections upon arrival to the factory but they 
are much reduced by leaning on UL's quarterly audits of the process and testing.

mac

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:55 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

Thought about this and realized that I have never seen crimped connector fail 
where the connector components have  test certificate, and where the crimping 
tool is subject to recurring calibration, and where the correct wiring 
materials implemented. And have never used crimping tools or connector 
materials that did not have instructions and conditions of acceptability. You 
get what you pay for.

This is basis of my requirement for crimped pins on transformer flying leads, 
which are then soldered into the PCB.

Would be very interested in other's experience with crimped connector failures.

Brian

From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:11 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

I agree with Gary, but the quality depends on wire type and match between wire 
and crimp.
Also the tool quality (if the right tool is used at all) is essential.
Crimps are suitable for stranded wire only, and the wire need to be inserted 
far enough.

Crimps are subject to a number of failure causes, and I have seen many wires 
come out of a crimp connector without force.

Not all safety critical parts have full compatible flat 6.3 mm terminals, the 
retention hole is missing or adapted so as to allow wires be soldered into.
Manufacturers of crimp terminals often fail to provide decent assembly and 
safety instructions with their products leaving ample space to for misfits..


There is also no (safety) convention on where to select what type of terminal, 
be it ring, fork or pin or connector type, so the component applied determines 
the choice of type, not necessarily leading to  a safe solution.

This is the more true as component manufacturers provide safety-approved and 
non-approved types of the same component, mostly at a better price, differing 
only a type of connection. 

I have seen pin type of crimp connectors used at a screwed power supply 
terminal (mains side), and I fail to see the added value of the double crimp 
action in that case. If the screw comes loose then.

I have seen no safety standard explicitly  refusing shrinked connections within 
the restrictions Rich mentioned.

Interesting question on heat shrinks is there possible qualification as an 
insulator... ??

Gert Gremmen
Ce-test

From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 20:14
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even 
on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper 
conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made 
with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is  a small 
cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for 
providing a secure double connection

mac

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections



Hi Charlie:


On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in 
place.  

The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that 
holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail.  I have seen the 
shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the 
terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place.  

The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other 
potential that would create a dangerous situation.  I have seen cabling used 
for this purpose.  

Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to 
soldering.


Best regards,
Rich


-

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

Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections

[Gary McInturff]

I've seen the same, although I generally use double crimp wire connections even 
on the smaller gauge wires. One crimp obviously attaches to the copper 
conductor the other crimp attaches to the wire insulation. Both Crimps are made 
with the same tool in the same crimping action. I suppose there is  a small 
cost difference in the piece part, but it's a better, in my opinion, method for 
providing a secure double connection

mac

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Shrink-wrap on soldered connections



Hi Charlie:


On certified products, I have seen shrink-wrap holding soldered connections in 
place.

The shrink-wrap must attached to both the wire and some other thing that 
holds the wire in place should the solder connection fail.  I have seen the 
shrink wrap covering both the solder joint and the terminal such that the 
terminal is the other thing that holds the wire in place.

The issue is that if the solder joint fails, the wire can contact some other 
potential that would create a dangerous situation.  I have seen cabling used 
for this purpose.

Note that the solder joint itself must be mechanically secure prior to 
soldering.


Best regards,
Rich


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=F19gZpG5uwmM9mC545qHRJWKa4NDpqaWpaQuN8JVWy8e=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=AVi2qO6NuZegBPkvCRpsHL1a8yMJ7bIbjZBY_Ek_Ld4e=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=wJEyPFNwRWqMM25XCWYvrsfhv28gT5zbjZGcnvaO5ewe=
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=UG_fqmqrybLcZUt0Y219t6JPqi_Psh3dFhDgpAVd39Ue=
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AwMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=spy27RyFuQys2P9nqo2sKsTlB0qOjkZxOLGN1HGwLMIs=qx6ZzGwf1PKZBnd1D87kiMZOGWwbHg3WVcEZ7h99oZ8e=

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Black Bar under WEEE symbol - still needed or was it eliminated? Thanks

[Gary McInturff]

The WEEE  symbol has (had) a black bar or date area to indicate that the 
product had been introduced after April in 2005, but I thought that the bar has 
now been removed. True/False?
Thanks


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] WEEE symbol

[Gary McInturff]

The symbol has (had) a black bar or date area to indicate that the product had 
been introduced after April in 2005, but I thought that the bar has now been 
removed. True/False?
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] EMC on Industrial Cut-Off Saws

[Gary McInturff]

And the dreaded - the other guy doesn't do it why are we Heavy sigh.
By the way not too long ago I saw the pragmatic answer to that.
Company A built a product. For whatever reason Company B challenged the EMC. 
They tested at a lab and sure enough failure. I don't know how badly it failed 
but it failed.
Last seen an EMC engineer and the corporate legal beagle from company B were 
back at the lab with more than one of the device that failed, and were 
documenting the results for the pending lawsuit.

That was within the last few months so one shouldn't assume it doesn't happen 
anymore.

mac


mac

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 12:13 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC on Industrial Cut-Off Saws

Pete,

I think you have a good understanding of the situation. You are right; they 
avoid doing EMC testing because of the cost, but we don't do business that way. 
When we offer to perform EMC testing on their products for free, they say NO 
because they would rather be ignorant and ship products not knowing if they 
pass or fail than to have them tested for free and have to fix them.

We asked if we tested their products and found a failure, would they take 
corrective measures to fix it. Their answer was, Probably Not, because in the 
Industrial  market no one cares if you meet EMC requirements or not.

Hmm. Hearing statements like this makes life tough on an EMC guy who works for 
a company who always wants to do things right. They look to me for answers or 
explanations and I have none.

Thanks,
The Other Brian

From: Pete Perkins [mailto:peperkin...@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 2:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Cc: Kunde, Brian
Subject: RE: [PSES] EMC on Industrial Cut-Off Saws

Interesting discussion.

The lack of prior experience with equipment such as this 
industrial cut-off saw seems to come from folks who do not regularly work with 
machinery and the Machinery Directive.

Having done some of this type of certification work it's clear 
that the machinery manufacturers want to avoid EMC testing at all costs.  They 
either look at taking advantage of an allowance for large, permanently 
installed machinery which allows for no EMC testing under certain specified 
installation conditions or just claim compliance based upon the VFD 
manufacturers data sheet which usually claims EU compliance when the 
appropriate, stated filters are installed.

In this case, I would expect the component saw mfgr to have 
done the needed EMC testing and specify appropriate filtering to be used to 
show compliance.  Maybe this is what you are helping with in this case, it's 
not clear.

Oh yes, I remember one situation what filters were stipulated 
by the VFD/motor manufacturer and asked if they were installed.  The response 
was we installed the input filters (the cheaper ones) but not the output 
filters (more expensive).  A quick calculation showed that it was still cheaper 
to install the 3 dozen or so output filters than hire the EMC testers to come 
on-site and provide a compliance report to cover this aspect.  Some chagrin was 
shown, they had not expected to spend U$ 10k or so in either case.

So, I'm not surprised at the problem; getting to the proper 
result will be the demonstration of Brian's magical professional ability (smile 
a lot while you put it to them).

:) br, Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety Engineer
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201 fone/fax
p.perk...@ieee.orgmailto:p.perk...@ieee.org

_ _ _ _ _

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EMC on Industrial Cut-Off Saws

I am not at all familiar with this category of products so please excuse my 
ignorance which is an industrial cut-off saw with a 5hp electric motor for 
cutting steel rods, and such.

Most of these basic model saws have no high frequency devices and brushless AC 
motors so they do not generate EMI. However, the more expensive models have 
Inverters (Frequency Drives) to slow start/stop the motor and act as a break.

We evaluated a saw from a company who says they do not require EMC testing on 
their saws even when they use the Inverter, as long as they follow the 
installation instructions from the inverter manufacturer (yea, I just about 
fell out of my chair). We tested one of these saws and failed CISPR 11 Class A 
Conducted Emissions by 50db (if was a prototype saw not on the market).  How do 
these people sleep at night?

So here is my question. Does the US and Canada require Emissions testing on 
Industrial Saws?  Same question for Europe. I assume EN 55011 Class A is 
mandatory in Europe on such a devices.

Please confirm 

[PSES] iso 14971 latest

[Gary McInturff]

I was looking for the latest version of the above standard. After looking at a 
couple of sites the edition 2 2007 seems to be the most current, but then I see 
a a JIS T 14971:2012 - What is this?
Thanks


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (509) 868 2279
Fax: (208) 635-863 8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

[Gary McInturff]

One of the selling points in the risk based version of 60601 was the ability to 
do things outside of the prescriptive nature of the standard. Including the use 
of ITE products which I believe meant 60950  power supplies were the main point 
of interest. I haven't tried that approach so  I don't know what it takes other 
than you risk files that you already have to generate, but if you haven't I 
would discuss this directly with the safety folks you are submitting to. I 
suspect you are going to have to address leakage current, flame and single 
fault failures and calamities at a minimum. Not so much the line engineer but 
the subject matter experts or minimally the section heads. I've gotten useful 
information from both, but your mileage will vary. 

I presume you're wanting the 60950 supply for cost? Just curious.



Gmac

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

At least two test labs have written papers about use of ITE component power 
supplies in equipment scoped for 61010. The Emperor's search engine should 
suffice.

Am very careful about recommending use of my employers ITE-certified stuff in 
customer's test equipment. The 61010 3d edition has some significant changes 
that could affect requirements not addressed in a 60960 CB report. So it 
depends on the end-use equipment construction, ratings, and power supply 
construction.

Brian

From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] 60950-1 PSU in a 61010-1 product

The final product will be tested according to IEC/EN61010-1 (measurement, 
control, and laboratory use).
To power this product, an open frame AC/DC power will be uses and it holds a CB 
certificate according to IEC/EN60950-1.

Will we run into trouble with this configuration? 
In the past, the final product was powered by a medical PSU (IEC/EN60601-1). I 
would like to switch to the 60950-1 PSU if possible ….

#Amund

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AwIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ItAZAjE5ITF7TMSwtF_e_YWGP5Brw2KYLN56_B7iN24s=ojgeH3VVnGQOq8qcMX_V7RpVjG6JhzE8N7fxaQdRH4ke=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AwIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ItAZAjE5ITF7TMSwtF_e_YWGP5Brw2KYLN56_B7iN24s=7oiT5PoMG0Z2KmyYCFIH_az1UMN2lLmCraa3nkTELBoe=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AwIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ItAZAjE5ITF7TMSwtF_e_YWGP5Brw2KYLN56_B7iN24s=B_pFZ6PwqCISYZtGcY_AwA2rpn2Cyv9jqwDFa1qcIx0e=
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AwIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ItAZAjE5ITF7TMSwtF_e_YWGP5Brw2KYLN56_B7iN24s=UmLkJD2B_PcOSrg9AnKjH3uyiXOTjl5rLmv9sbpFC0Ae=
  (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AwIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ItAZAjE5ITF7TMSwtF_e_YWGP5Brw2KYLN56_B7iN24s=Hq7odB6Vcnf8ANB7DxuPzo04nohHE9L0oxcfiPf5RMse=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org

Re: [PSES] [Bulk Mail] Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset

[Gary McInturff]

Not trying to start any arguments here, but the total subjectivity of this 
issue really drives me nuts and leaves so much for difference of opinion that 
it in itself becomes a regulatory barrier should there be a disagreement. 
Aircraft FEMCA's for example have fixed time requirements for failure events - 
a catastrophic even must not happen under 1 in a billion hours. That is 
determined by fairly well accepted failure rates of components and connections 
for example. The failure of a component and assemblies can be calculated with 
failure probabilities and those failure probabilities compared against the 1 
billion hours. There is still some loosy-goosy parameters like effects of 
vibration or temperature variations, amount of cooling etc. But those can at 
least be stated as part of the justification for verification and adjusted 
upwards or downwards if need be and recalculated. Here we are using - gut 
instinct and differing experiences to define some basic terms.

So venting more than disagreeing Rich. I get and agree with the goals but I 
just don't like picking numbers or definitions out of the air and I really 
don't having to sway an opinion before I can demonstrate conformity.

Gmac

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:42 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [Bulk Mail] Re: [PSES] Misuse mains cordset


IMO the CD-ROM/Cup holder is abuse whereas metal fork is a foreseeable misuse 
(less people uses plastic fork in a hot toaster).

In my opinion:

1.  Using a CD tray to hold a cup is misuse, because CD tray is used is to 
hold a CD.

I can agree on this but I'm at Starbucks and I've already filled my cup holder 
with my breakfast burrito.

2.  Bread stuck in a toaster is an abnormal condition; it is not a fault 
condition because there is no fault in the toaster as the toaster resumes 
normal operation after removal of the stuck bread.

Bread stuck in a toaster is not an abnormal operation it happens with high 
regularity.

3.  Using a fork (metal or plastic) to remove stuck bread in a toaster is 
misuse of the fork, because a fork is used to convey food to the mouth.

Disagree. The fork 's purpose is to spear food things - bread is a food thing 
and is an extremely handy in the kitchen right next to the toaster.

4.  Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair, because a chair is used for 
sitting.

Disagree. Like a ladder it has an elevated horizontal surface that will support 
adult human weights above ground level and unlike a ladder it doesn't have 
steps that are clearly provided but he can't use I a safe manner. The chair has 
the added benefit of a vertical support member to help support the user when 
reaching overhead. It is conveniently placed where needed in many cases. People 
won't drag a ladder into the house when a chair is already in the vicinity. At 
worst it's foreseeable misuse.

Misuse is using the product for some purpose other than the intended use of the 
product.

Abuse is subjecting the product (in normal use) to stresses beyond its specs.

The safety professional cannot foresee misuse unless he knows

a)  what the other person wants to do and

b)  he wants to get the bread out of the toaster

c)  how the product can be used (misused) to help accomplish the goal.

d)  He wants to change the light over the kitchen table and the chair 
is much more available than going out to the garage, banging the car a couple 
of times with the ladder, knocking a few of the wife's knick-knacks overwith 
the ladder etc.

If one needs a handy place to set a cup, and the CD tray is handy and will hold 
the cup, then misuse is possible.  What makes the story fun, none of us would 
have chosen the CD tray as the place to put a cup.  Predicting what another 
person wants to do in a given situation - foreseeing -- is difficult or 
impossible.


Best regards,

Rich
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=nhcZJFchrproWSy7AmiSKZPYgbJC8Rqd1V2yH26mKoUs=y6lftkjRiv3cXDhaZ3Beg1caPzLv4LJfA2V9L2XGgqUe=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=nhcZJFchrproWSy7AmiSKZPYgbJC8Rqd1V2yH26mKoUs=U4cueUhn7yWz2Nh7UtZC5vMbW2HtM9zbbvKP9-NMDq4e=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Re: [PSES] Reliability

[Gary McInturff]

John you're going to be wrong no matter what you do - depending on who you are 
talking to. The 10 degree rise = twice the failure estimation is based on the 
Arrhenius model - which is actually a chemical model, but widely applied to 
electronics  So as a rule of thumb you can state you acceleration factor is 
based on that - assuming that you product is displaying a normal (Gaussian) 
random mode failure mechanism and not infant or wear-out modes.

The more proper way of finding the actual acceleration rate - for temperature 
or anything else is to run life tests at low, normal and high temperatures and 
correlating the failure times - but I'm guessing you (and most people) don't 
have the time or resources to do that so prediction is the only real tool you 
have - unless you have an ongoing reliability growth mechanism, which might be 
in-house testing or working with the field data failures and making 
adjustments. Getting good field failure data is a real problem on its own.

Sample size is going to be a real problem to John. If you have one sample does 
that represent the whole population, or did you get the one unit that was in 
the 10th percentile or maybe the 90th percentile. Another rule of thumb is that 
you need 25 - 30 samples to get a better feeling for the full population size 
not just the test size.

I would work with your customer (engineering staff or external customer) and 
seek agreement that he accepts the acceleration factor and the sample size.

This is a much bigger problem than you may realize but if you can't test many 
samples for many hours then you have to start somewhere and state your 
assumptions.
A good primer of the subject (although it doesn't do into acceleration factors 
is Reliability Statistics by Robert A. Dovich ISBN 0-87389-086 (at least that's 
the number on my version - could be newer editions)

This is a big and ugly specialty John. But as a starting point, after agreement 
with your customer, running the unit(s) at a higher temperature and assuming 
the 10c doubles the failure rate is at least a starting point.









Gmac

From: jral...@productsafetyinc.commailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com 
[mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:38 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Reliability

Hi,

Any reliability engineers out there?

Based on every 10° rise reduces life by half, and if I call 1 year at 22C my 
baseline, conditioning at 62C for 3.25 weeks will equal 1 year.  Does 
conditioning at 62C for 6.5 weeks equal 2 years?

Thanks,

John


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAMFAwc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=mutoSjhbOVGNPlqXwnSZ5e4AYSf_N3T--cRZ8Ni24sMs=Fp19GPr800KCYDmSMF8TnCGWvPm7XENUM6vZleN0yY8e=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAMFAwc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=mutoSjhbOVGNPlqXwnSZ5e4AYSf_N3T--cRZ8Ni24sMs=3VLirc4rYVE3CnT9uBQ9fCJIv7dw8Jc7YJsggqofxV8e=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AAMFAwc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=mutoSjhbOVGNPlqXwnSZ5e4AYSf_N3T--cRZ8Ni24sMs=MObVJcCeSAR_1KgfPG7lfO3lu1paPYYW7rsonPE64a4e=
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AAMFAwc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=mutoSjhbOVGNPlqXwnSZ5e4AYSf_N3T--cRZ8Ni24sMs=4JsWjoHODVx-ccqrncnbWdiXGiC-7RUNyy2JFb4IUKIe=
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AAMFAwc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=mutoSjhbOVGNPlqXwnSZ5e4AYSf_N3T--cRZ8Ni24sMs=9CcjclBPH723_4JHHM58cCzD6Ktt7t9Zd4rbVpPqOKke=

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE 

[PSES] Human fingertip capacitance.

[Gary McInturff]

Trying to set up a jig to test some capacitive touch-panels. It's an automated 
probe that disturbs the capacitive field of the sensor - but I'm clueless what 
kind of value to shoot for. I thought about the ESD gun capacitance but I don't 
know if that actually matches a human fingertip - or it's the whole body, or 
that the capacitance of the body of the ESD gun itself is used to calibrate to 
some human figure tip capacitance.

I've got some research to do but does anybody have a starting point and a 
reference for the capacitance of an average human fingertip. I have the EE 
working the design to go back to the component supplier but haven't heard back 
from them yet.
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (208) 635-8
Fax: (208) 635-8

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] California Prop 65

[Gary McInturff]

Just starting to dig into this - and haven't gotten to the legalese just yet 
but headed that way. But so far what I've read would indicate that it doesn't 
mandate removal of the chemicals - other than those already regulated such as 
lead a Cadmium it appears that after analysis is you are above the below the 
safe harbor numbers you are only required to put a warning on the product that 
carcinogenic materials are in the product. I've seen the warnings all over the 
place during my travels to California - Disneyland, and basically any place you 
can think of. I believe they have a contact point so the interested consumer 
could follow up should they choose, but certainly a warning can't be all that 
is required for the 800 or so chemicals listed. Is there no requirement for 
removal or reduction to the safe harbor levels?
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN,
and LRE MEDICAL  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (208) 635-8
Fax: (208) 635-8

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] California Prop 65 - here's your sign

[Gary McInturff]

Short video on signs from Jeff Foxworthy. This happens to be a quick song, but 
he has a whole 15 - 3 0 minutes of standup comedy
It's worth a bit of your time - if you don't have better things to do :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZkdHImCuQ


Gmac


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:14 AM
To: Gary McInturff
Subject: Re: [PSES] California Prop 65

In message
c73f9f6e552843ee98b9b268c6ee5...@s-ais-exch01-13.esterline.net, dated Thu, 2 
Oct 2014, Gary McInturff gary.mcintu...@esterline.com writes:

Nope even having Ebola doesn't require a sign apparently. But I would 
bring materials to make a sign - you can never tell what kind of 
protest will come up and the sign will help you navigate the crowd if 
not the cops.

Good advice! Thanks.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] weird stuff in agency agreement form

[Gary McInturff]

I don't think this is all that peculiar in the US right now. When signing the 
agreement forms with UL you agree to unannounced audits and inspections and 
your factory, and other factories in which you assembly the equipment. It 
doesn't give them the authorization to inspect your suppliers - just all of 
your assembly locations, owned or contract manufactures.



Gmac


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] weird stuff in agency agreement form

In message 
2c6263c88b5c467f83265e27b6a02...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
, dated Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com 
writes:


A new clause states ... has the right to conduct unannounced audits at 
the manufacture's premises as well as the premises of the manufacturers 
component supplier and has the right to take samples. It is the 
obligation of the holder of the certificate to ensure that an audit at 
the component supplier's premises can be conducted.

Unless all of my suppliers have previously signed this agreement, or if 
we can somehow get all of my bazillion suppliers to sign an agreement,

Even if you did, it might very well be repudiated by whoever buys one of 
your suppliers at some future date. Such an agreement is potentially 
ephemeral.

 it would seem that the test house is attempting to enforce a 
'transitive' legal property.

I agree; but the poor certificate holder has a hard choice - accept the 
obligation or have no certificate.

 Do not see how this can fly in most North American jurisdictions. Is 
this something peculiar to EU law?

There is nothing more peculiar than EU law. The approach seems to be to 
write down what conditions they want to apply and, in the event of a 
dispute, leave it to the courts to decide whether the condition is 
enforceable. This may be the only way of coping with 27 different legal 
systems in the Member States.
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=wl6YIiJuzfhe8J2G3-3tSxCtqUopy8ySocoafdXLnYgs=AqHG4SP-tUDecTaOJ-dIjPhc-QNfM6ze5GAtgmeymXEe=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=wl6YIiJuzfhe8J2G3-3tSxCtqUopy8ySocoafdXLnYgs=-mwwdijtz3jAIKcEsFTrEU0dwez_ZSmLXgref5WnWu8e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AAIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=wl6YIiJuzfhe8J2G3-3tSxCtqUopy8ySocoafdXLnYgs=O1kWwPcGP-y_Z9FzOH4lsb2hn1xJvM0JILORCbaiSZYe=
 
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AAIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=wl6YIiJuzfhe8J2G3-3tSxCtqUopy8ySocoafdXLnYgs=IL9cf3ssQSmhABykPCeKSNVuyK0xf41mLNoqpZvbzUUe=
  (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AAIBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=wl6YIiJuzfhe8J2G3-3tSxCtqUopy8ySocoafdXLnYgs=b211EI3sU-jkrl2X6-fzoCNzuyB0VCvUsEXTSTMFp1ke=
 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, 

Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.

[Gary McInturff]

Snooping just poked it's little head into my life recently. There are about a 
bazillion people monitoring, or capable of monitoring,  you,  Apple, Samsung, 
NSA, local police, etc. And even though I knew it was being done I posted a 
picture to social media that was taken by someone else. The app I was using 
asked where it was taken. Even thought I had never been to the particular 
location myself and was physically about 300 miles from that location the app 
listed several places that were nearby and central to where the picture was 
actually taken. Yoicks!

Oh did I mention Microsoft? :) (Actually I don't know about Microsoft Ted - 
primarily pulling your chain this morning)

Gmac

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.


I'm curious if users of these shielding pockets will discover the law of 
unintended consequences. If a cell phone is placed in the pocket, it will have 
trouble picking up the signal from any cell towers. The phone will boost its 
transmit power and my try linking to the towers more frequently. I find that my 
phone's battery is drained much faster in areas with fringe reception. Users of 
this shielded pocket may find that their battery is dead when they retrieve 
their phone.



Of course, this just bring up the question of why people don't turn off their 
phone if they are worried about snooping. Even if you use the pocket, your 
phone has to be pulled out and exposed to be used.



On a related note, this article may have been posted before but it has some 
relation to the subject at hand.



http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.theatlantic.com_health_archive_2012_09_tin-2Dfoil-2Dhats-2Dactually-2Dmake-2Dit-2Deasier-2Dfor-2Dthe-2Dgovernment-2Dto-2Dtrack-2Dyour-2Dthoughts_262998_d=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=PKvfTiSC7PbUbGjtdyVqn3Lz1EXyoEk1kHGXZNpPAZ4s=GXizzyamVH3TMw-yn4qtvlFNrzFoDk6uqj0tkH4EPFYe=



Full details with the test setup and results can be found at the following link.



http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__web.archive.org_web_20100708230258_http-3A_people.csail.mit.edu_rahimi_helmet_d=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=PKvfTiSC7PbUbGjtdyVqn3Lz1EXyoEk1kHGXZNpPAZ4s=AMtRGFjdWneE2dNGfMFgmr37F9S_0AhleNAklXl0KgQe=


Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.commailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com

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



-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:28 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RF shielding in clothing.



In message 
20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.commailto:20140905135401.6037649.303.13...@gmail.com,
 dated Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Doug Powell 
doug...@gmail.commailto:doug...@gmail.com writes:



Ah yes,



But can coax cable with a double layer shield claim that much

attenuation at all frequencies?



I doubt that braided shields made of such fine filaments would be mechanically 
strong enough. Semi-rigid coax does pretty well, I believe, with one solid 
shield.

--

OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 
www.jmwa.demon.co.ukhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jmwa.demon.co.ukd=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=PKvfTiSC7PbUbGjtdyVqn3Lz1EXyoEk1kHGXZNpPAZ4s=3wVAwUJ9r5wFEYFA4CZRuvQFP4SSwZnFlj49DDems5Me=
 Quid faciamus nisi sit?

John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK



-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org



All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=PKvfTiSC7PbUbGjtdyVqn3Lz1EXyoEk1kHGXZNpPAZ4s=Oc4PbktyuGHS5iP1-5FQX1er_32vptjttxWwL5YWTjQe=



Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAMFAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=PKvfTiSC7PbUbGjtdyVqn3Lz1EXyoEk1kHGXZNpPAZ4s=nYNYzFy87gNaRT8YrbYQmlFEVKeS0bmHA-bPzlbPoSke=
 can be used for graphics (in 

Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

[Gary McInturff]

Exactly. In fact before the standard setup the worst case setup would mean an 
examination of permutations. A system of 6 devices could have a million test 
configurations. A,B,C,D,E,F - A,C,D,E,F,B - A,C,D,E,B, F ad nausium. And a 
strict interpretation of that could mean that you do if for multiple 
frequencies of concern. From these types of problems rose the standard setup, 
including the infamous scrolling H pattern. Even the standard setup was 
abused by some. A consultant friend of mine was once called to the FCC site in 
MD because the FEDS had determine the system non-compliant for some reason. The 
standard setup includes the phrase (I believe) for typical usage. The 
consultant arrived at the test site were the FEDS had already set up the 
system. The first thing he notices was the the FED's (FCC) test engineers had 
wrapped the 6 foot keyboard cable around the monitor a couple of times. One had 
to look through the cabling to see what was actually on the screen. Yup th!
 at's pretty typical of how people use computers. Heavy sigh.
Fun to laugh at now - but getting the point at which we now find ourselves has 
had some very strange interactions with regulators and laboratories - and yes 
design engineers.



Gmac

Gmac


-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

One of the reasons, many years ago, that a 'standard' setup was determined in 
both CISPR and ANSI standards was to relieve the never ending always present 
constant manipulation of cables and equipment.  While the EUT is to be 
operating in a typical use scenario, the setup should be as depicted in the 
standard.  This includes cables being bundled correctly, draped correctly and 
arranged on the test table correctly.  Variation of this setup goes back to the 
1980s when the constant equipment variations.  Let's not go back there.


Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and I sintended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:kristiaan.carpent...@technicolor.com]
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 7:36 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Failure of Radiated emission

Hi group,

A ITE product is tested to EN55022 Radiated emission with a well defined setup 
(cables, traffic, etc...) trying to find the worst case emissions and it passes.
I think finding the real worst case emission for all frequencies with one and 
the same set-up is in practice not possible in practice.

That same product is retested by a customer or in case of market surveillance 
campaigns, then it is most likely not tested with the same set-up and results 
may fail.
Would this be an issue or is it acceptable that it is retested with the same 
set-up as the initial testing? I refer to CISPR22, clause 8.4 that states that 
the operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined acc. to typical 
use.The operat mode and rationale shall be stated in the report.

So to me it looks sufficient to test a typical set-up, do your best to not make 
it best case and describe everything in the report.

Any other thoughts?

Best regards,
Kris Carpentier

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=1UqulPNgC4oaLQSkWeWBzBurrvASOFUtRggMr_i3H5Qs=Ys0eIUGCz_O-Mp8yOR4EKjvjlSNmzL-lJCa-vpWJSGwe=
 

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAIDaQc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=1UqulPNgC4oaLQSkWeWBzBurrvASOFUtRggMr_i3H5Qs=Nz1c-H68UqxhNoQcvXpSk_-67Eo1MZ-eg-ejXP2yqi0e=
  can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  

Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables - a conundrum

[Gary McInturff]

Playing the devil advocate here only because I find this interesting and I'm 
not advocating anything. Heck I'm probably just arguing for argument sake. 

 If all cables are not equal as Ghery and note and the designer/manufacturer 
has knowledge of that don't the cables then become special accessories in their 
own right? Under 15.27 c) They would not normally be considered special 
accessory items  under the definition because they can be easily purchased at a 
multitude of locations.
15.27 c) Accessory items that can be readily obtained from multiple 
retail outlets are NOT (my emphasis)  considered to be special accessories ...  
But given the knowledge of the designer/manufacturer that cables vary in 
performance and not all cables were tested the only assurance they have that 
the system will perform as intended is buy telling the consumer exactly which 
cable they must use buy name and brand. But if they do that then the cable 
isn't readily obtained from multiple outlets and is now by definition a 
special accessory. Paragraph 15.27 says that The party responsible for the 
equipment, as detailed in §2.909 of this chapter, shall ensure that these 
special accessories are provided with the equipment So now must the cable be 
provided?


Gmac

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 12:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FCC EMI Test and Ferrites on Cables

You are highly unlikely to find the ferrite prayer beads at Best Buy.  If you 
don't specify which ones to get you have no idea what the result will be.  I 
think you are correct, the beads must be shipped with the product.  The right 
ones, to boot.

Now, how does the designer know that he needs ferrite beads?  My experience has 
been that many (most?) HDMI cables do not have their shields terminated 
properly, if at all.  Once the shields are terminated correctly problems go 
away.  Could this be a better solution?

Ghery S. Pettit

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Vertical SAR Phantom?

[Gary McInturff]

NWEMC in Portland Oregon
Northwest EMC, Inc.
22975 NW Evergreen Parkway
Suite 400
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Bus: (503) 943-3124
Bus Fax: (503) 844-3826
E-mail: kvall...@nwemc.commailto:kvall...@nwemc.com

www.NWEMC.com/testing-capabilities/wireless/sar-testinghttp://www.NWEMC.com/testing-capabilities/wireless/sar-testing



Gmac

From: FW Miller [mailto:012cd6de8c7b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Vertical SAR Phantom?

My consultant suggested a vertical SAR phantom, such as the one depicted on 
page 3 at:
http://www.indexsar.com/pdf/SARAC-1108.pdfhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.indexsar.com_pdf_SARAC-2D1108.pdfd=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=we4gz-dHH-ADSSi6vojZwxEzNV2I4nMurhujGv9FGjUe=

Do any of the esteemed recipients of PSTC know of a test house that has one in 
the United States, or something similar? Northern California, Bay Area, would 
be wonderful.

Many thanks for your response,

FW Miller

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_emc-2Dpstc.htmld=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=0rSG016vvL9gfcRcOuA6ZsrzR_9ssdMA3SfuJaEVp2Me=

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__product-2Dcompliance.oc.ieee.org_d=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=QQkYUtWEbp_NvEEb6rv6DZElfWgUx_7hTJg7gKyTj1ge=
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_d=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=D2jdsS55HB7WcGJrLohUQyuHjmx2Hba9wgl13fKcyfQe=
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_list.htmld=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=awCdYmSgLHoolfNFFsWxCC4b07JwnFXO4TQAnxXLRZce=
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ieee-2Dpses.org_listrules.htmld=AAMBAgc=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-wr=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0km=ZNanIRpjB2EG3w5sRB09gaqBZg_7vbjvQ2UaHDl_T9Is=h6V4TLwfbC2_ZjObvkSM0YO80seT3OV1cGtYX1fxM6Ae=

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

[PSES] Changes to verified equipment

[Gary McInturff]

I have a project coming up that with replace a processor which is going end of 
life in an unintentional radiator - an IR camera. In the US it is subject to 
verification - primarily meaning that I don't have to submit the data to the 
FCC unless asked, but I still need to test according to the regulations.

The new processor is form and fit identical, and is of the same technology 
family and the designers tell me it won't even need a board spin - just 
software updating. We are at odds over whether or not I need to actually 
perform OATS testing on the device. The budget for the tests has already been 
made available but I am second guessing my strict interpretation of the need 
for testing. I have been combing through CFR 47 for exact definition of what 
product changes mandate re-verification. I used to remember a section that 
discussed changes in technology - CMOS versus ECL etc. - along with a number of 
other factors, but I also remember that reasonable engineering judgment 
analysis was permissible, but I can't find any relevant paragraphs in section 2 
or 15 that might clarify. I haven't look at the EMC directive for the EU yet 
but would appreciate input from my friends in the EU. 

I think the design guys ask a reasonable question in that if we are changing 
layout, EMC suppression devices, clock rates, logic families, etc. MUST we 
re-test? I do have a pretty good pre-compliance chamber that I can do A/B 
comparisons of the product which would allow me to make some reasonable 
engineering judgments about the emissions comparisons between the old and new 
processors.( I use the chamber on a regular basis before I do formal testing 
and the results from my chamber and the OATS is close enough I have only been 
surprised at the OATS site once, and that was when I grabbed a bad cable as I 
was heading out the door - my bad.)

Here are the only references I could find in the US federal code - anybody else 
have more precise reference?

§2.902   Verification.
(a) Verification is a procedure where the manufacturer makes 
measurements or takes the necessary steps to insure that the equipment complies 
with the appropriate technical standards.  Submittal . . . 
(b) Verification attaches to all items subsequently marketed by the 
manufacturer or importer which are IDENTICAL (emphasis is mine) as defined in 
2.908

2.908
As used in this subpart, the term identical means identical within the 
variation that can be expected to arise as a result of quality production 
techniques. (So identical doesn't strictly mean the exact same processor)

2.953   Responsibility for compliance.
(a) In verifying compliance, the responsible party, as defined in 
§2.909 warrants that each unit of equipment marketed under the verification 
procedure will be identical to the unit tested and found acceptable with the 
standards and that the records maintained by the responsible party continue to 
reflect the equipment being produced under such verification within the 
variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a 
statistical basis.

Am I being too strict in my interpretation? Can I do an A/B comparison in my 
lab, and presuming no signifint change in my lab measured emmission allow 
release to production without outside testing? For the EU I would put the 
results of the test and rational for not testing further in the compliance 
folder.

I have the money but don't want to spend it needlessly. 

Thanks 


Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer



Esterline Interface Technologies
Featuring 
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, 
and LRE MEDICAL  products
600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (208) 635-8
Fax: (208) 635-8

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance.

Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including

Re: [PSES] Conducted Immunity Software

[Gary McInturff]

This is a big decision both in operating efficiency and cost. I've seen a few 
labs try to write their own software and they all spent more money than buying 
the commercial versions - in fact three that I know of abandoned the software 
because it didn't fully do what they had wanted. Given that I wouldn't 
recommend you try to reinvent the wheel - maybe a small part of the wheel might 
work, but you'll have to update yourself every time the O/S changes

This is your chance to kill two birds with one stone -  get to the EMC 
symposium and check out the software vendors - there are several and you'll 
want to see them up close and personal. They are all demoing their software so 
you can efficiently talk with them all at the same time. Some of the big names 
are so feature rich that just learning to drive them and making all of the 
choices necessary for each configuration - emissions, susceptibility etc. could 
be problematic. Others will capture everything you need but without giving you 
too much opportunity to mess up the configuration for the tests. 
Most of them allow you the opportunity to pick and choose modules, and add new 
modules as you need them.

Gmac

-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 10:14 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Conducted Immunity Software

Caveat: am not an EMC expert.

Problem domain for EMC control code is huge, mostly because of the diverse 
demands from various industry segments. You will only get a 'friendly' solution 
where the product is uncommonly simple and is designed to solve only your 
problem subset.

I have used and/or have watched the people at test labs use TDK, AR, and TILE 
stuff. They are all powerful and seem to be complete. They all have the common 
weakness of requiring specific versions of windoze, which forces you into 
periodic updates that may orphan older equipment.

If your compliance people are so inclined, would recommend that you write a 
series of very small programs that do specific tests with narrowly-defined data 
sets. If you stick to ANSI C and perhaps Python, your work will not be very 
dependent on any particular OS/version or equipment type and will age well and 
be adaptable.

Brian

From: Harris, Kevin J (DSC) [mailto:kevinharr...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:48 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Conducted Immunity Software

Hello

The software running our conducted immunity setup is of a certain age and has 
never been particularly user friendly so we are considering updating it. The 
test platform needs to support both residential and commercial level set-up and 
testing but not any MIL standards. In terms of modulation we need to support AM 
and Pulse modulation. Anybody care to recommend some programs?

Kind regards

Kevin

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=qfQu0IJ3jaXVL4Qb7tebA%2BNx8h53MtBGiOokeDRS9qg%3D%0As=35bd635b5b0e256d85eb4d62dc33e58cc44f470052b1326ff42ea20a630b38fb

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=qfQu0IJ3jaXVL4Qb7tebA%2BNx8h53MtBGiOokeDRS9qg%3D%0As=52db7321d4d55ffa7af6394dcfc4dd67bf34dcb1a51fdd599212ad3bd22c36ee
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=qfQu0IJ3jaXVL4Qb7tebA%2BNx8h53MtBGiOokeDRS9qg%3D%0As=23de7f05fab5004688c3f78696c6cafe888e52e6fd075d9f3d34e8c3db6b89a4
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=qfQu0IJ3jaXVL4Qb7tebA%2BNx8h53MtBGiOokeDRS9qg%3D%0As=f0037188561389f11ba5d502f72855a1a0b01297d0e777a079d8bf684de199fe
 (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=qfQu0IJ3jaXVL4Qb7tebA%2BNx8h53MtBGiOokeDRS9qg%3D%0As=f19dc4571fc970221f16c2d7f2b96c5e33c4092202979c91c1d47c11c1a66c90

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

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

Re: [PSES] Benchmarking Reporting Relationships (Corporate Management Structure)

[Gary McInturff]

We are under the engineering group - as all of my history has been.
Design for safety and EMC starts at the napkin drawing stage and are designed 
in, they are not process controlled in. Engineering is primarily tasked with 
design, QA is primarily tasked with reproducibility and variability. Product 
safety and compliance should be as close to the design as possible. Others will 
make other arguments - I presume
Gmac


-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 1:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Benchmarking Reporting Relationships (Corporate Management 
Structure)

In message 1209435916.4125729.1402947572241.javamail.r...@comcast.net,
dated Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Mike Sherman - Original Message - 
msherma...@comcast.net writes:

Our Product Safety and Compliance group currently reports up through a 
divisional Engineering manager.

That is probably good, but one can't tell without more detail.

To whom does your Product Safety and Compliance group report?
Corporate Legal?
Corporate Quality Assurance?

Only if you want civil war in the company!

Other?

Probably not.

The point is that EMC and safety have to be ***designed in***. So there has to 
be a 'family' relationship between Product Safety and Compliance and whatever 
passes for 'product design engineering'. Escalating a compliance issue to 
corporate level is a recipe for disaster. Everyone at that level puts on their 
suits of armour. It is far better solved by people who regularly drink beer 
together.

Have a look at:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID%3D485k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=112f61fffed28282b291d9095b9c6565161d76eefd5dc73af0fcb36b18a5c1c3
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid 
faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=2140dcb7a56ccdd8f97819e90376f846c05d77048ebdbde12429a760ea83ca90

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=20bd6c45ccf41f2df296d4db63aa075d89b4342c37f3394b3bb4f5629adc1077
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=1005325de2ee395a0bec54a0a43c2b77fdfb7c5e29375ffe920c46c0574e7e54
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=4738d01092a84773fd51acfcd51aff75b09e81600edae6350f9dfa3cdd00f7d7
 (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=ZMwSij8lyPdsyv9bl6VvUCdUKaYeQxHJf2Ltgm4AHtE%3D%0As=b8f1803bb210a5c45d7e8ce2c15a1b254923a5d1b7df0f36af2b83043b156fcc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell 

Re: [PSES] Television Manufacturing Documentary From The Late 1950's - YouTube

[Gary McInturff]

This was truly fascinating - from the height of the pants to the tools they 
were using. I noticed the open field test site and I sure hope they were 
looking at specific frequencies since they were doing that with dipole 
antennas, and I'll bet it was a receiver not a spectrum analyzer.
I had intended just to give this a quick look but the process, tools, and 
effort that existed kept me glued to the video.


I sort of inferred that quality might be related to belt height. The guys had 
them up around their arm pits - too often it's well below the waist these days.



Gmac

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Television Manufacturing Documentary From The Late 1950's - 
YouTube

Awesome.

At 10 minutes into the video, that green instrument the lady is putting the 
crucible in is a LECO Carbon/Sulfur Analyzer. We still make these but of course 
they're much improved today. What a blast from the past.

Thanks,

The Other Brian

From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Television Manufacturing Documentary From The Late 1950's - 
YouTube

Testing has changed over time, or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TF2DZ0E0Q4https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v%3D5TF2DZ0E0Q4k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=f699d320d7fbe65915651293b83cbbf58c946019167ec599249a0b193ba12f37


Dieter

-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=0f97e8e5deac23b0697488eb81a97c45f2b6987a0bae3e15830aebfe6e16ad94

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=3263b0381e2d754bc594d6fb3aefb094fc06bed6ad550b2b93a562c0c3c4e387
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=329ded19b1a5fd5474b10972491c20929d5c1923d445593981f4cef843943cd8
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=35e23cb1badb516bcf7f8f2c54f004d77d7dfbf21c549ef17b7bb3e6b0ff55a7
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=Q1NzhYNV6iiFLL0DYuruGAWB4l6mcMVXMJIcDPBMotU%3D%0As=ab6368103ae5c99c22dcf9bd85f7e70fe6dcc873c3b09ec4654edbe561acdfb0

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, an example using a class D stereo amp

[Gary McInturff]

http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/25679777/plane-just-misses-sunbather-on-beach-in-low-landing

Apparently Gert has been flying over the beach and was distracted by the LED 
lamp in this guy's back pocket!


Gmac

-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:15 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

We (pilots) even use it for less than critical communications.  :-)

Ghery S. Pettit

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:06 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

Airplanes use AM for critical communications between airport and plane.
A reliable connection may be the difference between a safe landing and a crash.
Especially when flying low over LED lamps

Gert

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 4 juni 2014 19:26
Aan: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual 
emissions, an example using a class D stereo amp

Do we still have AM? Someone once called that was Ancient Modulation. :) I 
suspect that in a few years fluorescent lamps will give way to LED technology. 
As a side note, do LED lamps create EMI concerns?

-Original Message-
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] radiated emissions testing may understate actual emissions, 
an example using a class D stereo amp

On 6/4/2014 9:47 AM, Mike Violette wrote:

Class B limits are amazingly conservative, to which large populations of 
devices ascribe.


Try using an ordinary AM radio beside a compact fluorescent lamp as on a beside 
table.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=a26679d5444f977b6d01b593a241dab0a311a5d6c65432925b54c734eac27ce3

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=6026dc93cfbdac62fb2e1b6e121759e344b72ad24119699951c93116fee7c4b5
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=418a0690878641ef43e38ad56165859b12e896019488d2b53c265407f3a8d03a
Instructions:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=16d7c3f31b2201fdf1afdf0620e5518075ea8bee500065b5dd6bfd82b4130c64
 (including how to
unsubscribe) List rules: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=c55e8432fc570f8e2d39264a5a2435c39fd3f1afc50f7c172e7b9fbf1f7cf529

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=gVIPyHtAyRIuLx3ToLXOGY0pmx5WBwUG0jO%2Bm4rr6Kk%3D%0As=a26679d5444f977b6d01b593a241dab0a311a5d6c65432925b54c734eac27ce3

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 

Re: [PSES] Standards for labels

[Gary McInturff]

Agree except I too have had to repeat the rub test before UL will send the 
report and data off to their CB report writers. We use and describe the UL 
recognized labeling system - which includes the ink (ribbon), printer, label 
surface  material, and label adhesives are all as part of the recognized 
system. It is not difficult to find a match of all components from several 
vendors. Searching UL on recognized marking systems will give you  plethora of 
choices. Obviously a printer will handle many types of media and they have a 
variety of printing speeds and widths. The same printer can be used for general 
printing on the production floor as well as the specialized labels requiring 
known durability. We simply chose a printer that was amongst the list of 
recognized systems that also met our other printing needs. It was a simply 
choice and the product BOM easily identifies those labels which need the full 
ink/material/combination. About the only trick is to notice that some label 
materials are recognized for the surfaces you are attaching them to - the 
adhesive has been tested to those materials during the recognition process. 
Again a wealth of options to choose from.
Gmac

From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:12 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Standards for labels

Hello Dave,

See IEC 60950-1 section 1.7.11 for the requirements regarding the durability of 
marking. This section states that any marking required by the standard pass a 
durability test. This test requires resistance to rubbing with a water soaked 
cloth and with a cloth soaked in a petroleum spirit. Although the standard only 
specifies the chemical tests, it does state durability in a general manner. It 
is interpreted to require durability of marking for more than just chemical 
resistance including parameters such as temperature and humidity. There may be 
no tests for environmental conditions, but a test lab would likely fail marking 
if it came off in hot and humid environments.

Labels approved by UL are considered to pass this requirement as long as they 
are used within the limits stated in their UL files. For pre-printed labels, 
the UL file will specify the substrates for which the label is considered 
acceptable. For example, some labels may be acceptable for metal but not 
plastics. There may be additional limits for conditions such as temperature. 
For print-on-demand labels, the UL file will also specify acceptable 
combinations of label stock, printers and ink.

For IEC 60950-1, most NRTLs and CBTLs will accept UL approved labeling methods, 
but not necessarily. You may still have to perform the testing of section 
1.7.11. I cannot comment on IEC 60204-1 as I am not familiar with that standard.

Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.commailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com

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

From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 5:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGmailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Standards for labels

Hi Folks,

The NRTLs I work with in the past have asked for technical details for labels 
when doing safety compliance certification but I'm not sure why.  For example 
self-adhesive labels used for switches and indicators on control panels,  
caution/warning labels, etc.  The EC Machinery and Low Voltage Directives call 
for indelible marking but I've not seen anything in EN 60950-1 or EN 60204-1 
that references requirements for labels for example.  I've seen UL listings on 
a lot of labels and label material.  Are there specific requirements (other 
than indelible) or standards applicable to CE compliance for these types of 
labels?

Thanks
-Dave

David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE
Product Development Manager
Bell and Howell
3791 South Alston Avenue
Durham, NC 27713
Phone: 919.767.6419
Web: 
www.bellhowell.nethttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.bellhowell.net/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=3beQCMxi3kmxTt79rJhZbwqMHySNajKAhegUDuxmJCo%3D%0As=7185cd52c05e9c0cb3210a55170b44c3a89c0760d0437826eed4e82425354221
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=3beQCMxi3kmxTt79rJhZbwqMHySNajKAhegUDuxmJCo%3D%0As=4f53c93e58c847d841585adf2bcf783d4edc1d34a57f31477249e9dc91776fa5

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online 

[PSES] ACA (ACMA) approval process time

[Gary McInturff]

Does anybody have  feel for how long the Australian or New Zealand officials 
take to authorize usage of the c-tick (ITE) logo? Presuming of course the 
requisite reports are available at the time of submittal - days, weeks, months?
Thanks

Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer











Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923
Tel:  (208) 635-8306

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...
Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.

Click 
herehttp://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx
 to read disclaimer





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Concerning FCC classification of digital devices

[Gary McInturff]

In my opinion the customer's analysis is correct - and he's ultimately 
responsible for the decision right or wrong.

I have had a similar experience.  It was battery powered and could be 
programmed at the factory through a USB hub - factory only customers can't use 
the connection to program or download anything. The connection was purely for 
battery charging from a post-production user capability.  The imager could not 
be used for its intended purpose during charging - it could only charge the 
batteries. Nor could the device download images to the computer or otherwise 
interact with the computer for data manipulation etc. The imager was also sold 
with a wall wart charger. For reason's I won't go into the client wanted an ITE 
definition and the legal staff concluded that it was in fact a computer 
peripheral because of the USB connection. I countered that if that was the 
determining factor it was then also a wall wart power supply since the same 
connection could is used with the wall wart. The unit is now classified as a 
thermal imager not a computer peripheral.

During emission testing however the power was tested in its normal operation - 
changing infrared to visible light, charging while on the wall wart, and 
charging while attached to a computer - which in this case was a test support 
peripheral not the other way around.

It is the customers obligation to know and classify the device per their 
analysis, and the labs to advise but proceed accordingly to the customer's 
directions. Given that any competent lab has lots of experience with many 
products and test methodologies it is foolish for a customer to not listen to 
recommendations, but ultimately it is the manufacturers responsibility to meet 
the requirements and to choose a lab that is accomplished in the measurements 
and calibrations etc. and who can help, not hinder them in reaching the 
marketplace.

Gmac

From: Niels Hougaard [mailto:n...@bolls.dk]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:05 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Concerning FCC classification of digital devices

Dear list members,

Being an independent testing facility, we have received a question from a 
costumer regarding FCC classification.
The consumer's product is a small portable device for use with a musical 
instrument. When the product is used normally, it is attached to the instrument 
by audio Jack cables. The product is battery powered, but can be powered by a 
general purpose adaptor. The product has a build-in microprocessor and 
therefore clock frequencies that requires a classification with regards to FCC 
(47 cfr part 15, §15.101).
For software update, programming purpose , and under these circumstances also 
sometimes powering, the product has a MINI-B USB connector - depending on 
variant, the product can either be supplied with or without the USB cable in 
the shipping box.

Question is
- Is this product considered a Class B Computer Peripheral - which require a 
DoC, and an accredited test report from an NVLAP accredited test lab and 
appropriate FCC logo markings (DoC or certification procedure) ?
or
- is the product considered  Other Class B digital device - -  - which 
require only a verification and no FCC logo marking (Verification procedure) ?

Our costumer states that in their point of view the users only operates the 
device with a computer connected, when they are putting the device into 
operation initially or for reconfiguration, software upgrade or similar. 
Therefore they claims it should not be considered Computer Peripheral since the 
use of the product is very different from the use of typical computer 
Peripherals like keyboard, mouse or printer.

Is having a USB connector enough to classify the product as a Class B Computer 
Peripheral? Or is the use of the USB connector of importance+

Does anyone in here have experience from similar cases?

Regards,
Niels
Niels Hougaard
Bolls ApS
Ved Gadekæret 11F
DK-3660 Stenløse
Denmark

T: +45 48 18 35 66
F: +45 48 18 35 30
n...@bolls.dkmailto:n...@bolls.dk
www.bolls.dkhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.bolls.dk/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=yG0NrwErNzXpOexlcW4xeph5NjWwF8CieSYCrfR%2FXAQ%3D%0As=1c36248ab6388ad64553e932e9dab4a885350aba714c2daa40a1df60ad1afff0



-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=yG0NrwErNzXpOexlcW4xeph5NjWwF8CieSYCrfR%2FXAQ%3D%0As=9e7c3f1ba6fe0653e70d25cfa0fe0a9851911a082006e51b40a68332bb3bf551

Attachments 

Re: [PSES] Curious Situation in Italian Customs

[Gary McInturff]

Well you CB test report would have to have been done by a CAB accepted by EU, 
and that is a lot of other people other than TUIV - UL can, several different 
TUV's exist that can, CSA can, and the list goes on.
The emissions report is done to EU standards by a test facility that meets the 
NIST requirements with accreditations likely done by A2LA or NVLAP, and both 
the US and Italy are have signed the Mutual Recognition Agreements that require 
them to accept the reports from test labs within the respective countries that 
in fact meet the accreditations. (I don't know what Italy's version of NIST or 
A2LA or NVLAP. So I'm not sure how they can object to their own countries 
acceptance of these agreements.


Gmac

From: Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:12 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Curious Situation in Italian Customs

Dear Compliance Professionals,

We currently have a product compliance situation in Italy, which I thought you 
all might find interesting.

Our customer has had a shipment of our battery charger products held by 
customs, on the premise that our CE documentation is not acceptable. The 
documentation we have provided includes our Delta-Q CE Self-Declaration, dated 
and signed, along with our official CB Test Report, and our EMC Test Report, 
(both issued by accredited organizations).

Our customer has been informed by the Customs officials that a CE Declaration 
of Conformity MUST be issued by a European body, and repeatedly use TUV as an 
example. They refuse to accept  our corporate declaration, and seem interested 
in the fact that the products are manufactured in China by Delta-Q.

My response will be to carefully explain the requirements to my customer(and 
customs) in written form, include all of the accreditation information I can 
obtain for both testing labs, and hope that these officials will understand.

Has anybody else been in a similarly sticky situation?


Best Regards,
Brian C.
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for 
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message.


-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=1VCsRyLeY7USb7WJH49%2B%2Bnn4xTwh3sY%2BZhAvjCSOZrQ%3D%0As=90347264368656381ee8b20e4846b9f6b926f4be2e6a26ccc7e1129065bc975b

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=1VCsRyLeY7USb7WJH49%2B%2Bnn4xTwh3sY%2BZhAvjCSOZrQ%3D%0As=0975aff32b53c5d9a012cc5839bd67937377f1f87b79a949decf97a97d62ef59
 can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/k=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=1VCsRyLeY7USb7WJH49%2B%2Bnn4xTwh3sY%2BZhAvjCSOZrQ%3D%0As=e90eb6baebe79985e77156205083b19155f4bd20c4aa53caf7a5ad3ade0ecc4c
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=1VCsRyLeY7USb7WJH49%2B%2Bnn4xTwh3sY%2BZhAvjCSOZrQ%3D%0As=d138130d7ecbb2833504c72601525083d1ad742e178cce7d1f41bf907f435d5c
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.htmlk=b2vlTQszY8VIpYRvaG%2By2A%3D%3D%0Ar=wfHsZjj2K46njWikwK7lPtcx6a6MPoEnW107Er86quU%3D%0Am=1VCsRyLeY7USb7WJH49%2B%2Bnn4xTwh3sY%2BZhAvjCSOZrQ%3D%0As=2c8e38f32d65f45aad28b26135c95fae68ef34f6856387bb34f05114cfe429d7

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product 

[PSES] E-stop graphic symbols

[Gary McInturff]

I'm verifying some customer requirements, in the case in particular the symbol 
for an e-stop. The customer spec says it's ID is IEC 5638. I thought that was 
the standard but now think that is just the ID within a standard possibly IEC 
60417-5638.
Can someone confirm that. I don't want to buy the standard without knowing I'm 
going to get the information that I want.
Thanks
Gary McInturff
Reliability/Compliance Engineer











Esterline Interface Technologies

Featuring
ADVANCED INPUT, GAMESMAN, LRE MEDICAL, and MEMTRON  products

600 W. Wilbur Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, ID  83815-9496
Toll Free: 800-444-5923 X1XXX
Tel:  (208) 635-8
Fax: (208) 635-8

www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologieshttp://www.esterline.com/interfacetechnologies

Technology, Innovation, Performance...
Information in or attached to this e-mail message may be subject to export 
control restrictions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 
(22 CFR pts. 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 
pts. 730-774).  Before exporting this information outside the United States or 
releasing it to a foreign person in the United States, you need to determine 
whether a license under the EAR or the ITAR is required to do so.  If you have 
any questions about this obligation, please contact me.

Click 
herehttp://www.esterline.com/governance/email_disclaimer/tabid/1532/Default.aspx
 to read disclaimer





-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 
emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com

semi standard users - perfluorocarbons

[Gary McInturff]

Folks,
I need to start understanding what I am going to need to do when using
this material in commercial applications both here and abroad. I've read the
MSDS but still doesn't really tell me what precautions I need in the case of a
catastrophic failure. Under normal conditions the fluid gets nowhere near the
point where it release PFIB's and hydrogen flouride and that can be further
insured with safety mechanisms, but how about an external fire engulfing the
equipment? What can you tell me about importation into Europe et al, recycling
etc.
Sorry, I know this can be a pretty open ended question but I would
appreciate practical insight and web links that can educate me.
Thanks
Gary McInturff

RE: Blocked ventillation testing

[Gary McInturff]

If the fan tray only has a single power source coming in then you kill the
power but the fan exhaust ports are still left open. The fan tray failure
shouldn't be simulated by either covering all of the exhaust ports and leaving
the fans running or, covering all the exhaust ports and the fan power removed
- either case constitutes more than one failure - multiple blockages and/or
fan tray failure and multiple blockages. I don't have any disagreement with
those that would test in-house to determine the effect. I'm just saying the
standard identifies only one failure at a time.
Gary


From: Stone, Richard [mailto:rst...@xl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Brian O'Connell; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Blocked ventillation testing


could this be in susbstitution for complete 100% fantray failure?
I dont think its vaild, as youd still have openings in the sides if the fans
all died...
one side at a time is the norm for one fault over heating temperature
testing
unless something new just came up.
Richard,
 

Richard A. Stone 
Excel Switching Corporation 
Compliance 
75 Perseverance Way 
Hyannis, MA. 02601 
508 862 3311 ph. 
508 862 3020 fax 
rst...@xl.com 

This email message and any attachments to it contain confidential information
that is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination, printing, or other use of, or taking of
any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received this in error,
please delete it or inform the sender.








From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Brian O'Connell
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:28 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Blocked ventillation testing



At least for 60950-1, this should be considered a multiple fault; unless the
intended end-use installation indicates a mechanical situation where all
vents blocked could be considered a SFC.

I am not aware of any National Differences that would allow this test
condition. If UL is acting as an NCB, there might be a CTL decision that would
indicate otherwise. 

luck, 
Brian 

-Original Message- 
From: Robert Johnson [ mailto:robe...@rcn.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:56 AM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Blocked ventillation testing 

I have been requested by UL-HongKong to the blocked 
ventillation abnormal testing with all vents on all side 
blocked simultaneously. My previous experience has been that 
one side is blocked at a time. Blocking more than one side at 
a time was considered multiple faults. If it passes blocking 
all vents at once shortens test time, but is this method 
necessary? 

What is the experience of others? 

Bob Johnson 

RE: Blocked ventillation testing

[Gary McInturff]

One fault at a time. You can choose, your decision not theirs, to block all
at once to save time. (Make them show you how much they are going to reduce
the test cost with this streamlined testing
Gary


From: Robert Johnson [mailto:robe...@rcn.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:56 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Blocked ventillation testing



I have been requested by UL-HongKong to the blocked 
ventillation abnormal testing with all vents on all side 
blocked simultaneously. My previous experience has been that 
one side is blocked at a time. Blocking more than one side at 
a time was considered multiple faults. If it passes blocking 
all vents at once shortens test time, but is this method 
necessary?

What is the experience of others?

Bob Johnson
ITE Safety


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee
emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: CE Marking of Shipping Cartons

[Gary McInturff]

Richard,
France stopped a product shipment because there was no CE mark.
Normally, this marking would have been on the container as well as the
actual product - but the label was left off by the manufacture ring folks in
error. I guess I can't really tell you that having the box labeled would
have prevented it - but they wouldn't have had to remove the box to inspect
the equipment, and we have had to problems when the carton was marked. It's
normally just part of the shipping label on the outside of the box as well
as the product. Considering that this label must be printed anyway its
simply the cost of the ink during printing - and the seconds to print it.
There are no additional processes required so its pretty seamless. The ECO
process handled the addition/removal of the CE mark on the carton at the
same time it added/removed it from the product itself.
Gary


From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 5:46 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: CE Marking of Shipping Cartons



There are some in my company that believe the shipping cartons containing
our products should be CE marked to simplify customs processing especially
with the addition of the new member states in May 2004. Others feel that the
marking provides no added value to the customs processing procedure. 

So, the question is what are the customs officials looking for in the way of
CE conformity and what process will best supply that information. In
particular, is there any value added in CE marking the shipping cartons?

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/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria

[GARY MCINTURFF]

The FCC does have a residential public utilities exemption that  allows the 
operation of Class A equipment (FCC class A) in the residential environment 
(normally a FCC class B case), provided the equipment is in a large room 
which is owned by the utility. This allows for equipment going into telco 
equipment rooms etc. As far as I can tell, this does not apply to those 
boxes that show up on the side of single family dwellings such as the fiber 
to the home (ftth) terminus equipment. For reasons you might quess I asked 
the question of the FCC - twice same answer both times.


Gary
From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com
Reply-To: marko.radoji...@nokia.com
To: rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:58:45 -0800

Richard,

The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements 
as OR rather than AND.  GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2.

Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section 
3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. 
http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist

As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US 
ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These 
locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other 
reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are 
still responsible for fixing any EMI-related issues.

As an editorial comment, these GR-1089 requirements seem to me to be 
strongly favouring all new system designs to not use covers, doors, etc. as 
a form of EMI containment.  That is certainly the easiest way to comply 
with these requirements.

Cheers,
Marko




-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, 
Richard
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM
To: IEEE emc-pstc
Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria



Greetings All,

Hopefully someone has some insight to the following-

In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class 
A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz 
to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I 
understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It 
references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. 
Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or 
covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and 
covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, 
maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those 
higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B 
equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not 
residential?

Thanks.
Richard
=
Richard Georgerian
Compliance Engineer
Carrier Access Corporation
5395 Pearl Parkway
Boulder, CO 80301
USA

Tele: 303-218-5748  Fax: 303-218-5503   
mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com




_
Is your computer infected with a virus?  Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee.  Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Power adaptor to Australia

[Gary McInturff]

Barry,
Quick question. If the supply doesn't have the C-tick mark but is used in
a product that does how does one get then get a replacement or spare power
supply into the country? 
Gary


From: Barry Esmore [mailto:bar...@melbpc.org.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC Forum
Subject: Re: Power adaptor to Australia


It will require Australian safety approval from a state approvals authority
and will need to display an allocated approval number. Also, a power supply
sold on its own will need to be C-Ticked. However, if it's supplied with a
product the product will require the C-Tick and it should not be necessary to
also C-Tick the power supply. 
 
Regards
Barry Esmore
 
AUS-TICK 
Electrical Appliance Approval Consultants
281 Lawrence Rd
Mount Waverley
Vic  3149
Australia
 
Ph: 613 9886 1345
Fax: 613 9884 7272
 

- Original Message - 
From: Peck Hoon CHON (HPI-MY) mailto:peckhoon.c...@my.hpi-group.com  
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Power adaptor to Australia

Hi all,
 
Could anyone please advice for product that market to Australia, is the
external power adaptor need to have both C-tick and SAA mark?
 
Thanks,
PH Chon
 
 

RE: Grounding

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Morning Ed,
This is stated much better than commercial with the ... reliabily and 
permanent ... but still has the weakness of a test that is performed when 
the product is new and which it will likely pass; 0.1 ohm resistance or the 
application of the test current. After time as the hinge ages it may fail 
the same test, because of corrosion, wear etc. So the problem becomes that 
when we compliance types - who generally recognize this weakness have our 
feet put to the fire all we can do is run the test. When it passes the bean 
counters etc, say good drop the strap and we are left with no recourse but 
to drop the permanent ground. Running salt or corrosion tests is usually out 
of the question because of the cost and time - this things going out the 
door. So unless the standards actually say a hinge cannot be relied upon as 
a ground and as long as higher powers insist it isn't needed there isn't 
much that can be done from the regulatory standpoint - and I think that is 
what the original poster was getting at. Usually through just plain being 
obnoxious about it, I insist the strap go in when the application requires 
it but for the bean counting literists of the world its a struggle to 
accept.
Gary


From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
Reply-To: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:06:30 -0800



 -Original Message-
 From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com]
 Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:46 AM
 To: 'Crabb, John'; Ned Devine; IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE,
 EMC/Product Safety)
 Subject: RE: Grounding
 
 
 
 John,
  You are correct, but you have just presented the
 conundrum of the
 thread.
  Reliably grounded can be determined through test - 25
 or 30 amps
 for a minute. A new hinge will likely pass that test. A used one may
 likely fail because of the corrosion and wear discussed by
 others. So the
 conundrum is do you test to get through the standard or do you use the
 standard to help you design something which hopefully remains safe.
  Personally, I don't like hinges for grounds - PE or
 earth and for
 the very cost sensitive it can be a real issue with the
 management guys and
 bean counters.
  Gary
 


FWIW, military practice doesn't allow grounding through a hinge.

MIL-HANDBOOK-454A, Paragraph 4.5.2.2 says Ground connections to shields,
hinges, and other mechanical parts should not be used to complete 
electrical
circuits. It goes on to also say ...the ground should be continuous and
permanent.

Paragraph 4.5.2.3 specifically addresses hinged panels and doors, saying
Hinges or slides should not be used for grounding paths. Panels and doors
containing meters, switches, test points, etc., should be attached or 
hinged
in such a manner as to insure that they are at the same ground potential as
the equipment in which they are mounted, whether in a closed or open
position. A ground should be considered satisfactory if the electrical
connection between the door or panel and the system tie point exhibits a
resistance of 0.1 ohm or less and has sufficient capacity to insure the
reliable and immediate tripping of equipment over-current protection
devices.

Of course, this isn't a commercial requirement, but it defines what the
military thinks is necessary to avoid problems.

Ed

Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer  Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780  (Voice)
858-505-1583  (Fax)
Military  Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty

_
Is your computer infected with a virus?  Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee.  Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Grounding

[Gary McInturff]

John,
You are correct, but you have just presented the conundrum of the
thread. 
Reliably grounded can be determined through test - 25 or 30 amps
for a minute. A new hinge will likely pass that test. A used one may
likely fail because of the corrosion and wear discussed by others. So the
conundrum is do you test to get through the standard or do you use the
standard to help you design something which hopefully remains safe.
Personally, I don't like hinges for grounds - PE or earth and for
the very cost sensitive it can be a real issue with the management guys and
bean counters.
Gary 



From: Crabb, John [mailto:jo...@exchange.scotland.ncr.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:01 AM
To: Ned Devine; IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: RE: Grounding



2.6.1 of IEC 60950-1 refers to parts of equipment shall be reliably
connected to the main protective earthing terminal.A hinge would
certainly not be regarded as a reliable connection.

As far as your door is concerned, is there any single insulated hazardous
voltage wiring likely to contact it, or any other single faults which would
cause the door to assume a hazardous voltage ? If not, it could be debated
that it doesn't require to be grounded.

Regards,
John Crabb,  (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.   



From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ned Devine
Sent: 14 November 2003 15:29
To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: Grounding



Hi,

I need some help.  I told someone that you can not depend on mechanical
contact only (i.e. in this case a door hinge) for protective earth.  Even if
it passes the test, it would still not be acceptable because it does not
meet the construction requirements.  He then asked me to show him were it
said that in the standard (IEC 60950-1 or IEC 60601-1).  I looked and could
not find it.  Am I just missing it, or is it not in the standards?

There is a reference in CSA standards to C22.2 No. 0.4 that has the
requirement, but I can not find a similar reference in UL or IEC standards.


Ned Devine
Program Manager III
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548

Phone: 616 248 9671
Fax: 616 574 9752
e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
www.entela.com 
1-800-888-3787 
Web:  www.entela.com 
Grand Rapids * Detroit * Boston * Toronto * Taipei



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Grounding

[Gary McInturff]

Hinges will likely meet the 0.1 ohm criteria when new but fail over time.
They typically don't have enough contact pressure to insure any type of EMC
grounding/bonding and could potentially be a bigger problem.
Gary


From: drcuthb...@micron.com [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:13 AM
To: ndev...@entela.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Grounding



Ned,

I know this isn't the standard you are using but I happen to have been using
it lately and quickly found a similar situation. EN61010-1:2001, 6.5.1.1
Integrity of protective bonding:

d) Movable conductive connections, for example, hinges, slides, etc., shall
not the sole PROTECTIVE BONDING path unless they are specifically designed
for electrical interconnection and meet the requirements of 6.5.1.3. 

6.5.1.3 specifies the PROTECTIVE BONDING impedance shall not exceed 0.1 ohm.

Dave Cuthbert
Micron Technology


From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:29 AM
To: IEEE EMC/Product Safety (IEEE, EMC/Product Safety)
Subject: Grounding



Hi,

I need some help.  I told someone that you can not depend on mechanical
contact only (i.e. in this case a door hinge) for protective earth.  Even if
it passes the test, it would still not be acceptable because it does not
meet the construction requirements.  He then asked me to show him were it
said that in the standard (IEC 60950-1 or IEC 60601-1).  I looked and could
not find it.  Am I just missing it, or is it not in the standards?

There is a reference in CSA standards to C22.2 No. 0.4 that has the
requirement, but I can not find a similar reference in UL or IEC standards.


Ned Devine
Program Manager III
Entela, Inc.
3033 Madison Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49548

Phone: 616 248 9671
Fax: 616 574 9752
e-mail: ndev...@entela.com
www.entela.com 
1-800-888-3787 
Web:  www.entela.com 
Grand Rapids * Detroit * Boston * Toronto * Taipei



This message is confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or
entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or
addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message
to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you believe that you have been sent this message in error,
please do not read it.  Please immediately reply to sender that you have
received this message in error.  Then permanently delete all copies of the
message. Thank you.  





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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Machinery Directive acoustic requirements

[Gary McInturff]

On the same, bigger than a breadbox, piece of equipment I ran a test
in both a reverberating chamber and sweeping the microphone around the
equipment - as described in the ETSI 300-019 (I think) tests, and those
described in the NEBS suite using a hand held sound meter.
The difference was several hundreds of thousands of dollars for
reverb room, spectrum analyzers, microphones, and $1500 test fee, software
etc for the first, several hundred dollars for a sound meter, $400 test fee,
and finding a spot to test that met the ambient noise levels - almost any
room without air-conditioning for the second test. The results were within
about 2 dBA of each other.
I only did it once but don't plan on using the more expensive method
in the future. I simple state the test method number. Haven't run into a
problem to date.
Gary


From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:34 AM
To: Peter L. Tarver
Cc: PSTC
Subject: Re: Machinery Directive acoustic requirements



Peter,

It's not quite true to say 'this is a nightmare' but it's certainly a 
pain to deal with! Over a period of years, I have ended up buying 
most of the noise standards just so that I can answer this question, 
but frankly I'm still not much the wiser. Our experience is that you 
can use the most complex and carefully controlled noise testing 
methods and still end up with an answer that is no different to what 
you would have got if you'd simply taken a snap reading with a simple 
test meter.

Basically, an awful lot of effort has gone into trying to devise 
standards which should produce accurate and reproducible results, but 
which at the end of the day do neither, and often don't give test 
conditions which are particularly representative of actual conditions 
of use. Now where have we heard that before?

According to the Commission guidance on the Machinery Directive, the 
requirement to state noise levels in the instructions for a machine 
is intended to allow a purchaser to select between different machines 
on the basis of noise level if they so choose. You should consider 
this when deciding how to do the tests and what information you 
actually give in the instructions. I have successfully argued with a 
notified body in the past that to put too much effort into this 
aspect of compliance was a waste of everyone's time and money.

It's difficult to give much more guidance without some specific 
product details, but I'd be happy to let you have the benefit of my 
(limited) knowledge in this area if you'd care to contact me direct. 
As I said, I have most of the standards on the shelf here, and it 
would be good to see them put to some use!

Regards

Nick.


At 10:48 -0800 13/11/03, Peter L. Tarver wrote:
Good day to all.

In reviewing the list of harmonized standards called up to support a 
DoC to the Machinery Directive, several acoustic standards are 
mentioned.  Many of these standards appear to address test methods.

Going only by the titles of these standards, some test
methods (for instance, where a reverberant room is used)
seem to overlap one another.  Short of purchasing the
plethora of standards identified for acoustic compliance, is there a 
way to determine which standard will best suit a fixed set of test 
equipment and facilities, without hiring a consultant?

If the product is effectively complete unto itself (meaning, it can 
function as intended), but is designed to and will only be used inside 
the enclosure of another piece of equipment (the application in use is 
a certainty), but the specific equipment incorporated into can not be 
completely specified, is acoustic testing necessary, other than to
provide guidance to the final equipment assembler?


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All
emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc


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:   

unsubscribe

[GARY MCINTURFF]

_
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead?  Your old favorites are always 
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: opinions, please

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Heck, I'm not even sure you can get consensus on the onboard clock.In the 
past there was a small thread about PLL generated clocks on IC's - such as 
PHY's etc. They are externally clocked at 125 Mhz and generate an internal 
1.25 GHz clock which doesn't leave the chip. Some argued that the 1.25 MHz 
was the highest generated freq, while others argue that its the 1.25 GHz is 
the highest making the upper limit FCC freq range 6.5 GHz.
Heavy Sigh!
Gary


From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Reply-To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
To: lfresea...@aol.com, drcuthb...@micron.com, doug.pow...@aei.com
CC: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: opinions, please
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:53:48 -0600

I am surprised at the number of, and different types of responses.  I still
say no way do you qualify memory or any other IC to any equipment-level EMC
requirement.  From my perspective, the radiation resulting form the IC
depends almost totally on the host PCB design, so unless you have a
standard PCB with which to test each different IC the test is 
meaningless.
I am particularly interested in responses to this, because several years 
ago
the automotive EMC community went through a multi-year development of IC
emissions measurements, and I couldn't see the point of that either.  One
possible caveat to the above is that if a chip has an on-board clock that
never leaves the chip, it might make sense to measure radiation from the IC
itself, because that radiation pattern should not depend on PCB layout.

From: lfresea...@aol.com
Reply-To: lfresea...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:25:40 EST
To: drcuthb...@micron.com, doug.pow...@aei.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: opinions, please


In a message dated 11/11/2003 5:48:57 PM Central Standard Time,
drcuthb...@micron.com writes:
I do have a custom shielded test fixture that will allow the DIMM to be
tested alone. Any desired READ or WRITE pattern can be used. The stimulus
equipment resides in a shielded rack directly beneath the DIMM. The DIMM is
mounted vertically and is free to radiate into the hemisphere above the
rack. Now, what level do I test for? CISPR 22 ? I was told that a mother
board can be CE Marked if it is 6dB over the limit. The theory being that
the enclosure will (might?) provide 6dB of attenuation. If this is so then
do I test the DIMM this way?

The reason I asked about DIMMs is because after reading the appropriate
documents I was convinced that it had to be tested and later changed my
mind. Now I'm leaning towards testing being a requirement.

Dave Cuthbert
   Micron Technology
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of POWELL, DOUG
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:49 PM
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: opinions, please

Derek,

Do you have a suggestion as to how the test should be performed?

-doug
-
Douglas E. Powell
Corporate Compliance Dept.
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA
-Original Message-
From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:56 AM
To: john.radom...@modicon.com; mcinturff3...@msn.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: opinions, please

In a message dated 11/11/2003 9:36:21 AM Central Standard Time,
john.radom...@modicon.com writes:

The EMC guidelines read:  ... If the component is intended to be placed on
the market as a single commercial unit for distribution and/or final use
this function has to be available WITHOUT further adjustment or connections
other than SIMPLE ones which can be performed by any person not fully aware
of the EMC implications...
After seeing all the other list positings and thinking some more, I'm going
to change my opinion on what this should be marked as. Originally, I said
component. But...

This is a module that when added to a PC brings new capibility. But, it 
also
adds a path for noise to exit a system that the manufacturer may have 
tested
( if they even did ) differently.

So I guess, I would say now that the module should be CE marked, and at a
minimum, the contribution it makes to radiated emissions determined.

I guess my second 2 cents worth

Derek N. Walton
Owner, L F Research EMI Design and Test Facility
Poplar Grove,
IL 61065
___
This message, including any attachments, may contain information
that is confidential and proprietary information of Advanced
Energy Industries, Inc.  The dissemination, distribution, use
or copying of this message or any of its attachments is
strictly prohibited without the express written consent of
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
In Answer to Dave and Doug..

I did a whole bunch of plaing around measuring the SE of small shields and
came to the conclusion that a fixture, radiating onto a small mode stirred
chamber was the best 

RE: opinions, please

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Well, playing the devils advocate here. If RAM is an apparatus if you can 
install it on into a socket, but not an apparatus if I buy the RAM as a 
surface mount, or through hole device?
Gary


From: john.radom...@modicon.com
Reply-To: john.radom...@modicon.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: opinions, please
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:28:36 -0500



According to the Guidelines on the application of Directive 89/336/EEC:

... Plug-in cards, such as smart cards or input/output modules, designed
for incorporation into computers are apparatus commonly found in retail
outlets, and available to the general public. Once cards of this type are
inserted in a PC they perform a direct function for the user. They must
therefore be considered as apparatus and are, consequently, subject to the
provisions of the EMC Directive.

This does not mean that they must necessarily be intrinsically compliant
from the EMC point of view in all cases, if this is either impossible or
impracticable. However, in such cases, they must be designed in such a way
that they become fully EMC compliant (emissions and immunity) when they are
installed as intended in the apparatus, in any of its possible variants and
configurations, without exceptions, and used in the electromagnetic
environment determined by the manufacturer. The instructions accompanying
the component must clearly indicate these requirements, the pertinent
limitations of use and how to comply without resorting to an EMC specialist
(such components are available to non-EMC specialists, for a wide range of
applications). The manufacturer has the ultimate responsibility for this
decision 

DIMMs are modules containing one or several chips on a small circuit board,
so, if they are available to the general public, I believe, the above
applies to them.

By the way, according to the same guidelines, integrated circuits are
components without a direct function.

John Radomski
Principal Engineer
Schneider Electric




---
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

_
Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: opinions, please

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Doug,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I see the memory more 
analgous to a resistor array than a disk drive. Certainly there is much less 
complexity than a disk drive, the ram doesn't have read head drive motors, 
position reading devices, its own memory and controllers - for DMA etc. The 
IC does have  a plethera of transistors for storage and address selection, 
but they are essetniall slave devices. They respond to external stimulous - 
a high/low bit to store and regurgitate information but they are essentially 
a redundant set of passive transistors and that's a much different level of 
complexity. Secondly the RAM doesn't have any internal clocks or processors 
of its own. It relies on clocks and address selection timing to come from 
some other source - the motherboard etc. So, for the moment at least, I'm 
still holding out for the component definition, and watching the other 
responses.
Gary
From: Frazee, Douglas (Douglas) dfra...@lucent.com
Reply-To: Frazee, Douglas (Douglas) dfra...@lucent.com
To: 'Doug Massey' dmas...@acstestlab.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: opinions, please
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:15:35 -0500


I took a second look at the EMCD guidelines, chapter 6 and have changed my 
opinion.

In the EMCD guidelines, if the DRAMS are sold to the end user, 
applicability of the EMCD comes down to whether the DRAM modules perform a 
direct function to the end user.  The examples given in chapter 6 of the 
EMCD guideline (required reading for all involved with CE-Mark/EMCD 
compliance btw) put components such as memory modules into a gray area, or 
do they?

In my previous response, I rationalized that (ref. Ch6 of the EMCD 
guidelines) the SDRAM does not perform a direct function to the end user, 
now I'm not so sure.  Note that although the SDRAM type memory module is 
not specifically used as an example, the hard disk drive is.and the 
hard disk is considered to perform a direct function and is subject to the 
provisions of the EMCD.  Does this change anyone else's opinion as to 
whether the EMCD applies?  Certainly the function provided by a hard disk 
drive and compact flash memory card is very similar.  Is an SDRAM module so 
different that it does not require testing?  SimpleTech apparently feels 
CE-Marking is prudent: 
http://www.newegg.com/app/Showimage.asp?image=20-150-310-02.jpg

In regards to one contributor's question as to how an SDRAM module would be 
tested, essentially the modules are installed and tested into a host PC, 
complete with monitor keyboard etc.  There are detailed procedures in both 
EN 55022/CISPR 22 and in FCC Part 15.  Although I'm not in the ITE arena, I 
am aware that there are some differences in the specific procedures for the 
EMCD versus FCC Part 15.  FCC 15 explicitly allows PC manufacturers to sell 
a PC assembled from FCC compliant components without testing the assembled 
PC, though special marking is required.  I don't believe there is an 
official parallel to the FCC procedure for CE-Marking, though a small PC 
assembler could legally CE-mark without testing and build his compliance 
file with compliance documentation for the PC components.


Douglas G. Frazee
Regulatory Compliance Manager
Lucent Technologies
PSAX Division
(301) 809-4415
(301) 352-4680 FAX
dfra...@lucent.com

  -Original Message-
From:  Doug Massey [mailto:dmas...@acstestlab.com]
Sent:  Monday, November 10, 2003 9:26 AM
To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:   RE: opinions, please


I have to throw my opinion in on this one, couldn't resist -

Let's not beat around the bush - NO,  the CE mark does not apply.

Most certainly, it is exempt from the LVD.

As to EMC, this device has no clock to radiate by itself. It is subject
to the EMCD when and only when incorporated into an end product. Of
course, you are offering it for sale stand-alone, for incorporation into
an end product. Said end product, assumed to be CE Marked itself, should
have been tested in a full, representative configuration, so it is
assumed that all available memory expansion slots were populated, and
hopefully, being exercised during the testing. Your memory device should
be significantly like the memory device installed in the end product
during testing. All emissions and immunity characteristics of said
product should be dependent on other design features, NOT on the
particular memory module installed.

No, this rationale does not follow any textbook definition of component
or system - I guess, by necessity, any definition would be vague. It
just makes common sense to me. If this seems a bit cavalier, ask this
question:

Should the individual IC's on the memory module be CE Marked?

Is it a good idea to test your device for immunity? Yes, if you have
protections designed in, but then the testing is purely a design
verification test, not for the purpose of CE Marking, but rather, to
insure that your design functions as intended.

And as to the modem card 

Re: Equipment Calibration

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Intereseting, I think the ISO and in particular the lab guides indicate 
simply that if equipment doesn't need calibration it is marked as such. The 
other stuff obviously must have a cal sticker on it. There are all kinds of 
lab supplies lying around just to power products during test etc that don't 
require a calibrations so it seems unlikely that it would be prohibited. 
Just changed companies so I don't have access to my old documents just yet - 
so shooting from memory so double check.

Gary

From: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
Reply-To: Price, Ed ed.pr...@cubic.com
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Equipment Calibration
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:58:35 -0800

In some ways, I have the luxury of having a Metrology Department that
maintains the periodic calibration on all of my test equipment. OTOH, as a
customer of this Metrology Department's product, I would like to have
some control over my overhead costs. And my latest bright idea has me
getting stomped by the gurus of the status quo. I need to get smarter about
how a calibration system works, and how flexible it can be.

My lab has about 500 pieces of capital equipment, and the way I see it, all
my equipment falls into one of two categories. The first category consists
of those instruments which are used to measure the parameters of our
company's products, and determine if the performance of those products 
falls
within a range of acceptable tolerance. Data from these measurements is
often contractually reported to our customers. Every equipment within this
category needs to be maintained on a program of periodic, traceable
calibration.

But then there's the second category; which consists of support and 
stimulus
equipment. Items here are old analog signal generators, function 
generators,
amplifiers, pulse generators, sweepers and power supplies. To me, none of
this equipment needs ANY periodic calibration. I base this on practical
usage. Who can accurately read a power supply mechanical 80-amp ammeter 
that
has a 1.5 long scale? Who can set a function generator frequency control
that covers 2 decades, logarithmically, in 270 degrees of rotation? If I
need to apply a 100 kHz signal in bursts of 2 milliseconds at a 1 Hz rate,
I'll use a calibrated, traceable oscilloscope to set the uncalibrated
generator to exactly what I need. The same for that power supply; if I need
to know the current to 2% or better, I'll use a calibrated resistor and a
calibrated DMM. And I couldn't care less about the gain of an RF power
amplifier, as long as it pumps out enough power to create the field I need.

Now, I'm not trying to justify the use of distorted, unstable or junky
equipment. I'm just trying to spend my calibration dollars the most
efficient way. And the way I see it, about 1/4 of my equipment fits my
definition of not needing periodic calibration because I can monitor the
results with calibrated equipment.

So I proposed that these items be tagged with some kind of uncalibrated 
or
user verified or no calibration required label. The gurus of Metrology
say this can't be done, our ISO9000 Quality System will not allow this. I
can't understand how a customer-oriented quality system can't be crafted to
meet the needs of all of the customers of that system. And I suppose I'm
felling a bit squeezed, what with my customers expecting me to use COTS
equipment to function in military environments. I have to get more out of
what I have, and the old military concept of everything in sight is on
periodic calibration has to yield to current reality.

So, am I getting shoveled upon regarding the impossibility of having a
category of officially non-calibrated equipment alongside my calibrated
equipment? How have you dealt with calibration program costs?

Regards,

Ed

Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN
NARTE Certified EMC Engineer  Technician
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Applications
San Diego, CA  USA
858-505-2780  (Voice)
858-505-1583  (Fax)
Military  Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty


_
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over 
limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: opinions, please

[GARY MCINTURFF]

As long as your asking for opinions. I don't have the definitions in front 
of me for fine slicing but its a gob of silicon - just like the lowly and 
gate, it doesn't alter or process anything it just remembers things and 
changes its mind only when instructed to.
This might be more interesting question than I first thought. Waiting to 
here othe responses.
Gary

From: drcuthb...@micron.com
Reply-To: drcuthb...@micron.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: opinions, please
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:37:10 -0700


I have a question: Is a Memory Module (DIMM) considered a component or an 
apparatus?

I'm trying to decide whether the CE MARK is applicable to this type of 
product.

Dave Cuthbert
Micron Technology


---
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

_
Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: EU directives for SMPS

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Mike,This won't address you question directly - but this is often a problem 
with SMPS folks for a couple of reasons. 1) Price competition can be pretty 
cut throat so they are not wanting to do anything they don't have to. 2)The 
results of the emissions tests are heavily dependant upon the system in 
which they are used. E.G Might work in my system and not in yours depending 
on clocks used, how well we design the system etc. So they like to use both 
clauses and avoid testing. The FCC requirements are, in my opinion a little 
murky as well. I solve the problem in my purchase specifications by both 
requiring that it will work when installed in my equipment and requiring 
that they, at a minimum, provide me with a conducted emissions tests at min, 
max and nominal load range and a radiated sweep at nominal. (Obviously this 
is only for reference as youi system will undoubtably provide some shielding 
- but it helps me in dealing with the mechanical boys to start identiify the 
minimal shielding performance I expect out of the encloure - at least in 
reference to the power supply. Also be aware that I have run into a few 
cases where the SMPS purcahsed isn't necessarily the SMPS tested in the 
first place. Uncontrolled and untested cost reduction etc can completely 
obviate test results. Make sure the test results and the product part, and 
revision numbers match. It CAN be ugly - but not if you're careful and you 
monitor your vendor.
Gary



From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Reply-To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
To: Sosnoski, Michael gl...@wmsgaming.com,
'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EU directives for SMPS
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:51:04 -0600


Not an area in which I am expert, but doesn't the low voltage directive
point you at EMC requirements?

  From: Sosnoski, Michael gl...@wmsgaming.com
  Reply-To: Sosnoski, Michael gl...@wmsgaming.com
  Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:48:48 -0600
  To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
  Subject: EU directives for SMPS
 
 
  Can anyone tell me what EU directives are required for a SMPS?
  I have a supplier telling me only the LVD is required?  I am shocked 
that
  the EMC directive would not be required for a SMPS also.
  I will look at their DOC, and see what the declared-just wondering.
 
  Mike Sosnoski
 
  ---
  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:   emc_p...@symbol.com
 
  For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 
  Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
  All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
  http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
 


---
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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
 http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

_
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected?  Get a FREE computer virus scan 
online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Flammability Testing

[GARY MCINTURFF]

John,
I'm unfamiliar with the standards you reference, but the flammability
testing will be different if it’s used for a small component - smaller than
a breadbox, or whether it is structural - say Wall board or roof tiles. UL's
Northbrook (Illinois) office has a huge facility for just that purpose.
Steiner tunnels - mock up warehouses etc. I don't have their numbers but you
might try calling them and asking for a customer rep.
Gary
I have a couple of inside names but don't want to broadcast them to the entire
list, but email me if you need them.


- Original Message - 
From: John Lach mailto:john.l...@carlingtech.com  
To: IEEE_EMC PSTC mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:27 AM
Subject: Flammability Testing


Good Day Group,
I am looking for a lab or labs that can perform testing to EN45545-2 and also
to NFF 16-101/102. If possible a lab in the United States would be preferable
but not mandatory. Thanks in advance.

John

John Lach
Manager Standards and Test
john.l...@carlingtech.com

Carling Technologies
60 Johnson Ave.
Plainville, CT 06062
860-793-7167
www.carlingtech.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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Regulatory Plan

[GARY MCINTURFF]

For ITE equipment and UL the process and the costs are almost identical these
days anyway - since they went to the new CB style report at UL. Even before
that I typically received both reports and as John notes it has saved me time
and expense in the long run. It also makes getting a Western European mark
form TUV, for example, cheaper than submitting a full product to both. Takes
more time than doing both in parallel, but it saves about 2K per box.
Obviously, this all assumes that you market is bigger than just North America
- or it doesn't make much sense. 
Gary
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Tyra, John mailto:john_t...@bose.com  
To: 'lfresea...@aol.com' ; santo.mazz...@baesystems.com ;
marti...@appliedbiosystems.com ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: Regulatory Plan

Not sure why you feel this way Derek but I have found that for our audio
products, anyway,  a CB report is the most cost effective and valuable tool in
getting certification in non-EU countries, which have mandatory certification
requirements. This allows certification  without having to completely retest
product which would increase costs and lead-times incredibly. Armed with a CB
certifications and report we are now able to get certs in China, Singapore,
Korea, Argentina, S. Africa, Poland ( still required until May 2004), Russia 
and even in non CB member countries Mexico and Taiwan..
 
Without a CB certification I can easily see the certification costs exceeding
$50K with an additional 3-6 months lead-time not to mention the internal
engineering time and samples costs to support the individual country
certifications.For Bose, at least, this is the best $3K  per
product investment we could ever make
 
CB will not work for every product category but for products where it is
available I would recommend highly that it be investigated as a certification
option...
 

 -Original Message-
From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:47 PM
To: Tyra, John; santo.mazz...@baesystems.com; marti...@appliedbiosystems.com;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Regulatory Plan



In a message dated 10/22/2003 1:42:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
john_t...@bose.com writes:


I don't know what type of product you are trying to put a plan together for
but I would highly recommend you get a CB certification and report for the
products especially if you are planning to sell in the Far East. The CB
certification will help you with Singapore, Korea, China approvals and limit
the amount of retesting

I would have to disagree with the involvement of a CB unless there was a
REQUIREMENT to do so..
 
Instead, invest your resources in understanding and complying with the
harmonised standards aplicable to your Product.
 
Derek N. Walton
Owner, L F Research EMI Design and Test Facility
Poplar Grove,
IL 61065

Re: On-line Pay stubs

[GARY MCINTURFF]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Well, my last employer did that - but they also told me I didn't work there
anymore so I think it might be a moot point  
Gary

- Original Message - 
From: Aschenberg, Mat mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com  
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 1:53 PM
Subject: On-line Pay stubs


I just received notice both from my National Guard commander and now from my
full-time employment that I won' be receiving paystubs anymore. I have to go
on-line and look them up. 

I feel very uncomfortable with this. Is it really legal to not give a paystub? 

Mat



Emoticon1.gif

Re: metallic coatings

[GARY MCINTURFF]

I agree with Joe and want to point out one other process for adding metal
to plastic. I believe the coating is probably cheaper than the inner metallic
housing, but I think you'll get better performance with the inner shield, in
particular if you haven't designed the plastic enclosure to work with the
metalization. The coating won't get into small and/or sharp radius for
example, leaving unwanted seams. The contact pressure between halves has to be
addressed as does the mating of any connectors that leave the box, etc. It can
be done but it has to be part of the design process not afterwards. The
coatings shouldn't flake if you use a NRTL recognized coating and plastic
combination, along with an approved applicator - at least for commercial
stuff. They learned early on about the metal flaking problem and have added
aging tests. (Does that fully address the problem? I'm not sure) For a
military application the environment - salt fog etc may defeat the whole
process.
There is one other form of metallization - injecting fibers inside the
plastic. But it has its own problems, How to make contact with the metallic
fibers, the more metallization you have the quicker the mold parts wear out,
layers of high metallization and low metallization layers inside the plastic.
Again doable - but it takes design and money and isn't really suitable as an
after the fact design add in.
Gary

- Original Message - 
From: Joseph Randolph mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com  
To: 'Ken Javor' mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com  ;
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:37 PM
Subject: RE: metallic coatings


Hi Ken:

Conductive coatings are tricky, and I generally try to avoid them.  It
can be difficult to get good electrical connections at the separations
where different parts of the box meet, unless the mating surfaces have
been specifically designed for the purpose.  Even so, the contact
quality can deteriorate over time with some materials.  Worse yet, some
coatings have a tendency to peel as they age.  I would think these
limitations would be even more of an issue for military environmental
conditions.

I don't know the background of your request, but if this is being
contemplated as a band-aid for an EMC problem, you may want to pursue
other fixes such as circuit board revisions.

If you really do need some shielding but want to avoid the coatings, you
might consider a stamped steel insert made out of thin sheet metal that
conforms to the inside contours of the plastic box.  There are also some
shielding constructions where a conductive film is bonded to a
non-conductive substrate that can be die stamped and then folded to fit
around the circuit board inside the plastic housing.

 
 
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com


 -Original Message-
 From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
 [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
 Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:03 PM
 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: metallic coatings
 
 
 
 Does anyone have any suggestions for a metallic coating that 
 can be deposited on the interior of a plastic box that would 
 need to meet military environmental conditions?  Suggestions 
 for other metallization techniques are also welcome.
 
 Thank you. 
 
 
 ---
 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:   emc_p...@symbol.com
 
 For policy questions, send mail to:
  Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
  Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 
 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back 
 on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on 
 the web at:
 http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
 
 




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:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Job Opportunity - Maryland

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Not really buying this argument. I too spent a second considering that they
were looking for some sort of experience being taught only in the last 20
years or something. But with even the slightest of thought it would have been
stated completely different. EG Need college experience in ASIC development
etc. Even if I met the qualifications as stated this opportunity goes straight
into the garbage. It tells me a lot of things that I'm sure the
manager/company didn't want to say about the work environment.
Gary

- Original Message - 
From: Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ptcnh.net  
Cc: Emc-Pstc mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org  ; Bryan Axmear
mailto:bryan_axm...@oxfordcorp.com  
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Job Opportunity - Maryland



But then if I graduated from college when I was 35, the graduation time 
frame would make me 46 to 50 years old. So is this really an age 
criteria? Or maybe is this saying I want somebody that has a certain 
style of training of a type not given today? Or maybe is this saying I 
want someone with a certain length of experience therefore supposing a 
certain skill set acquired?

Scott Douglas
NARTE Certified
Product Safety Engineer
PS-02-NCE
Email: sdoug...@ptcnh.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:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: Corrosion tests - NEBS or Milspec acceleration factors?

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Ernie,
I know you received Naftali's  email so I will just clarify a little more.
We test and pass the GR-487 outdoor enclosure requirements for the
telecommunications industry but I have a client who is non-telecom.
Telecommunciations customers seem to accept the test, because past experience
has shown in meets the equipment and time needs (20 years).
Non-Telecommunications customers not familiar with the tests kind of expect
some sort of acceleration factor for the hours under test to demonstrate how
long the equipment will work, rather than a more or less pass fail salt fog
test. He wants to how long the equipment can withstand the elements at his
coastal location. Is there any sort of acceleration model used in the salt fog
test, or the mixed gasses and hygroscopic tests?  He is a little unhappy with
my current response (understandably) that experience shows the test satisfies
the screening requirements or else they  would have been changed long ago to
something that did meet the equipment and time requirements.
Can you give me a little insight?
Thanks
Gary McInturff

 

Corrosion tests - NEBS or Milspec accleration factors?

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Question came up. Is there any real time correlation for some of the NEBS
endurance tests. Salt corrosion (outdoor units - GR-487) for example.? In
other words does the 200 hour test relate to 20 years real exposure to salt
fog and spray common in port cities. Same question for the Mix flow gases
and/or the hygroscopic dust tests.
The test can be looked at one of two ways - 1) There is a direct
acceleration correlation for every hour in the chambers the equipment would
experience similar corrosion in 2 weeks of exposure if installed in a seaport
etc. 4 hours 8 weeks etc.
2) The tests may be overly harsh, but experience has shown that while not
directly relatable if the equipment withstands the various tests then it will
last at least as long as the contracted life of the equipment. Say 20 Years!
GR-1089 and GR-63 don't seem to provide this information. Is there
somewhere else I should be looking?
Thanks
Gary

NEMA ratings

[GARY MCINTURFF]

 
Does somebody own the NEMA ratings or is it a bit like the CE mark. Test to
the appropriate standards and claim you are NEMA class whatever? How about the
European IP ratings - owned (meaning you have to submit to some specific
organization) or attested to through testing. 
Thanks
Gary

Re: Missing Emissions data from D of C?

[GARY MCINTURFF]

Doesn't seem likely that it would be exempt. In the mid-80's I resolved a
problem at a client's bank. Originally the problem appeared our equipment was
interfering. Long story short - the problem belonged to the video arcade next
door. A bank of games  was the source of the problems. 
Gary

- Original Message - 
From: lfresea...@aol.com 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Missing Emissions data from D of C?

Hi all, 
 
while reviewing a clients competitors D of C, I was surprised to see that only
Immunity and Low voltage were address, there were no emissions requirements
called out.
 
The product is a professional arcade game. Is this product exempt? Any
thoughts why this could be allowed?
 
Cheers,
 
Derek N. Walton
Owner, L F Research EMI Design and Test Facility
Poplar Grove,
IL 61065

Re: SURGE testing, disturb. meas.

[GARY MCINTURFF]

So is an ethernet line considered disabled when disconnected since it will
drop the link (although it keeps trying to establish link and resume the idle
data pattern?
Gary

- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hopkins mailto:michael.hopk...@thermo.com  
To: Konrad Stefanski mailto:kstef...@poczta.onet.pl  ; emc-p...@ieee.org 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: SURGE testing, disturb. meas.

There are couplers available from a number of manufacturers; however, none
work at data rates much above 100kHz. For that reason, the current draft of
61000-4-5 revision 2 (not yet circulated) inlcudes the following -- keep in
mind, it is an EARLY draft, but it will appear in a CD by the end of this year
but with some clarification added regarding systems where disabling a port
shuts down a system:

Because of physical constraints, most coupling/decoupling networks  are
limited to handling data rates of up to about 100kHz. In cases where no
adequate coupling/decoupling network is commercially available, surges shall
be applied to the high-speed communication data port directly. First the port
is determined to be functional, data lines are then removed, and the surge
applied. After the surge, the data port must be re-tested to insure
functionality. The EUT should be functional during the surge test with the
port disconnected.

 

The coupling method shall be selected as a function of the circuits and
operational conditions. This has to be specified in the product specification.

 

High speed communication lines such as ISDN or xDSL require low impedance in
the decoupling network path in order to operate and an example of a suitable
coupling/decoupling network is given in figure 13. This will only work for the
1.2/50us combination wave since the inductors will likely saturate with the
longer 10/700us telecom waveform.


 
The coupling/decoupling network referred to in a figure 3 is from an ETSI
standard, but keep in mind, it will only work with very well balanced lines
and with the 1.2/50us wave -- most telecom requirements for IEC specify using
a 10/700us waveform.
 
 
 

Best Regards, 

Michael Hopkins 
Manager, EMC Technologies 
Thermo Electron 
Control Technology Division 
EMC  ESD Simulation Solutions 
One Lowell Research Center 
Lowell, MA 01852 
Tel: +1 978 275 0800 ext. 334 
Fax: +1 978 275 0850 
michael.hopk...@thermo.com 

One Thermo, committed to integrity, intensity, innovation  involvement 


From: Konrad Stefanski [mailto:kstef...@poczta.onet.pl]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:20 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: SURGE testing, disturb. meas.


Hello list.
 
What is the simplest way to couple Surge pulses (EN 61000-4-5) with
telecomunication lines?
I haven't got proffesional coupling network.
 
And the second question, what is the simplest way to measure voltage of
disturbances from telecomunication lines without proffesional ISN?
 
Thank You for answers.
 
Konrad Stefanski
PCBC SA Warsaw
kstef...@poczta.onet.pl