RE: EMC Directive revisions
Now I am really confused!! As I understand it the EMC Directive was never intended to INSTRUCT folks what tests to run or indeed what levels etc..to demonstrate compliance. Indeed one of the statements from the SLIM was the Directive per se was just fine and that the standards etc were the real problem area. Are these messages referring to the Guidelines in meeting the EMC Directive? Has the Directive really changed? -Original Message- From: George Sparacino [mailto:george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 12:09 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions Gentlemen..where does one get a copy of the draft for review ? -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:19 AM To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions Here we go . . . 'indirect' trade barrier . . . forget Class A. To whom can we directly raise our concerns (besides product trade associations)? John Juhasz Fiebr Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [ mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com ] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:39 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Directive revisions Thanks Brian. I have some very serious concerns about this draft. Art 3A, 1a: General type products appear to have to be able to function in any EMC environment including industrial. Class A type products just went out the window since the product must also be able to function in a residential environment. Annex II, A1,1: Testing immunity to DC current or voltage on AC networks Annex II, B.1: Oh great! Now we have to design so emissions are reduced as far as possible. I can just see now that we ship every system is a sealed, welded steel container. Annex II B.1.1: and B.2.1: If a standard lists several levels of emissions and immunity, the product must comply with the most severe limits. They have to be kidding! If this is the outcome of SLIM, I would hate to see the outcome of FAT! Richard Woods -- From: Brian Jones [SMTP:e...@brianjones.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:06 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: EMC Directive revisions Ed, Richard, and everyone Following discussions in the SLIM working group, the Commission has now produced a draft of the revised EMC Directive. This is a complete rewrite, not an amendment. The major change is removal of the requirement for fixed installations to be assessed and CE marked prior to taking into service, but the possibility for investigation by enforcement authorities, should interference be caused, remains. The distinction between systems which continue to require CE marking, and fixed installations is unclear at present. It is expected that the draft will undergo further development and changes at SLIM working group meetings during this year before a draft is published for comment. I will be presenting a paper in one of the poster sessions at the EMC Symposium in Washington DC, on the latest position. Best wishes Brian Jones EMC Consultant and Competent Body Signatory --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For
RE: Mars Lander EMC problem?
Hmm - I think we need some on-site research done on this one.. -Original Message- From: Tony J. O'Hara [mailto:tonyoh...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:31 AM To: IEEE list server Subject: Re: Mars Lander EMC problem? Hi I thought many people would be interested in this as it looks like the recent NASA Mars Lander loss was due to EMI/EMC problems! I have just extracted a small piece of the e-mail report I got! Contact me directly if anyone wants the entire e-mail. From Peggy Wilhide Headquarters, Washington, DC March 28, 2000 (Phone: 202/358-1898) MARS PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT OUTLINES ROUTE TO SUCCESS An in-depth review of NASA's Mars exploration program, released today, found significant flaws in formulation and execution led to the failures of recent missions, and provides recommendations for future exploration of Mars. The Mars Program Independent Assessment Team (MPIAT) started work on January 7, 2000, and delivered its final report to the Agency in mid-March. The report concluded the most probable cause of the failure was the generation of spurious signals when the lander legs were deployed during descent. The spurious signals gave a false indication that the spacecraft had landed, resulting in a premature shutdown of the engines and the destruction of the lander when it crashed on Mars. Without any entry, descent and landing telemetry data, there is no way to know whether the lander reached the terminal descent propulsion phase. If it did reach this phase, it is almost certain that premature engine shutdown occurred, the report concluded. In addition, today, Dr. Edward Weiler, the Associate Administrator for Space Science, announced the cancellation of the planned Mars 2001 lander awaiting his approval of a new overall Mars architecture plan. Tony Colorado --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
Thanks Mike for an excellent post. -Original Message- From: Mike Murphy [mailto:mmur...@alesis.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 10:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS Brent and group, I can verify that the CASPPER system does perform this feat incredibly well in most cases IF you have the right conditions. I've had two demos of their product, one at our company in Santa Monica and another at an OATS. We devised quite a few scenarios to test its capabilities. For instance, at the OATS, we found a strong ambient. Then we took a signal generator (acting as EUT) and moved it slightly off of the center frequency of the ambient in order to measure its magnitude. We moved the EUT signal back to the exact center frequency of the ambient and the CASPPER system was able to remove the ambient and take a reading of the EUT signal to within 0.5dB of our reading. We then proceeded to AM and FM modulate the EUT signal and still the CASPPER system did a great job of reading it. However, if the system does not get the differential it needs between the ambient sensing antenna and the EUT antenna, the results are underwhelming. At the OATS (nestled in a valley) the system had problems with multipaths. At our company in Santa Monica, the system had problems with multipaths from high rise buildings and the overwhelming magnitude of some ambients. I packed these two demonstrations with as many engineers and technicians as I could in order to get a broad range of skepticism and opinion. Our engineers who have DSP and communications systems experience have no qualms about the theory and spoke directly with the CASPPER engineer to quiz him on what they were doing with regard to coherence. We all were satisfied that the system can do what it theoretically claims. However, it's a bit finicky and the ambient antenna placement (or multiple antenna placements) seems to be critical. At this point, I disagree with the marketing of the product that it is a virtual chamber in that it in no way removes the headaches of dealing with the multitude of ambients the way that a physical chamber would. It may even be that the users of the system become hyper-aware of ambients as they use the system. I've asked CASPPER to give me the names and phone numbers of customers who own the system to see how it's performing for them in the real world and gauge their customer satisfaction, but have not gotten this information yet. I'm still a little disappointed that I haven't heard any responses from this list server to my specific questions on this topic (see my 3/21/00 post). For those of you who have witnessed their demos: 1. Did the system perform to your satisfaction? 2. Were you convinced enough to purchase it? 3. Was it worth the asking price? Mike Murphy Compliance Engineer Alesis Studio Electronics --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: StripLine
Presuambly you are referring to a stripline antenna?? Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Frank Krozel[SMTP:fr...@electronicinstrument.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: StripLine Hi All: Seem to have misplaced my data on Striplines. Is there somewhere on the web that I can find the dimensions to build a stripline? Frank Krozel --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
OATS Ambient Cancellaion - Thank you all
Thanks to all of you who responded. I agree with Brent - Lets keep the list EMC Safety.. -Original Message- From: brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com [mailto:brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Laotian power cords, Thanks! Thanks to all the folks that answered my question. I'm glad the group is not being split. It's a great resource just as it is! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
This issue isn't change - its the gyrations, expense and increased overhead incurred by manufacturing companies that is the concern here. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear ??? Perhaps emerging countries is not the best terminology. Emerging standards may be more appropriate. First of all, there is the Commonwealth of Independent States, formerly the USSR. For some 50 years under Communism these countries had little dealings with the Western world, but are all now at some point in developing standards to participate in the global market. Russia, Belarus, etc. Then there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, sometimes called Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. Many already have well developed approval processes, but some, such as Poland, can be very difficult to completely satisfy at times. The good news here is that several of these very much want to join the European Union, and may even accept the CE marking in the near future prior to membership. Japan has long been a well developed nation, but has no product safety certification requirements for typical ITE product, and only voluntary (VCCI) requirements for EMC. Meanwhile, China and Taiwan have relatively recent certification requirements for ITE. Argentina only recently began to require IRAM certification for ITE. The bad news is that there are still many countries that do not now have certification requirements, but will probably adopt some within the next decade. If you don't like change, Product Safety and EMC are the wrong fields to be in at this time. George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 03/22/2000 09:04 AM --- rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/21/2000 08:21:01 PM Please respond to rc%twn.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com To: grassc%louisville.stortek@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Dear Charles, REGARDING: ..the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation... The emerging countries are quite numerous, can you come up with some actual examples? Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 03/22/2000 02:43:36 AM To: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn@TUV-Twn, Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products Chris, Just remember that with the exception of Western European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the world (without being rude) have not really have a solid rule for anything. These countries rules and regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange) without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the real life and we live in it. Thanks Kevin --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
Ambient Cancellation Device for OATS
Hello - A little while ago there was some discussion of a company designing an ambient cancelation device. Question: Does anyone remember the company?? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Russian Certification of Products and other countries
It has been my experience that - with the exception of the EU and Aus/Nz - the emerging countries have been very erratic in the implementation and enforcement of EMC legislation. Rene, I must disagree with your comment regarding scheduled implmentations. Putting incomplete EMC enforcement/legislation in to force on schedule is NOT good planning. Kudos to the EMC Framework - that EMC legislation was advertised and compliance methods available well before the required date. If only it were true universally... -Original Message- From: r...@twn.tuv.com [mailto:r...@twn.tuv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:34 PM To: Kevin Newland Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products and other countries What about Japan, AustraliaNewZealand, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico... In many Asian Countries (Taiwan, China, Korea, Hongkong.) rules are just being set up. This implies that there are frequent changes, but not on daily basis. And changes are implemented according to a schedule. Can you show me a similar schedule for the stock exchange? If you can, I will change my Job immediately. Rene Charton Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com on 03/16/2000 06:59:11 AM Please respond to Kevin Newland kevin_newl...@yahoo.com To: Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com, 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Rene Charton/TUV-Twn) Subject: Re: Russian Certification of Products Chris, Just remember that with the exception of Western European countries,USA and Canada, the rest of the world (without being rude) have not really have a solid rule for anything. These countries rules and regulation changes daily (just like stock exchange) without any notice or explanation). This is sadly the real life and we live in it. Thanks Kevin --- Maxwell, Chris chr...@gnlp.com wrote: Our sales people in Russia have started the process of Certifying our equipment to sell in Russia. The two agencies that they are working with are Gosstandart and the Ministry of Communication. According to them, the certification will consist of an inspection of all of our existing Compliance Documentation including ISO-9000 certification, EMC Test Data (for the products of interest), Safety Test Data (for the products of interest), Environmental Test Data including heat, frost, moisture, vibration, and blow (what is that?) along with other inspections of our calibration equipment and methods. We are also being asked to pay for a trip to the US for 3 people from the Ministry of Communication and Gosstandart (6 people total) for 7 days each. The total is a staggering $44,000 (either cash or wire transfer). Note that all of the actions being performed for this are inspections of existing documentation, not actual testing. So in the end, they will decide to certify our products based upon existing documentation, testing... I have never experienced this before. It appears to be a great deal of expense for not much substance. Is this typical? Has anybody else out there certified products with these agencies? By the way, we typically classify our product as light industrial test and measurement equipment and already have solid testing and documentation to to EN 61326-1 (EMC), EN 61010-1 (Safety) and EN 60825-1 (Laser Safety). Does this give us any kind of out? Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line:
RE: Banana Split
I support the general comment that more specificity in the subject line would help in sorting emails. -Original Message- From: Lacey,Scott [mailto:sla...@foxboro.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 7:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Banana Split I apologize for the rather flippant subject line above, but., in many ways the collection of postings from this forum is like a banana split. The different flavors blend and complement each other. Many of us have multiple responsibilities, and some of those who currently don't may be tasked with additional chores in the future as their corporate employers undergo a lean transformation. There is a lot of valuable information in these postings. I have found some gems that were not always directly related to the subject line. Scott Lacey Test Engineer (EMC, Safety, Product Verification) The Foxboro Company 38 Neponset Avenue Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035 508-549-3534 sla...@foxboro.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC Test Conditions
Gary - You make a compelling argument but I must disagree. I belive that BOTH the user and the testlab need to cooperate fully with good faith. The testlab is afterall the defacto expert in testing test standards, the user knows the product intimately (one hopes!) One or other cannot be fully responsible. BOTH together can produce a good test (again one hopes). -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 12:05 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions Derek, I think I have said this before, but the ultimate responsibility for compliance is yours not the test house. Their responsibility is to have equipment, staff, and procedures that allow them to make reliable and repeatable tests, in accordance with the test certification documents. In addition to that, as a customer service they can provide you with the latest in information or technical opinions. Sometimes these roles get confused and the test house assumes more responsibility than they really have, you certainly can understand why, they are trying to protect their reputation. But when in conflict use your own judgement. The test house can protect their accreditation and reputation by making whatever disclaimers they want about the test setup - but not how the test compares to the published limits. They can for example, state that while the test sample was measured to be under the required limits they are uncomfortable with the test set-up and they cannot assure the 90% upper confidence level with this arrangement, or something to that affect. In fact if they are following guide 25 for laboratories (part of their required documentation for certification) they actually have, but may not know it, a process for documenting customer and test discrepancies and problems. Given the number of possible set-ups and equipment operation and configuration there is ample room for reasonable and knowledgeable people to disagree. But when push comes to shove it is your responsibility to insure conformance, and you and your company will be the ones paying fines, removing or retrofitting equipment etc, not the test house. If you are convinced of your position and have listened carefully to what the test guys are telling you do as you see fit and let the test house make its comments in the test file. Then live with the consequences. Just an opinion Gary -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 7:27 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:EMC Test Conditions Folks, the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned. I have two main concerns, they are: 1) The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic structure which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000 each ). So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they would be mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc. Because this fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I should test as table top equipment. I don't think this is correct. IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC, printers, coffee makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they reside has very little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like ours, are almost always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have this metal, or a simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting this metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do. So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing consideration added to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated installation testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if this is not considered, then results from all these system will vary dramatically. We worry at great length about the setup for table top equipment, and floor equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's open season! 2) Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is supplied with a 3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final customers to extend this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing with just 3 feet of lead My product standard is EN 61326, which allows me if my cables
RE: EMC Test Conditions
Interesting problems Derek.. Some comments: 1. Testing the device on a table. I'm not sure it is a stupid thing to do. As I see it this is a similar problem to rack qualifications. If the EUT does NOT require the metal support for any EMC performance (shielding/filter grounding) then testing and passing on a non- conductive support would be OK ...and look over here is a convenient table to put the equipment on. 2. On the other hand... If you are concerned that the metal support will detrimentally change the emissions profile - then you will need the actual structure and not a facsimile. (The table seems attractive to me..) 3. I agree with your concerns on the spec. To be so severly limited to floor/table top is also a concern of mine. 4. On your second concern. This is an issue I feel strongly about. There is a tendency to replace good judgement with letter of the law thinking. In this case I agree with Ed N. I guess the right thing is to look in the documentation to be delivered to the customer. If the lab still does not insist on the lab - find another lab!! -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:52 AM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Test Conditions I agree with Derek that simulation of 'actual use'/'actual installation' of the EUT to the best of your ability is clearly the best way to test the equipment. Anything short of that isn't clearly representative. You note that It is important to have this metal, or a simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting this metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do. As long as the EUT is mounted to your smaller metal structure (1 cubic meter) to simulate the installation), what concerns do have with regard to the height at which it is tested? Is the product be normally at floor level? Or can it be mounted at any height? If it's normally mounted at floor level (and specified in the 'installation manual',if you have one), I would indeed fight it. Regarding your item #2, I am in agreement as well. If there is any question as to the product's compliance by an authority, having gone the 'straight narrow', and having it documented in the report is better than having less testing done because of the length of the cables. If I were the authority, THAT would be the product I would pull-in for verification of the test results. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [ mailto:lfresea...@aol.com mailto:lfresea...@aol.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:27 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Test Conditions Folks, the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned. I have two main concerns, they are: 1) The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic structure which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000 each ). So I have a fixture, which mounts all the components as they would be mounted, using wiring as it would be wired etc. etc. etc. Because this fixture is only about a cubic metre, the lab is telling me I should test as table top equipment. I don't think this is correct. IMHP, table top equipment is meant to be EUTs like PC, printers, coffee makers, TVs etc. In most cases, the location in which they reside has very little metal in the proximity. OTOH, control systems like ours, are almost always fastened to metal objects. It is important to have this metal, or a simulation of it present, because I've found that otherwise, there is little correlation to the final installation. I also feel strongly that lifting this metal structure 80 cm off the ground plane is a stupid thing to do. So, my opinion is that there needs to be a third testing consideration added to table top and floor mounted equipment, that of simulated installation testing. OK, so this would require additional work. But if this is not considered, then results from all these system will vary dramatically. We worry at great length about the setup for table top equipment, and floor equipment. But if systems don't fit in this category, it's open season! 2) Since my device can be installed almost anywhere, it is supplied with a 3 foot length of flying lead. The intent is for final customers to extend this cable as needed. Here the lab tells me I'm OK testing with just 3 feet of lead My product standard is EN 61326, which allows me if my cables are under 10' in length, to blow away FTB and CI testing. This is ludicrous! I know now how some of my competitors can claim EMC compliance when they fail in my lab. I feel very strongly about issue 1, enough that I would offer to draft guidelines to present to whoever makes the rules. On issue 2, there has to be some education, at the moment the
RE: Technical Documentation
Excellent thought - and one that we are moving to. There are a couple logistical issues that need resolving.. 1) one problem there is that we would have to employ 2 persons fulltime to perform all the necessary library functions 2) the transmittal of the data (the files can attain several megabytes) is non trivial. Webdownlaads can take a L..O..N..G time and email systems typically puke on the file size. -Original Message- From: Bruce Touzel [mailto:btou...@acc.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:37 AM To: Scott Douglas Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Technical Documentation why don't you just scan-in your documents and post them on the internal company server so that anyone can get it if needed ? thx bruce Scott Douglas wrote: I guess I want to toss my 2 cents in here. I am probably going to be found out in left field but here's what I do with all this stuff. I keep a 3 ring binder where I store copies of all of the safety agency certifications and notices of compliance from the EMC test house. I also keep a copy of the Declaration of Conformity in the book. I keep one copy of this binder in our UK office, one copy here in my office and one copy here in Document Control (here being our US factory). In addition to the binders, I keep one file cabinet in Document Control where I store all safety and EMC test records. I am now adding copies of component proofs to this file cabinet. I do not store schematics, fabrication or assembly drawings. Neither do I store user manuals or reference manuals. Tech Pubs and Drafting store all these documents and drawings. Should the need arise, anyone can ask our UK office for a document and that request will be passed on to me. If that request ever comes in, I will go to Document Control and arrange to collect the necessary paperwork. I am certainly not going to create a file of duplicate documents that I have to update on an every day basis. So it would seem that my TCF or whatever else you want to call it is actually scattered all over our factory, each function keeping their own records. About the only thing I did to these other document storage processes was to add the 10 storage requirement to their ISO 9001 procedures. One other thing I did was to insert myself in the ECO process such that I sign off on every change order to a tested and released product. That way, I won't miss anything. So far, it seems to be working with minimal fuss. The few requests I have had were from non-European countries for test records, specifically from South Africa, Australia and Russia. I am sure somebody will tell me I am way out there and really non-compliant. But since I test and certify to product specific (ITE) standards, I do not need to keep TCF's or whatever else at a test house / notified / competent body. Therefore, I will not keep such a file here either. I will deliver whatever documents to whomever requests, it may take a few days, but I will deliver. If that is not in keeping with the spirit and intent, then somebody better lock me up. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Technical Documentation
Scott - We maintain a similar system. That is with stuff scattered at different points in the company. I (and you and I think many others) belive that WHERE access to the documentation is irrelevant. What really counts is GETTING the documentation to the person that requests it. -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:19 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Technical Documentation I guess I want to toss my 2 cents in here. I am probably going to be found out in left field but here's what I do with all this stuff. I keep a 3 ring binder where I store copies of all of the safety agency certifications and notices of compliance from the EMC test house. I also keep a copy of the Declaration of Conformity in the book. I keep one copy of this binder in our UK office, one copy here in my office and one copy here in Document Control (here being our US factory). In addition to the binders, I keep one file cabinet in Document Control where I store all safety and EMC test records. I am now adding copies of component proofs to this file cabinet. I do not store schematics, fabrication or assembly drawings. Neither do I store user manuals or reference manuals. Tech Pubs and Drafting store all these documents and drawings. Should the need arise, anyone can ask our UK office for a document and that request will be passed on to me. If that request ever comes in, I will go to Document Control and arrange to collect the necessary paperwork. I am certainly not going to create a file of duplicate documents that I have to update on an every day basis. So it would seem that my TCF or whatever else you want to call it is actually scattered all over our factory, each function keeping their own records. About the only thing I did to these other document storage processes was to add the 10 storage requirement to their ISO 9001 procedures. One other thing I did was to insert myself in the ECO process such that I sign off on every change order to a tested and released product. That way, I won't miss anything. So far, it seems to be working with minimal fuss. The few requests I have had were from non-European countries for test records, specifically from South Africa, Australia and Russia. I am sure somebody will tell me I am way out there and really non-compliant. But since I test and certify to product specific (ITE) standards, I do not need to keep TCF's or whatever else at a test house / notified / competent body. Therefore, I will not keep such a file here either. I will deliver whatever documents to whomever requests, it may take a few days, but I will deliver. If that is not in keeping with the spirit and intent, then somebody better lock me up. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Question on EN55024 legacy products
Hello _ I was wondering if this esteemed group could help me here: As everyone in the ITE business knows EN55024 is soon upon us. The questions I have are: 1) Legacy products. I assume that - as long as no changes are made - then EXISTING products do not require changes to incorporate the new standards. Question: Does it follow then if upgrades/enhancements are made after 7/1/2001 that modifications in the field may need to be incorporated on legacy machines to bring them up to spec? 2) Test Reports Is there a time limit on the quality of test data? For example can I take test data from say 1 year ago (Radiated Immunity) and use that for a brand new DoC with 024 listed? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: ITE Requirements for India?
Hi Kevin - I would like some clarification here. In your response you indicate that there are EMC REQUIREMENTS. My question(s): 1. Is there a law requiring this.? 2. If so what is it ? 3. What marks are required? 4. Is there importation controls on ITE equipment vis-a-vis EMC? Thanks... -Original Message- From: Kevin Newland [mailto:kevin_newl...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:56 AM To: Scott Douglas; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: ITE Requirements for India? Scott, As far as I know, India requirements for ITE is IEC950 and CISPR22. However you can get the latest information directly from the government officials, details of which is listed below: Director ( Central Marks ) Bureau of Indian Standards Manak Bhavan 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110 002 ( India ) Tel : +91-11-3239382, 3230792 Fax : +91-11-3239399,3239382 Email : b...@vsnl.com Also prepare yourself for a lot of red tapes similar to Chinese and the Japanese approval process. Good luck Kevin __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
FW: Embedded Capacitance Project
-Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:58 AM To: 'Signal Integrity' Cc: Charbonneau, Richard A Subject: Embedded Capacitance Project Hello, Please find attached information regarding the NCMS Workshop on Embedded Capacitance. --- EDC-FlierFeb2000.pdf I have included the text below: CONFERENCE DESCRIPTION: The development and use of Embedded Capacitance Date: Feb 28-29th Location: Tempe Arizona Shelly, In case your Adobe still dies on you , I have added the texr description below: Text Description: The Need: The need for power-ground decoupling capacitance is nearly universal in electronic circuits. Today, the solution to that need is found in discrete chip capacitors. These devices provide a wide range of capacitance values and many excellent properties, such as stability over temperature and frequency and reliability. However, use of discrete chip capacitors also poses some fundamental problems - prob-lems such as the significant cost of producing them in large numbers and the amount of surface area they consume on the circuit board. In addition, few designers or maintenance engineers understand, with any rigor, how many decoupling capacitors are truly required, how much capacitance they should have, and where to locate them on the circuit. In response to these inherent problems, and supported by the findings of recent industry roadmaps, OEMs are now viewing embedded passives technology as a promising alternative to discrete passives in electronics manufacturing. Embedding the capacitance in the circuit board frees up space that can be used for other functions. The technology may also improve performance and reliability by reducing the number of solder joints and discrete capacitors, and the associated failure modes. In addition, totalsystem cost may also be lowered as a result of parts reduction and circuit integration. However,efforts by one company - or even a small group of companies - do not have high probability of success. The case for a group effort was justified: the investigation of multiple materials, with multiple fabricators,produces multiple chances for success, with the efforts of each participant being highly leveraged. The Project: Recognizing the value of a collective solution, NCMS, together with more than a dozen partners, organized a collaborative effort aimed at advancing the use of embedded capacitance technology for power supply decoupling. The goal of the project was to encourage the development and use of embedded capacitive materials in printed circuit boards. The project team focused on the embedding of a single large (distributed) capacitance within the circuit board. The team anticipates that this capacitance will be utilized for power supply decoupling. Commercially available materials and developmental materials were evaluated for compatibility with the circuit board manufacturing process, for materials properties, for reliability, and for their ability to perform the decoupling function. The project has thus taken some of the first steps towards the realization of embedded passives in organic substrates. Workshop Goal: This workshop will provide a forum in which program results can be disseminated to a targeted group of industry representatives. Specifically, members of the project team and NCMS's program manager will offer workshop participants information and facilitated discussions on the following: goals and objectives, test vehicle design, mate-rial test results, reliability test results, electrical test results (decoupling and EMI), and modeling of the electrical performance of embedded distributed capacitance (EDC). Why attend: * Learn when, where, how to use these new EDC materials * Learn from PWB fabricators technical know-how and lessons learned * Learn recommended design guidelines * Receive workshop proceedings * Receive project final report at 60% savings Who should attend: Individuals responsible for: * PWB Fabrication * PWB Design * Electronic Products Designs High-Speed Digital Designers should NOT miss this workshop. Development and Use of Embedded Capacitance Materials in Printed Circuit Boards The Embedded Decoupling Capacitance Consortium Members StorageTek Delphi Delco Electronics Systems Raytheon Systems 3M Corporation E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Inc. Litton Advanced Circuitry HADCO Merix National Institute of Stan-dards and Technology Penn State University University of Missouri - Rolla National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Tobyhanna Army Depot A Workshop Conducted by: The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Embedded Decoupling Capacitance Consortium February 28-29, 2000 Fiesta Inn Tempe, Arizona EDC-FlierFeb2000.pdf Description: Binary data
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave engineers understand the risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many times, but I know the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were getting cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. I better quit talking before I get upset. Al Patrick
RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
Go ahead and put it on the pwb. We do it anf it works very well. There is a caveat though - pay a lot of attention to the layout and final installation. -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:16 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail); Treg Listserv (E-mail) Subject: Open Frame EMI Filters Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Just to provide a balance here: My father is Professor of Pathology at Surrey University in England. He has been involved in cancer research for most of his professional life. I have grilled (metaphorically) him on this issue. To date, he belives that there is no conclusive evidence of cell phones and damage to human tissues -Original Message- From: b...@anritsu.com [mailto:b...@anritsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? I think the most important point made by the article of Is your cell phone killing you? in Zdnn is this: We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood, said George Carlo, WTR's chairman. We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ... and Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells. It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism behind the damage. Barry Ma -- From: geor...@lexmark.com, on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh -- On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
Yeah - I remember now that now!! My question to group is - Has anyone done this SUCCESSFULLY?? Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com[SMTP:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 1:49 PM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com' Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? Charles, Sorry, I guess I was in error with the Volumetric Site Attenuation inside a GTEM. It is not possible to get an antanna inside one. I believe that others have resonded with the correlation data the FCC has accepted. Regards, Wolf Josenhans Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 11/29/99 11:25:12 AM Please respond to Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com Sent by: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, 'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com' ron_cher...@densolabs.com Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? Yes that is correct. BTW, how does one do the volumetric site attenuation in a GTEM? -Original Message- From: wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com [mailto:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:26 AM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com' Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? My recollection is that the FCC stated a GTEM could be utilized as an alternate test site of ANSI C63.4 if correlation to an Open Area Test site could be established. This correlation must include volumetric site attenuation measurements and sample testing at a minimum. You can contact Art Wall at the FCC (aw...@fcc.gov) for more details. Regards, Wolf Josenhans Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 11/28/99 09:47:41 AM Please respond to Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com Sent by: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, 'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com' ron_cher...@densolabs.com cc:(Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? I don't belive you can... Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B in a GTEM?? Where is it allowed in writing by the FCC? I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed. Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM? Any information would be appreciated. Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT Denso International America Carlsbad, California, USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
Yes that is correct. BTW, how does one do the volumetric site attenuation in a GTEM? -Original Message- From: wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com [mailto:wolfgang_josenh...@3com.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:26 AM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; 'ron_cher...@densolabs.com' Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? My recollection is that the FCC stated a GTEM could be utilized as an alternate test site of ANSI C63.4 if correlation to an Open Area Test site could be established. This correlation must include volumetric site attenuation measurements and sample testing at a minimum. You can contact Art Wall at the FCC (aw...@fcc.gov) for more details. Regards, Wolf Josenhans Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com on 11/28/99 09:47:41 AM Please respond to Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com Sent by: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, 'RON_CHERNUS @densolabs.com' ron_cher...@densolabs.com cc:(Wolfgang Josenhans/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM? I don't belive you can... Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B in a GTEM?? Where is it allowed in writing by the FCC? I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed. Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM? Any information would be appreciated. Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT Denso International America Carlsbad, California, USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM?
I don't belive you can... Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com[SMTP:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 class B, GTEM I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B in a GTEM?? Where is it allowed in writing by the FCC? I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. I believe that a NSA would be needed. Has anyone reading this taken compliance RE data in a GTEM? Any information would be appreciated. Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT Denso International America Carlsbad, California, USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Article on UL
Forgive a jaded old man but two things jumped out at me when I read the article. 1. In many other countries, standards are set or approved by a government entity with industry involvement. U.S. safety standards, on the other hand, are set primarily by private industry - either in independent labs such as UL or by industry associations or organizations. The CPSC, an independent regulatory agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous products, imposes federal regulations only when it believes industry's voluntary efforts are insufficient. Oh Boy. Lets see look like UL is ripe for a goverment takeover to me!! 2. Many experts interviewed contend that UL's recent problems can be traced to the way the company is organized and funded - with more than nine-tenths of its revenue coming from companies for testing products. UL also sets industry safety standards - which it then measures products against - but does not charge for that. Lets see - if we reorganize and - more importantly - change the funding (a euphamism for taxation) then we'll all be safer!! Sorry - Just could not resist.. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: FCC part 15 class B, testing
This is really a no brainer... To summarize: The answer to your questions is NO for the following reasons: 1. You are testing in an anechoic chamber (Read also K.Javors analysis) 2. The antenna cannot be raised to its full height requirement. Thats the bad news. The good news is that the FCC have accepted semi-anechoic chambers that meet the ANSI C63.4 site attenuation criteria as sutiable for compiance data. I suggest you contact them for more advice. The Gold Standard IMHO is still the OATS. -Original Message- From: ron_cher...@densolabs.com [mailto:ron_cher...@densolabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC part 15 class B, testing I would like to know if I can take compliance data for FCC part 15 class B in an anechoic chamber if I can't vary the receive antenna from 1 to 4 metres?? (The chamber is not tall enough) Or do I need an OATS or GTEM? I would also like to do FCC parts 22 and 24 on AMPS and PCS phones. Any information would be appreciated. Ron Chernus, Associate Test Engineer, DVT Denso International Carlsbad, California, USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked?
I hesitate to even have my head examined.. I am afraid of what is (or is not) in there!! -Original Message- From: aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com [mailto:aimee.l.da...@us.ul.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 10:23 AM To: Scott Douglas Cc: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Is Your Head Clamp CE Marked? And what would be the scope of the directive regulating this? Would certain brains be exempt based on qualifications listed in Annex I? -Aimee - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Emission / Enclosure
Ken, agreed -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:49 PM To: Westin, Amund; 'emc-pstc' Subject: Re: Emission / Enclosure My opinion: From 30 - 1000 MHz the material is not as important as the treatment of seams and apertures. -- From: Westin, Amund amund.wes...@dnv.com To: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Emission / Enclosure Date: Thu, Nov 4, 1999, 6:18 AM Members, I looking for persons who have experience in use of aluminum vs. metallic plastic enclosure. The enclosure is typically 5cm X 10cm. Which configuration will reduce emission ? Has somebody compared the configuration in practical tests ? Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Now available: Embedded Capacitance Presentation
To all interested parties: The slides from the October RMCEMC meeting titled: Embedded Capacitance: The next step in PWB Design is now available from our website: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ Comments will be appreciated. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Dr Hubing Presentation on Power Bus Structures
The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the IEEE EMC Society is finishing the old millenium with a bang!! We invite one and all to see.. Presenter: Dr. Todd Hubing from the University of Missouri,Rolla Date : November 11th, 1999. Times : 1:00pm - 4:30pm Location: National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder Co. (Directions) Room 1107 What you will see: The need for a good low impedance power distribution is vital to the performance of todays high-speed computing. It need not be said a great deal of lore is also involved especially in the area of decoupling. Dr Hubing will present a 3 hour tutorial that will cover the theoretical aspects of power bus impedances, performance data will be presented, and finally some design guidelines. Who is invited: All are welcome. There is no restriction on IEEE membership. Naturally we encourage non-members to join the IEEE and the EMC Society to help support events like these. Cost: Free If you intend to come: Please e-mail Charles Grasso at chasgra...@ieee.org. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Wedge Picture
Hello, Here is a picture of a wedge used for the Radiated Immunity testing one of our products. It worked remarkably well. cone Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 attachment: cone.jpg
[SI-LIST] : Comment on seminar
To all interested parties: Sadly Lee Ritchey declined to discuss details of his seminar in public. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list
RE: [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)`
Now hold on - in your answer you indicated a high frequency signalling environment. Remember - capacitance( inductance) = delay = skew. Is this what we are really looking for in a high frequency signalling environment - Especially is skew is important? OK if the timing diagram is NOT critical and the signal is not important (eg reset) then maybe. Don't you mean that the high frequency content of the edges may couple across? -Original Message- From: Denomme, Paul S. [mailto:paul.deno...@viasystems.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 1:01 PM To: 'si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com' Cc: 'EMC Group' Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)` In regards to comment 1. In a high frequency signalling environment, The return current will flow on the nearest plane whether it is power or ground. If you have two planes coupled closely togther you create a capacitor which the high frequency return current uses to traverse the planes and takes the path of least impedance. If there were not two planes coupled together, it would be an EMI catastrophe and you would not know where the return current is flowing. Regarding comment 2, he was stating that grounding in multiple locations is a bad idea. This can create some ground loops within the chassis. There will be some type of potential difference from one chassis connection point to another and this will create some current in the chassis. This is very bad from an EMI perspective. He believes one Solid connection to the ground plane is sufficient. I would like to hear a take from an EMI person. Regards, Paul S. Denomme Viasystems Inc. Richmond, VA paul.deno...@viasystems.com -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:26 PM To: 'leeritc...@earthlink.net' Cc: 'EMC Group'; 'Signal Integrity' Subject: [SI-LIST] : Comments from your SI seminar (SendII)` Sir, A collegue of mine has recently taken your SI seminar. In discussing the class with him I came across two statements from the semiar that I would like to discuss with you and others in the EMC profession. Comment 1. On page 109 there is a slide that states: Traces crossing cuts in planes can function properly. Please explain your rationale. Comment 2: On page 110 there is a slide title: A bad grounding idea. The picture is of a board with multiple ground connections and distances maked off as lambda/20 Clearly this is a shot at the multiple stitching concept that is prevalent in the EMC world. One of the problems in the EMC/SI world is that there is contradictory information provided to the poor consumer. I look forward to a lively debate on these issues. To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list To unsubscribe from si-list: send e-mail to majord...@silab.eng.sun.com. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE si-list, for more help, put HELP. si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu/si-list - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Presentation Availability for Embedded Capacitance
To all interested parties: For all those seeking a copy of the presentation - Good News!! There will be a presentation available in pdf format about 1 week after the meeting. I will send the link out when the download is available. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Embedded Capacitance - The Nest Step in PWB Design
To all interested parties: The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the EMC Society is proud to announce its next meeting: Embedded Capacitance - The Next Step in PWB Design. When: October 14th For more information please go to our website at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek One StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80028 303-673-2908 (P) - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
80/80 rule explanation offerred
Group, Here is a reply from Monrad Monsen For those that went to the 98 Denver EMC Conference Monrad presented a Measurement Uncertainty Workshop. He is also a Certified Quality Engineer and teaches a stats course. Please direct any furthur questions directly to him. Posted for Monrad Monsen Mr. Selva, You have asked an interesting question. I am not aware of too many companies that have time (and money) to perform testing required for the 80/80 calculations. Therefore, I can only answer your question from an academic perspective as opposed to industry trends. How do you perform this calculation ? Assuming you are measuring the same worst-case maximized frequency, you may do the 80/80 calculations based on the margin from the limit with the same statistical accuracy as if you had used the measured emission levels. The arithmetic mean (average) of the margin is calculated with the normal method giving a passing negative average margin from the limit, and the standard deviation is also calculated using the same formula as listed in the standard. Then the compliance is judged from the following relationship gained from the standard: (x-bar) + (k)(s) = 0 (x-bar) + ks * 0 Where x-bar is the arithmetic mean (average) which should be negative, s is the standard deviation, k is from the table in CISPR 22, and L is 0 since you are calculating the statistics for margins where negative margin meets the standard. Of course, if the arithmetic mean (average) is actually over the limit (i.e. positive margin), then there is no need for any further calculation since it fails. In fact, I would contend that performing this 80/80 calculation using the margins actually makes the calculation more meaningful to the customer since he really wants to know by how much does his product pass or how much comfort should he have regarding emissions for his product. On which value do you perform it (margin, level, azimuth, height of antenna, ...) ? The 80/80 calculation can only be calculated on the measured result (either a measured level or a margin) as compared to a standard. If you calculate the 80/80 using margins, then the standard is L=0 (i.e. the standard is the same as a zero margin). To take a measurement, you must maximize the emission using the same procedure for each sample including maximizing azimuth, the height of the antenna, and the cable layout. It is meaningless to do statistics on the azimuth or height of antenna since these are merely a part of the measurement process, and there is no agency standard regarding these values. I hope this helps. Monrad L. Monsen Senior EMC Engineer Product Compliance 303.673.2438 phone 303.673.2431 fax StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 6:23 PM To: SAFETY-EMC (Adresse de messagerie); 'Pierre Selva' Cc: Monsen, Monrad L Subject: RE: 80/80 calculation rules for CISPR22/EN55022 Hello, I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to Mr Monsen of StorageTek. He presented a Measurement Uncertainty course at the Denver 1998 EMC Symposium is a stats instructor. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Pierre Selva[SMTP:actionsmesu...@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 8:12 AM To: SAFETY-EMC (Adresse de messagerie) Subject:80/80 calculation rules for CISPR22/EN55022 Dear colleagues, My subject of interest is the statistical rule explain in chapter 9.2 of EN55022 (also called the 80/80). Reading the standard, I don't know on which value I have to apply the rule. In fact, I usually apply the rule on each suspect frequency (about 5 by product) and I compare the calculated LEVEL to the Limit, in dBµV. One of my customer is asking me to make this calculation on the MARGIN. For each product, I have to take the worst margin, and I make the calculation for the x products I have. The calcul gives a result which has to be compare to 0 (zero). The resulting margin has to be less than 0. How do you perform this calculation ? On which value do you perform it (margin, level, azimuth, height of antenna, ...) ? What are your own experience with your products or your customer ? In advance, I thank you a lot for your answer, which, I'm sure, will be of great value (80/80 calculation, of course !!) Best regards, Pierre Selva Laboratory responsible EMC and Safety laboratory SMEE Actions MesuresPh : 33 4 76 65 76 50 ZI des Blanchisseries Fx : 33 4 76 66 18 30 38500 VOIRON - France e-mail : actionsmesu
Tran Tasman Agreement
Hello.. Does anyone know if the Tran Tasman agreement was actually signed and went into effect on Jan 1 1999? Information on the web indicates otherwise.. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: CE Marking requirements
As far as I know, the EU has not adopted the insane FCC Class B compliance process. So there is NO procedure for marking a motherboard as a compliant unit. What you can do is test it in a system (just like the old days) and mark the motherboard based on that test ALONE. If I understand your requirement, you are looking to adopt the infamous CE+CE=CE approach. Again, this has proven NOT to work especially for emissions. Comments: (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing. RESPONSE: There is no requirement NOR is there a process for open chassis testing. The EMC Directive (nor the guidelines) can help you here. (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. RESPONSE: Nonsense. There is NO open chassis test. WARNING: Be careful. The next thing the testhouse will try is the TCF route. Ugh. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 1 StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com RMCEMC Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: michael.garret...@radisys.com [mailto:michael.garret...@radisys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:44 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: CE Marking requirements Well group, if you care to help out another American confused by the specific requirements for Europe, I would appreciate it. I seem to be getting varying stories from different test houses as to what is required for one of our products. These are big enough players that pitting one against another is not something I want to undertake at this point. We currently manufacture a motherboard which is sold both by itself and with a chassis which includes power supply, hard drive and floppy. We are currently going through our internal EMC validation to ensure that we meet both FCC Class B and EN 55022 Class B levels. Our experience on previous products has been if we clear emissions, we haven't had problems in other areas, but we'll be testing to EN 55024 of immunity, as well. The issue arises when we discuss testing of the system versus testing of the motherboard alone. Within the US, the FCC regulations permit an additional 6dB margin for open chassis measurement, so long as those frequencies fall back within the class B levels with the cover on. This does not appear to be a problem for our product. We have been told by different parties that for Europe, (a) there is no requirement to test open chassis and that we can CE mark the board as compliant as long as we have shown that it can meet the class B levels within a chassis of our choosing and (b) we are still required to perform open chassis tests, however, there is no 6dB margin and the board will have to meet the EN 50022 class B levels with the cover off. We're having a little more difficulty making things work using the (b) approach. I am specifically concerned about staying far enough below the levels that we're not going to potentially pass today and fail 6 months from now due to a slight drift in tolerances of components, test equipment or test engineers' dispositions. I have the texts of the EMC directive, as well as the test requirements specified in the above documents and I'm happy to wade through them if you can point me in the right direction. I will be heading that direction in the next day or two if I don't receive a response. I'm hoping, however, that someone in the group can shave a few hours of exceptionally captivating reading from my life by pointing me in the right direction. Regards, Michael Garretson Compliance Engineer RadiSys Corporation - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Question on top 6 frequencies
Hello... I need a rumor confirmed or quashed. I have heard that at a recent USCEL meeting in Seattle, the existing procedure of reporting only the top 6 freqs is no longer considered acceptable. Can any one confirm this? Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Internal ESD testing EN55024
First I would like to thank the group.As usual the open sharing of ideas provides a lot of insight to me. I have one question though - I am particularly interested in the requirements for EN55024. Has anyone changes their ESD procedures as a result of the internal ESD requirement of the spec? Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 1 StorageTek Drive Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com RMCEMC Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Question on internal ESD testing
Hello, Does anyone in this august group apply ESD discharges INTERNAL to a product as required by EN55024. I consider this just a tad egregious - don't you? Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022?
IMHO, As I understand it the latest Amendments of CISPR22 are not necessarily in EN55022. Indeed they may be modified or rejected by the EU and so they may NOT be the same. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@irisinc.scitex.com] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 1:59 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022? Surprisingly, I never got an answer on this. Perhaps many of thought that it was so simple that someone was bound to answer. For the exorbitant cost of this service you would think that I would get better service than this. ;-) Rich C. -Original Message- From: Richard Cass [mailto:richard_c...@irisinc.scitex.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:55 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: CISPR 22 equal to EN55022? Neophyte question of the week. If a supplier of a product claims compliance to CISPR 22, is this exactly equivalent to EN55022 (assuming you have met all the latest amendments) for the purposes of CE marking? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Re:EMC Experiments
You might contact the Education Committee at the IEEE. They are committed to the Education on EMC and have put on may successful experiment demos at EMC Conferences. (As the Workshop/Tutorial Experiments Chair for Denver 1998 I can personally attest to thet quality of the expeiments and demo). The IEEE Website has all the info you need. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: jim_bac...@monarch.com [mailto:jim_bac...@monarch.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 8:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Fwd:Re:EMC Experiments posting for a non list member. Please inculde him on your replies.. Jim Reply Separator Subject:EMC Experiments Author: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@grucad.ufsc.br List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 7/5/99 10:39 AM Dear Listmembers, I'm beggining to develop/create some experiments of Electromagnetic Compatibility for electrical engineering graduation students. Anyone has any information to share with me? Any experiment that can be done in a relatively well-equiped lab will be welcome... Thanks in advance for your help Muriel -- == Muriel Bittencourt de Liz GRUCAD - Grupo de Conceptao e Anßlise de Dispositivos EletromagnTticos Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Caixa Postal - 476 88040-900 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL Fone: +55.48.331.9649 - Fax: +55.48.234.3790 e-mail: mur...@grucad.ufsc.br Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by mail.monarch.com with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 0003BB94; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 16:13:50 -0400 Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA26135 Received: from gemini.ieee.org by ruebert.ieee.org (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26117; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.monarch.com (mail.monarch.com [208.159.116.20]) by gemini.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28433 for emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:14:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ccMail by mail.monarch.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.11) id 0003B95B; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:12:03 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:49:16 -0400 Message-ID: 0003b95b.c22...@mail.monarch.com From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher) Subject: Re:EMC Experiments To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@grucad.ufsc.br, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Description: cc:Mail note part X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ruebert.ieee.org id PAA26119 X-Resent-To: emc-pstc-ad...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ruebert.ieee.org id PAA26135 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES
Ken, Schedule is ALWAYS an issue for any testing be it EMC or temperature. I have found that when companies work the issue into their schedules EMC is of minimal impact. If we allow volume to dictate practices that are patently wrong, then I belive we make the EMC testing pointless. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Javor, Ken[SMTP:ken.ja...@hsv.sverdrup.com] Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 8:55 AM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES I think the issue is schedule impact, not direct cost of the test. -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:42 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES Ed, please send this out only if you think it's appropriate. Hi folks, I don't want to run the risk of offending list members, but what's the problem over test costs? I charge little more than the chap that repairs my car, or the guy that fixes my A/C. EMC is a part of life, live with it. I speculate that most folks will get help early, and life will be OK. Some folks may not pay up front and suffer later: this is not a new lesson. Rather than try to change test methods that work fine, even if they could be a little better, take a close look at where your facility money goes. then charge what should be charged, not what you can get away with! If anyone wants to criticize me, e-mail direct. Or call, 815 637 3729. My humble opinion, Derek Walton - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES
Actually Earl - I am in complete agreement with you. I think you may have misunderstood my comments. Let me explain: 1. On the CE+CE maybe = CE comment. No question here. I agree. Many systems fail emissions (maybe immunity) testing due to incompatible combinations. BUT... As I am sure you know, the FCC has a Class B compliance system that allows for exactly that. PCs can be assembled from sutiably marked components (such as video cards) and marketed WITHOUT furthur testing. This results in non-compliant units (admitted by the FCC) released on the market place with NO intent by the FCC to enforce the rules. (BTW - The Australians have released an equivalent scheme with the proviso that a metal enclosure be used) 2. Here is the crux of my issue with the FCC. The logic and the physics don't match. To illustrate: A recent thread has described the origin of the emissions standards and generally everyone agrees what a jolly good thing it is too. That being the case, how could the the FCC put into law a process that allows for systems to be released on the market place WITHOUT testing. To me the existing FCC Class B procedures render the emissions standard irrelevant. After all why should any manufacturer concern themselves with the standard when the FCC blatenly ignore it themselves? 3. If you have monitored this list recently, you should have seen my comments regarding the emissions limits. To reiterate: Raise the limits 20db but make EVERYONE test. Although this may seem ridiculous - compared to the FCC Class B process it makes a lot of sense. This process maintains the INTENT of the emissions spec in the first place - that is to maintain a KNOWN level of interference. OK -OK so folks will bleat about cycle time etc... So an alternate solution is to truely engineer the EMC at the component level. Design tests/procedures to adequately test at the componet level AND (this is key) have the regulatory agencies redesign the emissions limits to meet the 21st Century. Call me if you want to chat furthur. -Original Message- From: Morse, Earl [mailto:earl.mo...@compaq.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:36 PM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES I beg to differ. It is ludicrous to believe that components or for that matter subassemblies can be certified and then combined to make a compliant system. CE + CE doesn't always equal CE The reduction of emissions is highly reliant on component placement. The same parts can be arranged on circuit boards in compliant and non-compliant patterns. Same with subassemblies. While the current measurement techniques are difficult they are about as close to the truth as we can get. Even if that means an 8 dB swing from site to site. The reason that we see PCs consistently fail by as much as 20 dB is because of a lack of enforcement. Many computer manufacturers sneak through the requirements with their one of a kind golden units never to worry about compliance again. Very few get caught and it is worth the bucks to keep the production lines going rather than shutdown the lines. Who was the last computer manufacturer you heard of that was forced to shutdown until an EMC problem was fixed? I have a book of test reports on competitor's products. They fall into the categories of compliant, near compliant (looks like they tried), and fails miserably (didn't try, didn't care, and outright lied on any self declarations). The failing companies seem to be doing just as brisk a business as the passing companies without having to worry about the cost of EMC. Earl Morse Portable Division EMC Design Compaq Computer Corporation Phone: 281.927.3607 Pager: 713.717.0824 Fax: 281.927.3654 Email: earl.mo...@compaq.com mailto:earl.mo...@compaq.com -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 10:33 AM To: 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: NEAR/ FAR FIELD CORRELATION ISSUES I cannot agree more!! We, not the government, need to drive the technology for EMC. I have followed this thread with interest. I have long believed that if EMC was to maintain credibility we (EMC ) would have to come up with a method of demonstrating compliance in spite of the many and varied combinations. One way is to test at the component level - like our Safety brethren - and call the assembly of tested components good!! This is methodology can be made consistent with good engineering design practice unlike the existing FCC rules for Class B equipment. On the surface the FCC Rules appear to be similar to component level
ITE Equipment installed in hospitals
Does anyone know if ITE equipment is required to meet any Medical requirements if installed in a hospital. (No patient connections!!) Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: History Class ...
All, The general consensus is that the emissions specs were derived to protect intentional receivers. ALERT: Be aware that a giant ITE company that has a vested interest in PCs has managed to render the emissions spec. useless. Somehow the FCC allowed FCCB + FCCB = FCCB in CFR47 for component combinations!! For example: If Company A mixes a certified motherboard from company B with a certified video card from company C then Company A can affix the FCC logo WITHOUT testing. The FCC and others freely admit that the resultant mix can fail - I have private emails that such mixtures have FAILED by as much as 20db over Class B!! The FCC have managed to render the emissions test irrelevant and causes the electronics industry to add cost. So much for protection. Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: Dave Clark [mailto:david.cl...@spke.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 7:31 AM To: 'Lou Gnecco'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: History Class ... Doug, I don't know the exact history behind the limits. However, one thing you may want to keep in mind is that emissions limits are based on protecting intentional receivers which have relatively sensitive front ends. Thus driving tight emissions limits from unintentional radiators. Do they need to be as tight as they are? We could discuss for a while. David Clark Spike Technologies, Inc. -Original Message- From: Lou Gnecco [mailto:l...@tempest-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 9:31 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: History Class ... Doug, Some of these limits were based on the field strength that you typically encounter in an urban area. Lou At 01:45 PM 5/27/99 -0700, you wrote: Anyone have a clue where the limits (frequency and amplitude) for CISPR-22 came from? For instance ... Radiated Limits for Class A at 10 meters FrequencyQuasi-Peak limits MHz dBuV 30 - 230 40 230 - 100047 Why the 40 dBuV/m limit from 30 - 230 MHz? Or any other similar standard limits for that matter? Regards, Doug McKean - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Thank you all.
I am always astonished at the depth of knowledge and willingness to share. Thank you all for your help Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Immunity requirements for equiment sold to research labs.
Can anyone tell me what the Immunity requirements for equiment sold to research labs might be. Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Reminder - Register before May 12 for RMCEMC Symposium
Hello, For all you folks interested in attending the RMCEMC EMC Symposium on May 18 - a reminder.!! Register (using our easy online form) before May 12 and get FREE breakfast AND lunch. Our website address is http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Anyone interested in PCB Design Techniques for SI EMC?
The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the EMC Society will be hosting a Mr. Mark Montrose who will present a 3.5 hr training class on PCB Design Techniques for SI EMC. He will also present research data (unpublished and undiscovered) on the performance of decoupling capacitors at this meeting. For more information please access our website at: Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ Thank you Charles Grasso ViceChairman Rocky Mountain Chapter EMC Society. Tel: (303)673-2908 Fax: (303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.
I would recommend that Doug Smith of Auspex Systems answer this one as he has presented this at an ANSI C63 ESD meeting and to the FAA.(He managed to crash their computers)!! Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: Hans Mellberg [mailto:emcconsult...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie. There is an expanation for this seemingly unlikely event. Having coins in a baggie and jingeling them causes the following events to occur: The rubbing of a coin against the polymer causes triboelectric charging of both the coin and localized areas of the bag. Since there are multiple coins, each coin will charge at some voltage level but not necessarily the same as another coin. When two coins of different charged voltages come within dielectric breakdown distances, a discharge will occur from one coin to the other in order to equalize the charge distribution (q1=C1V1 and q2=C2V2. When they touch, the new q1 will be C1V3 and q2= C2V3 where V3=(q1+q2)/(C1+C2)). Since coins are electrically small with very small capacitances, the expected discharge waveform has a very fast risetime hence the radiation at the GHz region. There will also be discharges from the localized charged areas of the polymer to coins of different voltages. While separating two charged surfaces from each other, the voltage rises significantly since the capacitance is being reduced and the conservation of charge must be preserved which is the basis for tribolectric voltage generation. Hope that helps Hans Mellberg ---b...@namg.us.anritsu.com wrote: Hi Douglas, What you described is very interesting! But I cannot understand Jingling change in a ziplock bag produces very high levels of super fast transients up into the GHz range. It seems to me that jingling coins, jangling keys, and slamming metal door would certainly produce acoustic waves. How come they also produced electromagnetic waves? If do, under what conditions? What is the mechanism to produce very high level of transient EM waves? Did that company incorporate those kinds of Jingling change in a ziplock bag tests into regular ESD tests for their thereafter products? What is the lessen we all should learn from this particular example? Hopefully you don't think it's offensive to ask above questions. I am just very curious. Thank you. Best Regards, Barry Ma (408)778-2000 x 4465 - Original Text From: Douglas McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com, on 3/10/99 2:55 PM: At 08:03 AM 3/8/99 PST, Bailin Ma wrote: Hi Group, We have already seen awards for the most misleading ads, worst attire, worst films, . Why not awards for worst EMC and PS qualities? Barry Ma Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Long ago in another company, I was completing the testing for a large rack mounted device, i.e. emissions, immunity, safety, some parts of Bellcore. We got a call from one of our customers complaining about how sensitive our equipment was and how susceptible it was to ESD events during their own testing of our equipment. This was deemed unacceptable by them. This decision of theirs jeopardized a sale of several million dollars. The finger was duly pointed by everyone right to yours truly. My head was literally in no uncertain terms put on the block. I contested producing repeatable and acceptable ESD test results that were BELOW the BER levels specified by Bellcore with ESD test levels ABOVE that specified by the test standard. I wanted as much margin as possible for our product. Well, it ended up that if you stood three to four feet in front of the rack and jingled change in your pocket or jangled a set of keys in front of it, the product would RESET. Jingling change in a ziplock bag produces very high levels of super fast transients up into the GHz range. Worse, slamming the metal door to the lab in which the equipment was setup would also reset the product. The lab door was say 20 or so feet from our equipment under test. It took six months of a redesign cycle to straighten out that one, but it was finally done. I always wanted to find out who in God's name could have come up with such an insidious ESD test by simply putting some change in a zip lock bag and jingling it in front of equipment. But, I figured he, whoever he was, was lost in time. And wouldn't you know it? ... I now work for that man. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
RE: Current Probes
Hi Jim, Kicking back ready for the week end eh? Thank you for your comments. I think however that the original thread was for immunity testing. My limited experience has been that delivering 10VRMS above about 200MHz is a problem with most probes. Are you referring to emissions? Thank you Charles Grasso Advisory Engineer StorageTek 2270Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 M/S 4247. Tel:303-673-2908 Fax:303-661-7115 email:gra...@louisville.stortek.com Web Site: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r5/denver/rockymountainemc/ -Original Message- From: Knighten, Jim [mailto:knigh...@trans.sandiegoca.ncr.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 4:47 PM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Current Probes Chaz, I was scrolling through old messages and came across this one. Always ready to provide a counter example, I routinely use a current probe at 500 MHz on our high speed digital data switching equipment. It was better than anything else early in the design phase. Jim Knighten Dr. Jim Knightene-mail: jlknigh...@ieee.org Senior Consulting Engineer NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 http://www.ncr.com Tel: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 4:38 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Donald McElhearn' Subject:RE: Current Probes There is no doubt that the use of a current probe can effectively illuminate problems with an EUT. But the method can really only be used effectively up to about 200MHz or so and (heres the kicker) is about 6db harsher on the EUT than the Radiated Immunity test. In other words, you may cause a failure with the probe that the cannot be repested in the RI test. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: Donald McElhearn[SMTP:don...@hq.rossvideo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Current Probes Could some of the more experienced member of this forum share there views and or experiences on the usefulness of current probes in carry out pre-compliance RF immunity testing. I am aware that there are limitation to this method of current injection to simulate true RF field immunity conditions. Short of a screened anechoic chamber can this method allow a manufactuer some means of evaluating what he/she may experience under real test conditions? Do the costs justify the benefits? Donald Mcelheran Product Development Co-ordinator - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR
Unfortunately - its now the law (of this land) anyway!! -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 10:17 AM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); nbels...@nortelnetworks.com; eric.lif...@natinst.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Seeking PCs that Pass CISPR In a message dated 3/5/99 11:01:58 AM Central Standard Time, gra...@louisville.stortek.com writes: I am confused. What's the problem? If we (the EMC Community) have faith in Plug Play (as the new FCC process is dubbed) then you should be able to buy ANY FCC logoed PC and pass. I can't imagine ANY EMC engineer having faith in a plug and play approach! Derek. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Signal Line Output Surge Protection
I would suggest a spark gap designed into the artwork. These work very effectively. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON[SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 11:26 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Subject: Signal Line Output Surge Protection One of our products required surge protection on a transmit output line to comply with a UL requirement. The designer chose an MOV across the differential output. When we performed a radiated emissions measurement, we found the previously compliant design to be screaming (~ 15 dB over the limit). Removing the MOV resolved the EMC problem, but then we have the UL problem. The protection we were looking for was 120 V clamp, capable of handling a 3 joule test with a peak voltage of 2400 V applied. Just curious, has anyone had a similar situation? A particular supplier indicated that others had reported MOVs to be disastrous from an EMC perspective. MOVs appear to be a device with a general rule of thumb don't use on 'signal' lines. Any experiences you would like to share? What was your solution? Regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Compliance Issue on (Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks)
Well I trust you have found the strip. I would like to take this opportunity to ask a complinace question. If you are supplying rack equipment, how do you intend to verify the EMC performance of the final configuration? Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: rkes...@monitoringtech.com[SMTP:rkes...@monitoringtech.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 4:53 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Need 220VAC Power Strips for Racks Hello to all, I am in need of finding an EMI, surge protected, etc., etc. power strip for 220VAC. We are assembling rack mounted equipment that will be sold in the EU. It may be me, but I am finding it very difficult to locate (domestic/USA) manufacturers like Tripplite for CE approved plug strips. Ideally, these would be IEC320 type plug/sockets that can be mounted in a 19 rack. I'm sure they exist! Don't they? If anyone, especially the other side of the river, can point me to a url/phone number it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. Ray Kester MTC - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: ESD Test Plane Material Type
Hello.. I have performed ESD tests in many different labs and have come across all the typical variations one would expect. I could not discern any performance difference between a copper or aluminium or even a galvanized steel ground plane. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com] Reply To: Gary McInturff Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 8:14 AM To: chris_dup...@compuserve.com; INTERNET:dlo...@advanced-input.com; emc-pstc Subject: RE: ESD Test Plane Material Type Haven't tried copper but have had no problem - that I could detect - from using the aluminum. Its also a little easier to get single large sheets of aluminum. Use fasteners that have some sort of surface penetrating contact. All aluminum oxides starting right after production. (So does copper). Gary -Original Message- From: chris_dup...@compuserve.com [SMTP:chris_dup...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 11:27 PM To: INTERNET:dlo...@advanced-input.com; emc-pstc Subject:ESD Test Plane Material Type Hi Darrell. You wrote: We are building an ESD Test Station for table-top equipment. IEC 1000-4-2 indicates that either copper or aluminum may be used for the Horizontal Coupling Plane and Ground Reference Plane. I do not see whether it matters much and would prefer aluminum. Has anyone found or heard of any differences between aluminum and copper for the ESD test set-up? The material used for your ESD coupling plane and ground reference is effectively irrelevant. Alumimium is fine. Regards, Chris Dupres Surrey, UK. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Doubt on LISN utilization
CISPR does NOT require the Ground choke.. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz[SMTP:mur...@inep.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 3:46 AM To: Helge Knudsen Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - IEEE' Subject: Re: Doubt on LISN utilization File: fig1.gifFile: fig2.gif Hello Group, Thanks for all that answered my question. This question was due to some measurements of conducted emissions that i've made. First, i've done measurements with the Ground Choke in position OUT. Then, the ambient interference diminished a lot, as shows Fig. 1. Then i've switched the ground choke to IN position, as shows Fig. 2. The standards i'm using are based on European Standards ( CISPR 22, CISPR 15). Figs. 1 and 2 are attached. So, when i try to do measurements, the spectra of conducted emissions change according to switch position (ground choke on or off). My questions are: = Which emission measurement should i trust: the one with switch IN or the one in OUT position (ground choke in or out) = Could somebody make clear to me if CISPR requires this ground choke? = the ground choke is a must only in VDE measurements? I Think that's all... Thanks in advance! Muriel Helge Knudsen wrote: Dear group, The use of ground choke in conducted measurements was specified in Verfügerung 1046/1982 when testing to comply with VDE 0871 if the measured noise was closer to the limit than 5 dB. This second measurement must then also comply with the limit. The value of this ground conductor choke was specified to 1.6 mH. I believe the reason for this sophisticated measurement were required because the inductance in ground lead in really live may increase the noise level with several dB's. I hope this clarified the matter. Best regards Helge Knudsen Jyske EMC Denmark hknud...@jyske-emc.com -Original Message- From: Cortland Richmond [SMTP:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: lørdag, december 05, 1998 05:43 To: Gary McInturff; ieee pstc list Subject:RE: Doubt on LISN utilization As I recall, when testing conducted emissions to VDE 0871, it was required to observe noise in the two powered lines with the switch both open and closed, and use the higher result. Some power supplies would in fact give different results if the ground was opened. An aside: I used to work at Tandy Computer's RD. When Tandy quit making computers (and I was laid off), I was able to buy a Rhode and Schwarz LISN they scrapped -- for $25. It has the ground switch Muriel describes. When I bought it for Tandy, it cost much, much more! Cortland - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). -- == Muriel Bittencourt de Liz INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Caixa Postal - 5119 88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422 e-mail: mur...@inep.ufsc.br Homepage: http://www.inep.ufsc.br == - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Doubt on LISN utilization
Gary (and others): I have the same recollection vis-a-vis the VDE COnducted emisions requirements. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 2:12 PM To: rehel...@mmm.com; Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Doubt on LISN utilization I have a recollection that at one point VDE required the choke in the ground line of the LISN. Vaguely remembered it had to do with extremely long build grounds as in high rise buildings etc, or the possibility of no ground wire. I seem to remember some connection with shielded power cables as well. Anyone else have any recollection of this? Gary McInturff -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:26 AM To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Doubt on LISN utilization It is possible to get noise induced on all cabling at the same time. In this case it will be also be present on the ground lead. To reduce this noise ground chokes are used. It is also extra attenuation for common mode currents. Bob Heller Senior EMC Engineer 3M Company = (Embedded image moved Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@inep.ufsc.br to file: 12/03/98 10:59 AM pic11332.pcx) Please respond to Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@inep.ufsc.br To: Lista de EMC da IEEE emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Robert E. Heller/US-Corporate/3M/US) Subject: Doubt on LISN utilization Hello All, I have a LISN from EMCO and it has a Ground Choke. What's the goal of this Ground Choke? Is it really needed in the conducted measurements? Could somebody make this clear to me? Thanks in advance Muriel -- == Muriel Bittencourt de Liz INEP - Instituto de Eletronica de Potencia Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Caixa Postal - 5119 88.040-970 - Florianopolis - SC - BRASIL Phone: +55.48.331.9204 - Fax: +55.48.234.5422 e-mail: mur...@inep.ufsc.br Homepage: http://www.inep.ufsc.br == - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). File: pic11332.pcx - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Coatings that affect EMC performance
Try Chromate... Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON[SMTP:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 1:21 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Subject: Coatings that affect EMC performance Hello Group, I remember recently (within the last quarter?) reading a thread about different coatings, one of which everyone said don't use. I have searched through the RCIC Recent Threads and could not find a related subject. Can anyone steer me to that thread? (something about yellow ?) Regards, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Current Probes
There is no doubt that the use of a current probe can effectively illuminate problems with an EUT. But the method can really only be used effectively up to about 200MHz or so and (heres the kicker) is about 6db harsher on the EUT than the Radiated Immunity test. In other words, you may cause a failure with the probe that the cannot be repested in the RI test. Thank you Charles Grasso (Capn Hook) -- From: Donald McElhearn[SMTP:don...@hq.rossvideo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:25 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Current Probes Could some of the more experienced member of this forum share there views and or experiences on the usefulness of current probes in carry out pre-compliance RF immunity testing. I am aware that there are limitation to this method of current injection to simulate true RF field immunity conditions. Short of a screened anechoic chamber can this method allow a manufactuer some means of evaluating what he/she may experience under real test conditions? Do the costs justify the benefits? Donald Mcelheran Product Development Co-ordinator - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: ENEC Mark for ITE Other Equipment
I believe that it is the ENEC Mark of the VDE (ENEC-Zeichen des VDE) for products conforming to harmonized certification procedures; VDE mark is optional. Thank you Charles Grasso StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: pe...@itl.co.il[SMTP:pe...@itl.co.il] Reply To: pe...@itl.co.il Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 2:00 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ENEC Mark for ITE Other Equipment Dear All, 1. Can someone explain the European ENEC Mark? Is it for safety, EMC or both? 2. Which test organizations can issue this Mark? 3. Why is it needed? 4. What is required to maintain the Mark (follow-up inspections, etc.)? 5. Can anyone see a trend in the use of this new pan-European Mark? 6. Is there anything on the web regarding ENEC? Best Regards, PETER S. MERGUERIAN MANAGING DIRECTOR PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD. HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211 OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL TEL: 972-3-5339022 FAX: 972-3-5339019 E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
SCSI on internal unshielded cables
Hello! Has anyone successfully run SCSI internally using unshielded flat cables? There is some controversy as to cross-talk and Signal Integrity and I would really like other folks responses. Thank you Charles Grasso (Captain Hook) EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)? Thank you Charles Grasso (Captain Hook) EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Reply To: Peter E. Perkins Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM To: Dan Mitchell Cc: PSNetwork Subject: Are all these agencies really necessary? PSNet Dan, The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to be promoted by industry, especially multinational businesses. Oh that they had control to proscribe it... Remember that the underlying basis for all of this is a political issue in that nations want to control commerce in some manner - and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by treaty (the GATT Treaty). We work in an arena where the high level politicians tug and pull to get their way. We see it in the expansion of the need to have a certification or mark on the products. Developing nations have figured out that they can easily play this game - just adapt the international standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of approval. The country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic personel thru the tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker. Americans, especially, like free enterprise = no restraints. Big business promoted the use of a manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but were not too happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to signing the MDoC and applying the mark.Much of the rest of the world isn't ready for the whole potato all at once either. Note the problems that the Japanese and the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks to open their markets and offer opportunity for growth there... I predict that it will get worse before it gets better... So, look at it as job security, at least you're working (which is better than the alternative)... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
Yes - One mark, one process would be nice. Thank you Charles Grasso (Captain Hook) EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com] Reply To: dmitch...@eoscorp.com Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:52 AM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); 'emc-pstc' Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? The OM was just an example for purposes of illustration. A better name for such a hypothetical beast would be World Mark (WM). If you read the earlier thread, you would have read that all the agencies are getting out of hand and that it would be nice to do testing once, then apply for a OM? or WM? and be allowed to sell your product any place in the world Daniel W. Mitchell Product Safety EOS Corp. -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)[SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:25 AM To: Dan Mitchell; 'Peter E. Perkins' Cc: PSNetwork Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)? Thank you Charles Grasso (Captain Hook) EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Reply To: Peter E. Perkins Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM To: Dan Mitchell Cc: PSNetwork Subject:Are all these agencies really necessary? PSNet Dan, The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to be promoted by industry, especially multinational businesses. Oh that they had control to proscribe it... Remember that the underlying basis for all of this is a political issue in that nations want to control commerce in some manner - and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by treaty (the GATT Treaty). We work in an arena where the high level politicians tug and pull to get their way. We see it in the expansion of the need to have a certification or mark on the products. Developing nations have figured out that they can easily play this game - just adapt the international standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of approval. The country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic personel thru the tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker. Americans, especially, like free enterprise = no restraints. Big business promoted the use of a manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but were not too happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to signing the MDoC and applying the mark.Much of the rest of the world isn't ready for the whole potato all at once either. Note the problems that the Japanese and the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks to open their markets and offer opportunity for growth there... I predict that it will get worse before it gets better... So, look at it as job security, at least you're working (which is better than the alternative)... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Looking for Horror Stories
Jim, I sense you may be in justification mode or worse the phrase value add has reared up. Well, IMHO we have become victims of our own success. Due to the diligence of many EMC Engineers and the increase in digital transmissions, cable TV etc, high visibility interference (nuisence) related problems have all but disappeared. Indeed, the FCC has issued a NOI that buried in the text says: We seek to examine whether these regulations continue to be necessary, and if so, whether any changes to the limits may be appropriate. Let me clarify my position. The very fact that problems do NOT occur is an excellent reason to maintain EMC standards. So the main justification becomes a legal one. You will have to go back a number of years to find the first non-EMEmissions standard. As I recall, the first EME standard was actually VDE 0871 and the German government was concerned primarily with emissions interfering with legitimate communication. Largely as a result of that CBEMA released a document that finally became FCC CFR47 Part 15. And so an industry was born. Apart from the jail terms, the main risk is marketability. Without the BCIQ mark, your products sit on the dock. Period. So EMC is part of the cost of doing buisness and its our job (as EMC folks) to keep that cost as low as possible. Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html -- From: WOODS, RICHARD[SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: WOODS, RICHARD Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 8:38 AM To: 'emc-pstc list server'; 'Knighten, Jim' Subject: RE: Looking for Horror Stories In its fomative years, a major US PC manufacturer felt that FCC certification was not a barrier to marketing. Standard operating procedure was to sell while the authorization was in process. Then the FCC arrived to shut down their factory. The VP of Engineering met with the FCC in Washington at the last minute and worked out an agreement that kept the factory running. After that point, FCC certification and other agency approvals became a requirement before shipment was authorized. Today, that company has a world class compliance operation, and I am proud to have taken part in that process. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. -- From: Knighten, Jim[SMTP:knigh...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com] Reply To: Knighten, Jim Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:24 PM To: 'emc-pstc list server' Subject:Looking for Horror Stories To All: My management is drafting an educational briefing for higher management on the degree of seriousness of regulatory compliance (primarily aimed at EMC). I would appreciate your sharing with me any tales of woe, penalties, incarceration, or any other horror stories related to companies who have either inadvertently not complied with the regulations, or who have been deliberately lax in doing so. Again, EMC is more my interest. Thank you, Jim -- -- --- Dr. Jim Knighten NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 e-mail: jim.knigh...@sandiegoca.ncr.com
RE: CB scheme
I have been told that the Russian Authorities will only accept a CB report from Nemko. Is this true? Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html -- From: Peter Tarver[SMTP:peter.tarver.ptar...@nt.com] Reply To: Peter Tarver Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:28 PM To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: CB scheme Gary - You seem to be doing just fine for your current market. As you market expands (you mentioned GOST), however, the CB Scheme Test Report does offer portability to a greater degree than a lesser. Many of the agencies will want a sample for a looksee, a few may want to perform minor verification tests or testing to accommodate applicable national deviations from the base standard. Overall, you will save time and inventory, but not necessarily money, by using the CB Scheme. Without it, you might wind up having to provide one or more samples to any of several test houses. Alternatively, you could also look into what Mutual Recognition Agreements your domestic test house has with foreign test houses to see if they meet your needs. Regards, Peter L. Tarver Nortel ptar...@nt.com -- From:Gary McInturff[SMTP:gmcintu...@packetengines.com] Sent:Monday, June 22, 1998 9:09 AM If ignorance is bliss I must be a pretty happy guy. I have sort of avoided asking this question because I seem to be the only guy that doesn't fully understand the answer to this question. Currently I use the standard US/Canadian private label mark and one from Germany to meet the appropriate safety requirements. Our principle market are US, Europe, and Japan. I can get both the US and European investigations done concurrently with the same product samples, and I have yet to have a problem getting the equipment accepted by either the clients or the countries in which they reside. Given that what are the advantages I am not seeing in a CB scheme report? On the face of it a CB scheme report seems to be the proverbial one-stop-shopping solution we would all like to see. But as I check into it further a CB report doesn't seem to really provide a final answer. Each agency still has the prerogative of requesting samples although they may accept the test data from the CB approved lab. (UL for example indicated they probably would want a sample along with the report). Whether the issue is testing or product evaluation having to have some agency put me in their queue for approval seems to be a big step backwards. Currently, having recognized private label marks for Europe and the US has yet to cause a hitch in the normal customer base shipments. GOST and NOM are on the horizon and I suppose that because I have to send them products anyway because they are not part of the EC and want their own marks it suggests that a CB report might be beneficial in this case in speeding up the approval but overall I don't see a significant benefit to a CB scheme instead of my current approach. Am I missing the obvious? Am I making my life more difficult and expensive than it should be?
RE: EMC/Safety in Poland
I have an ITE question.. Is the Polish B mark required for Class A gear (as defined by CISPR22)? Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html -- From: geor...@lexmark.com[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Reply To: geor...@lexmark.com Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 6:51 AM To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC/Safety in Poland Bogdan, You are probably correct on the wiring issue. The problem is trying to get answers as to why from the PCBC. We use business partners who are residents of Poland in Warsaw to work with the PCBC and still had difficulty understanding the extra requirements. If the problem is the plug, as you say, why would other affected countries not require the same manual statments? For Class II equipment, reversal of phase and neutral will have little effect on the safety of the equipment. I am well aware that either the wall plug or the appliance inlet connector can serve as the official disconnect. Perhaps the PCBC is not equally aware of this. However, in this case, the issue of disconnct has nothing to do with safety, but of economy of electrical power. Some ITE when turned off is designed to go into a sleep or idle mode. If the user is not aware of this, and must achieve zero watts, I suppose only a manual statement can solve this problem. George Please respond to Bogdan Matoga bogdan.matoga%fibre@interlock.lexmark.com To: George Alspaugh@LEXMARK, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc: bcc: Subject: RE: EMC/Safety in Poland George: I am sorry, but your statement that Polish outlets are not always wired correctly is incomplete at best. The problem is the plug, which can be reversed, even when everything is wired correctly. The same problem exists also in Germany. France avoided the possibility of reversal but different configuration of the grounding pin which protrudes from the face of their outlet, the corresponding plug has a female connector for this pin. As far as miswiring of outlets is concerned, you can find that even in the U.S.A., intended to say that even non-reversible plugs are no guarantee that a single pole switch (or fuse) does the job. Furthermore, as far as on/off switches are cincerned, IEC950, Sec. 2.6.2 permits the use of the plug on the power supply cord etc. as a disconnect device. Regards, Bogdan. bogdan.mat...@fibre.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:39 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC/Safety in Poland Susan, You may find one or more of the following requirments as well: Signed and sealed statements pertaining to your ground continuity and hi-pot testing. Manual statement that the product must be unplugged to reduce power (watts) to zero. Polish law requires all unused ITE to be turned off at night. Some low end ITE do not have on/off switches as at rest power is only 3-5W. Manual statement if the on/off switch does not break both sides (phase and neutral) on line. Polish outlets are not always wired as intended. An inspection of your factory by PCBC inspector. Ours took two days, at our expense. etc.. George Alspaugh Please respond to krzysiak%polbox@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc: Susan Beard sbeard%iu@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh) bcc: George Alspaugh Subject: Re: EMC/Safety in Poland Dear Susan, Before obtaining B safety certificate of ITE in Poland you have to deliver: Application form CB Test Certificate CB Test Report Operation manual Service manual Test reports (RFI) to Polish Centre for Testing and Certification (see: http://www.cbscheme.org/country/cbpoland.htm for details) If you don't have any test reports you may let an accredited laboratory in Poland (like this one below) to carry out these tests for you: - safety acc. to PN-93/T-42107 (idt. IEC 950: 1991 +A1: 1992 + A2: 1993), - radiofrequency disturbance acc. to PN-EN 55022: 1996 (idt. CISPR 22: 1993 document). Best regards, Krzysztof Sieczkarek Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques Institute of Logistics and Warehousing Poznan, Poland fax +48 61 8526376 http://www.ilim.poznan.pl/la/index_E.html Susan Beard wrote: I recently read an article in Conformity discussing Poland's B mark for safety certification. Could anyone in this group provide more information on both the EMC and safety requirements for shipping ITE into Poland?
RE: GS Requirements
I have been following this thread with interest and would like to ask Ing. Gert Gremmen a pointed question. Gert, In your email you stated: For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for importing and exporting any goods. The GOAL of the ce-mark was to introduce a common symbol to show that the product marked had free access to the full EU. Q. Does Germany, or any other EU country, impose a fine on ITE products that comply with the Class A EMI limits intended for commercial applications? Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html -- From: Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl] Reply To: Ing. Gert Gremmen Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 2:09 PM To:WOODS, RICHARD; 'emc-pstc' Subject: RE: GS Requirements Hello Richard, Group, I will come back to the legal aspects of this. For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for importing and exporting any goods. The GOAL of the ce-mark was to introduce a common symbol to show that the product marked had free access to the full EU. It applies to toys, elevators, sterile injection needles as well as electronic typewriters. It applies to machines, simple pressure vessels and sailing boats. It will apply to many more goods in the near future. If for any reason and for any beliefs any local national law could resist this European regime of ce-marking, the whole foundation under ce-marking would fall down. I am not a lawyer in European affairs, but i understand well how the ce-mark stuff has been implemented and how it is meant to be. Therefore, if any legal hole exists, it will be filled up, unless the EC is really less powerful as f.a. Germany. I suggest that one of you, not being a test-house or consultant, innocently directs this question to Mr. Bangemann of the European Commission. Let's hear what he has to say. To be read: The New Approach (legislation and standards on the free movement of goods in Europe) by CENELEC Other considerations (from seminar papers) Basic conditons for the free Eur. market: Free traffic of persons / goods/ services/ money 1/ Stop taxes on importing 2/ stop limitiations in quantity 3/ Stop all measures of equal effect including technical limitations Technical limitations are : National technical regulations National standards National test- and certification procedures 1. Stopping limitations by: Mutual recognition exceptions : - public order - public health, lives of persons and plants or animals in danger - national properties artistic or historic - industrial and commercial properties Exceptions should be no hidden limitations. 2. harmonisation of technical regulations 1983 information phase 1985 new approach directives 1989 global approach for conformity assessment Directive 83/189/EEC: Goal: - stop implementations of new national regulations - halt progress on national initiatives Contents: - notifying necessary for new national regulations (to EC) - hold off period for national regulations So far: Gert Gremmen == Ce-test, Qualified testing == Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm 15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of WOODS, RICHARD Sent: maandag 27 april 1998 14:07 To:'emc-pstc' Subject: RE: GS Requirements This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two distinct groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a state law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive. Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the tends to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the legal basis for this claim? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic.
RE: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B?
Well, This would be an appropriate occasion to open this can of worms again! Ing. Gert Gremmen's response would, at first blush, lead you to conclude that the whole of the EU believes that Class B is the REQUIRED emissions level for ITE. I do not agree. The push for Class B for ITE has been and still is being pushed by Germany. Indeed I believe the German EMC folks punish Class A ITE by imposing a fine at each and every installation. If this is true then Germany is violating the fair trading practices of the EU but no-one seems to be able to stop them. Please - if I am mistaken can some-one tell me?? To be fair, there is some precedent to the insistence of Class B to ITE and it stems from the original tie-ins of the Generic Emissions Standard and the Generic Immunity Standard which tied in Class B emissions and Light Industrial Immunity levels. However with the release of the family specific ITE emissions standard and the pending release of the family specific Immunity standard, the general industry opinion was that this tie in had gone away. Comments?? Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html -- From: Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl] Reply To: Ing. Gert Gremmen Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 1:10 AM To:Tommy H. Lee Cc:EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B? hello Tommy, For ITE equipment you'd better perform to Class B, in the whole of the EU. Class A is restricted to industrial locations only, and this is according to the EMC-directive very limited area. Garages, hospitals, offices and even standard light industry should be classified acc. to B. Difference between A and B is distance of testing. The limits for Class A are valid at a testing distance of 30 meters, where Class B requires them to be met at 10 meters. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen == Ce-test, Qualified testing == Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm 15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Tommy H. Lee le...@khgw.info.samsung.co.kr Aan: Ing. Gert Gremmen cet...@cetest.nl CC: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Datum: woensdag 8 april 1998 8:04 Onderwerp: EN 55022 ITE Class A vs. Class B? Hello Group I know that ITE can meet Class A ITE Limit. The question is concerning European ITE EMI, Class A and B. Has anyone had or have known of problems with a Class A ITE approval versus a Class B ITE approval. I have heard that Germany is requiring Class B on all equipment entering into Germany (or they are planning on this). Best regards. Tommy
IEEE Conference
Would anyone care to share what they learned at the conference in Austin. I have put together some am willing to mail it off to anyone who replies. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115
RE: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation
Hi, Yes I attended that presentation. In ANSI C63.4 Methods for SA there is a fudge factor for taking out the mutual coupling between antennas for 3M SA measurements. Doesn't this take care of the problem? Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Cortland Richmond[SMTP:72146@compuserve.com] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:53 PM To:Thomas Donnelly; ieee pstc list Subject: Re: Antenna Calibration/Site Attenuation Tom, Did you get to the presentation about getting the most out of a biconical antenna? Some thoughts contained there on antenna calibration, too. I found some time ago that using antennas does lead to the kind of mutual coupling Martin talked about, and also -- and this is not mentioned much -- even with small sources, there is a definite surface wave near the ground plane at 30-35 or 40 MHz. This skews reading upwards, but as it is part of the site propagation, I think it has to be factored out by doing that vertical antenna factor measurement. A couple more meters, and the surface wave is no longer a problem. I say surface wave, because I don't think this is a mutual coupling problem. Even small sources seem to generate it. I am presently working on an antenna calibration for a semi-anechoic chamber in which I shall be able to investigate this more closely. Regards, Cortland
RE: Graphics NOT in posts
I would like to align my vote with Brent DeWitt. Simply ask who wants a particular file then send it directly to the person requesting the input. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Farnsworth,Heber[SMTP:hfarn...@msmail.physio-control.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 8:45 AM To:'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Graphics NOT in posts I must reluctantly agree with Pete. The technology is not quite there yet to allow graphics. Soon, I hope. -- From: Peter Tarver Subject: RE: Graphics in posts However, I do see a problem with sending even small graphics in e-mail.
RE: ESD Simulators
Years ago I had the opportunity of working with a top flight consultant on ESD and the human-body model. The only manufacturer that produced an ESD simulator that ACCURATELY reflected the Human Body pulse was Andy Hish. The ESD simulators today produce a facimile of the true ESD event in the interest of test consistency. Of all the simulators I have tried, I like the Schaffner. I find the controls easy to use - it even has a counter. This is of most importance to someone as easily distracted as me!! Most of all I like that fact the 10cm separation between the EUT (tabletop) and the gun is built into the design. Very nice. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 1997 7:06 AM To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: ESD Simulators dlo...@advanced-input.com wrote: My company is looking to purchase some ESD Simulators. There are basically three manufacturers worldwide of this type eqiupment, and ESD guns are not cheap. I am interested in hearing of any experiences or information, good or bad, anyone has had with particular models of ESD Simulators. Since this may not be an appropriate open forum discussion topic, responses can be off-line. Thanks Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices Hi Darrell, Long ago in a land far away when I first started compliance, I worked for a company that used a homebrew ESD thing made from a flyback coil from a tv set that could literally kill you. They had started using this thing on products due to numerous complaints from customers concerning ESD events in a carpeted office environment. Theory was at the time (from the two gentlemen that ran the lab both had EE Ph.D.s) if the product could survive that, it'd survive anything. I bought a Keyteck Mini-Zapper and things settled down. I changed jobs and at the new company bought another Mini-Zapper. But, I soon ran into trouble at that time for there was (at one point in time) the need for three seperate guns (three seperate human models) for Bellcore, and IEC-801 series testing. I stayed with the the MiniZapper arguing that the IEC series was more valid than something from Bellcore due to it based upon law. Bellcore is not based upon law. It is allowed to be interpreted any way the two parties agree. Still not satisified, the customer protested and I rented from GE rental a Schaffner NSG ESD gun (the specific model number escapes me but I'm sure someone will know exactly what it is) that was more in line with everyone. Before I left that company, it was to be regular policy to rent equipment as needed rather than buy. At the time I supported that decision. Now, at yet another company, the lab I go to uses a Compliance Design device (again the model number escapes me). I am still supporting rentals and that falls into the Schaffner series when needed. Calibration, updating to any changes for another human model (I don't think this will happen soon), and storage during downtime I incur upon the rentee. Regards, Doug
RE: Re[2]: alternate test sites
Hey keep this technical will you?? Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: tania.gr...@octel.com[SMTP:tania.gr...@octel.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 1997 11:51 AM To:emc-p...@ieee.org; Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921 Cc:jim.nado...@amp.com Subject: Re[2]: alternate test sites Regarding your cute footnote: The same could be stated for certain husbands. I suggest that you show greater consideration to people; it has been many many years since polygamy was outlawed by Mormons. Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation A non-Mormon. __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Re: alternate test sites Author: Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921 alan.hud...@gecm.com at P_Internet_Mail Date:7/14/97 10:12 AM If I remember correctly, it's the Competent Body - the person who approves (hopefully!) and signs the Technical Construction File - who must be resident in the EU. Mind you, this is probably a moot point, now that the EU/USA have signed a Mutual Recognition Agreement, I assume the USA can now test/approve their own gear themselves. -- Alan Mormons can have more than one wife. This is called polygamy. Christians can have only one wife. This is called monotony. From: jim.nado...@amp.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: alternate test sites Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 10:55AM Greetings, These 2 questions may seem rather naive, but I never really had to address them. Any help by those who have direct experience would be greatly appreciated. 1. I heard the statement The EU does not accept emissions data from a semi-anechoic chamber (SAC) Since I deal mostly with ITE, I looked in EN55022-1987, para. 10.3.3 and see no mention of the use of anything but an OATS. The question is Does all testing to EN55022 have to be performed at an OATS or can I use a SAC which has a good normalized site attenuation (+/- 4 dB)? It would seem to me that if you are self certifying, you would want to be confident the equipment passes with enough margin that it would pass anywhere. If you felt confident using a current probe and a scope, then go ahead and self-certify. 2. My second question deals with the famous person who signs test reports and is the responsible person (i.e. jail time) should the data be found to be bogus. Again, assume we are self certifying ITE equipment. I was told that the responsible person must be a resident of the EU. A company in the States could not self certify and place the CE mark on equipment with only the head of quality signature, assuming the head of quality lives in Anytown USA. I also heard that less than reputable companies in the States find some European guy who will sign anything and can vanish if the need arises. Some of this sounds like urban legend to me, but I appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks in advance... Jim Nadolny AMP Inc. jim .nado...@amp.com
RE: EN61000-3-2
OK Here is the latest information I have received from CENELEC. Last week's Technical Board (BT) meeting confirmed that the dow of EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 is 2001-01-01 for all products. BT also decided to launch a 2month vote on the withdrawal of EN 61000-3-2/A12 (that set the dow for 61000-3-2 at 1998-06-01, but was never published in the Official Journal as a harmonized EMC standard. This appears to indicate that the application date for EN61000-3-2/3 is 2001-01-01. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Fred Waechter[SMTP:w...@skybest.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 1:06 PM To:emc-pstc Subject: EN61000-3-2 Hi All, I keep hearing conflicting stories about when EN61000-3-2 takes effect. Is it still June 1998 or has it been delayed until Jan. 1, 2001. Does anyone know. Please help! Thanks. -- Fred Waechter Sr. Applications Engr. SMPS Consulting w...@skybest.com Phone/FAX: 910-246-5236
RE: Receivers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers
I agree with your comment vis-à-vis field strength etc.. As long as the reading is accurate, the equipment type is moot. However the attainment of this desired goal is not straight forward. I am a conservative type and have concerns with dSAs in two areas. First, dSAs (at least the one I use ) do not commonly have an average detector so post detection filtering (i.e. the VB) is employed to emulate average detection. Second, although the dSA has a QP detector, normally many manual steps are required to set the analyzer up to read the QP. For example, it is easy to set the RB incorrectly and throw off the final QP reading. Let me add though that - correctly used- the dSA is fast AND accurate with the sole concern of the average detection. I have always had a receiver at hand to check any measurements in dispute. aSAs - The only one I used was a Tek plug-in (years ago!!). In answer to your questions: (1) Given the same EUT setup whatever you want it to be and the same antenna setup again, whatever you want it to be, Which would you choose digital SA (dSA), analog SA (aSA), or reciever? Answer (1) dSA with the receiver standing by for any measurements in dispute. (2) Given the same EUT setup whatever you want it to be and the same antenna setup again, whatever you want it to be, how close should each measurement made by dSA, aSA, or reciever be? Identical? Answer (2) the dSA the aSA should match the receiver within 0.5dB. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 1997 3:10 PM To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Recievers, Digital Spectrum Analyzers, Analog Spectrum Analyzers I personally have had a preference for analog Spectrum analyzers for measurements. I've always had trouble accepting sampling rates, windowing, ... of the digital SA's. I have used recievers only twice. But that's just me. If I can measure the same field strength with a digital SA or analog SA or a reciever, so what? Well, the so what is why I'm asking two questions: (1) Given the same EUT setup whatever you want it to be and the same antenna setup again, whatever you want it to be, Which would you choose digital SA (dSA), analog SA (aSA), or reciever? (2) Given the same EUT setup whatever you want it to be and the same antenna setup again, whatever you want it to be, how close should each measurement made by dSA, aSA, or reciever be? Identical?
ITE Immunity Questions
Greetings All, My company manufactures ITE equipment tested and verified to EN55022 and EN50082-1 the generic light immunity standard. With impending release of CISPR24 some questions come to mind. 1. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment in a warehouse (i.e. NOT put into service?). 2. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment already put into service and functioning satisfactorily at a customer site? 3. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that is being phased out - the phase out date being AFTER the release of the new ITE immunity standard? 4. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that is part of a Direct Field Transfer. That is, removed from one customers site and installed at a different customer site with only cosmetic changes? 5. Does the new ITE immunity standard apply to equipment that have upgrades installed after the release of the new standard.? 6. Is there a transition period in the new ITE immunity standard? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115
RE: EN61000-3-2 - RUMOURS
This is the information I have managed to get from Cenelec. It directly contradicts earlier statements published on this site. I have asked for clarification. CENELEC statement: Like I explained in an earlier email the dow (date for withdrawal of conflicting standards) of 2001-01-01 was proposed for EN 61000-3-2 and 3-3 in March, subject to a one-month wait for comments. As we've received comments on the above dow, the matter will be submitted to our July meeting of the CENELEC Technical Board. So for the time being, there's nothing really decisive to say. Until I know different, I am sticking with the June 1 1998 date. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Vi Van (MEPCD)[SMTP:v...@apricot.mee.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 10:08 AM To:'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: EN61000-3-2 - RUMOURS Dear All, Have anyone got any news regarding the mandatory date for harmonics requirement in Europe? I heard 2 stories, one says 1.1.2001 and the other says 1.1.98, which of those are true? Any comments please! Best Regards Vi Van EMC engineer Mitsubishi PC
ESD testing survey.
Greetings group! I would like to take a survey of the ESD testing practices prevalent in manufacturers of electronic equipment. The purpose of this information is to get a better understanding of the alignment of my company with respect to the industry and ESD testing in particular. Basically - is my company overtesting? Our current practice is to test what is legally required, naturally, but we have also been performing tests to ANSI C63.16. This requires higher test levels and a large number of discharges to obtain the MTBUR. Can any of you supply information (without selling the farm!) on the ESD specifications that you test to whether the legally mandated ESD test is exceeded. Thanx The results of the survey will be complied and published on this group - no names mentioned!! Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115
RE: Certified Devices
The answer to question is the same.. I also came from a major PC vendor and shared some of the experiences of my collegues. The three vendors I gave you (Seagate, Maxtor Quantum) all put significant time money into EMC and test their drives at a component level. They all strive to meet the Class B levels OUTSIDE of a case with margin. Immunity - well outside of a case is asking a bit much!! Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Chris Herkey[SMTP:e...@attotech.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:46 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Certified Devices I must apologize for my first submission of this message. I didn't specify clearly what I needed. Let me try again and let's see what we can come up with. Thank you to all that did respond, though. I found that info equally informative. Does anyone know where I might find a list of hard drives that are already mounted in enclosures and sold that way and are certified FCC class B and CE? Or perhaps someone knows of a manufacturer? I need singled-ended and differential SCSI drives... Thank you, Chris Herkey
RE: Standards Titles
Good question. The answer is I don't really know. I have been trying to find out. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:31 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject:Re: Standards Titles Grasso, Charles (Chaz) wrote: Hi - The information I have is this: Canada: ICES-003: 1994 Emissions No Immunity Hi Charles, Whatever happened to Canada C108.8 A, superceded? Regards --- The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer. ---
ITE Immunity
From: The Chairman of CISPR 24 We will learn more when the CENELEC committee meets in late May. Soon after, late June, we (CISPR/G guys) will meet to redraft CISPR 24 for a distribution as a new proposed draft standard. I hope that we will go for a final vote in time to complete this by year end. Looks like end of Q1 would be the earliest for the EN55024 ITE Immunity Spec.!! Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115
RE: EN 61000-3-2 compliance date
I have, from CENELEC a competent body in the UK, confirmed that the 61000-3-2 that 1 June 1998 IS the date the standard applies to products NOT covered by the previous standard EN60555-2. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Paul M. Wilson (543-0066 (T/L 441-))[SMTP:rockf...@vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 2:32 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:EN 61000-3-2 compliance date Is is true that the date for complying with EN 61000-3-2, for products falling outside the scope of IEC 555-2, has now been set firmly in concrete to be 6/1/98? It is my understanding that the issues surrounding this standard and the 3-year transition period have now been resolved by the Commission. Please post or contact me with any information to the contrary. Paul Wilson rockf...@vnet.ibm.com
RE: CE marking components... a breath of fresh air...
Excellent review Peter! I would add one thought for you to comment on. My company routinely ships its products in pieces to be assembled at a customer site due to size and complexity. We toyed with the idea of adding the phrase Part of a CE compliant system on the shipping containers. Comments (good bad!)? Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 -- From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 1997 1:37 PM To: PSNetwork Subject:CE marking components... a breath of fresh air... PSNet Editorial, Educate Your Customers from Test Measurement World/April, 1997 by Martin Rowe, Technical Editor A reader who works for a component manufacturer told me that his customers want his company to place the CE marking on its components. (The CE marking indicates compliance with European EMC and Low-Voltage Directives.) The reader says his customers think that designing products with CE-marked components will ensure that the products will meet the standards. He also claims that should a product fail compliance testing, the customer can blame failure on any non-CE marked components. I'd like to inform that customer that components can't officially carry the CE marking. The CE marking applies to systems and subsystems available for sale to end users. Components are excluded. Manufacturers shouldn't place all blame for testing failures on component manufacturers. Even if the components in a design have excellent EMC and safety characteristics, a product can still fail compliance testing. Components can't compensate for a poor board layout, lack of proper shielding, and improper grounding. Another problem with putting a CE mark on components is that the end user might assume that a board or system filled with CE-marked components meets the requirements for the marking. Therefore, installing CE-marked components in your product can be deceptive. So what should this company do? Should the company place the CE marking on its components, adhering to the belief in Rule number one: the customer is always right. Rule number two:see rule number one? Should the company lose sales because it insists in not lulling customers into a false sense of security? Perhaps the company should try to educate its customers. The component manufacturer can explain to its customers why components can't carry the CE mark. The company should encourage its customers to design for EMC; its customers must understand that the burden for EMC and safety compliance fall on them. The trick is to make it clear that the company isn't just trying to pass the buck to the customer. If your company busy components to build into its products, you shouldn't insist that those components have the CE marking, and none should. If your marketing department or upper management thinks that having products loaded with the CE-marked components makes the products better, tactfully inform them that they're wrong. If you want your products to pass compliance tests, you'll have to design them with compliance in mind. - - - - - submitted by Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - -
RE: VCCI labelling
It s in their AGREEMENT OF VCCI FOR ITE document V-2/96.03..Beware though - I understand that they are revising this agreement AGAIN - I'll keep you posted. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek -- From: Arthur Poolton (MEPCD)[SMTP:arth...@apricot.mee.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 1997 6:54 AM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz); 'EMC Group' Subject:RE: VCCI labelling Does anyone have samples of the new label ? -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)[SMTP:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: 04 April 1997 01:06 To:'EMC Group' Subject: VCCI labelling I noticed that the VCCI have changed their labelling requirements for ITE. How long before we have to use the new label? We still have a lot of the old label.
RE: Requirements for Asian Countries?
Near as I can tell, the new Chinese EMC law will be required for Taiwan China. I have heard that Korea is moving in the direction of CISPR 22. Can anyone else flesh in the details? -- From: Mike Elliott[SMTP:au...@electriciti.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 1997 6:08 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Requirements for Asian Countries? I'm trying to work up a list of the product safety requirements for AC mains-operated consumer electronics equipment (general household) for the following countries: Japan Taiwan Hong Kong Singapore Korea Malaysia China BTW, for this category of apparatus, IEC-65 is the prototype standard. In the EU EN60065 what our product is meant to be in compliance with, and UL6500 (U.S.) and CSA65 (Canada) are the nationalized versions for those two countries. I, and members of the Consumer Electronic Manufacturer's Association (CEMA) division of EIA, would greatly appreciate any information you can offer. -- Mike Elliott Counterpoint Electronic Systems/Elliott ASE fax: + 619 591 0621 au...@electriciti.com Member EIA
RE: ITE approvals for Australia
Thank you for the information. This is interesting because there seems to be total confusion in the ITE arena. I have had various replies to the question of immunity from YES to NO to MAYBE. Indeed I have had a reply indicating that the requirement might be several years away. I have checked with one major ITE supplier in the US and they are NOT declaring to the AS/NZS immunity standard. The background for the question came from the SMA. In a suppliers reference document issued by the SMA they do NOT specifically state that immunity is required AND in the same document they publish contradictory information. I cite specifically: Para 1.2 Table indicates Immunity is required. Table One: EMC Standards - refers to Immunity standard Para 2.3 No SPECIFIC indication that immunity is required. Section 3: No mention of Immunity timing at all. Note: Para 1.2 is in direct conflict with the SMA home page that does NOT shade in the Immunity portion. (This prompted my previous e-mail) Now I am in a quandary. In spite of the availability of information, there may be ITE equipment manufacturers innocently contravening the Radiocommunication Act of 1992. Who can I go to that can answer my question definitively? -- From: Jason L. Chesley[SMTP:103401.1...@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 1997 4:48 PM To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Subject:Re: ITE approvals for Australia Mr. Grasso, Australia is basically following the EU EMC standards. AS/NZS 3548 covers ITE for emissions and is very similar if not identical to EN 55022. AS/NZS 4252.1 is their generic immunity and is basically identical to the EN 50082-1 (light indistrial, commercial and residential). How well they are enforcing the law is currently unknown due to time the standards have been in place. What our lab is currently doing, with Australia's approval of course, is converting the data taken from the CE testing over to the old IEC standards which make up most of their current framework. The SMA, Spectrum Management Agency, says they started enforcing immunity on January 1st 1997 and will begin enforcing emissions on July 1st 1997. The SMA states the C-tick mark must be accompanied by at least one of the following: the registered name and address of the place of business of the Australian supplier, or the Australian Company Number (ACN), or a supplier code issued by the SMA. Hope this helps, Jason L. Chesley Operations Representative CC Laboratory, Inc.
ITE approvals for Australia
Does anyone know if IMMUNITY testing is required for ITE equipment for the C-Tick mark?
RE: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic.
Hello all, I have been watching this discussion with interest and the phrase environmentally friendly keeps cropping up. Can any one tell me of any EU or indeed world standards that pertain to the recycling on plastic parts that have been coated for EMC purposes? -- From: Eric Petitpierre[SMTP:er...@smtplink.pulse.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 1997 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; SITARSKI,MICHAEL Cc: 250...@ovmail.kodak.com Subject:Re: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Michael, Just as I received your e-mail, I received a direct mail from Acheson Colloids Company. (1-800-255-1908). They can set you up with what they have for conductive coatings. I don't know how enviromentally friendly they are, though. Eric Petitpierre Pulsecom Herndon, VA er...@pulse.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Author: ,SITARSKI,MICHAEL sitar...@kodak.com at SMTP List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/21/97 4:42 PM To: OAS --MAILSERV Open Addressing cc: 250105 --LOCKOVM1 SITARSKI MICHAEL J From: Michael J. Sitarski, PMI - DMI, 35905, 1/3/EP, (72)6-3717 Internet: sitar...@kodak.com Fax: (716) 726-9453 KNET: 236-3717 Subject: Effective EMI coatings for steel, aluminum, plastic. Greetings to all viewers. I have been monitoring this forum for some time and would like to take this opportunity to ask a question concerning coatings or platings for steel, aluminum and plastic. Does anyone know of any studies that may have been performed comparing various coatings on the three mentioned substrates that considers cost, conductivity and/or shielding effectiveness. Apparently some of the tried and true materials are coming under attack for environmental friendliness and suitable alternatives must be identified. I am aware of the use of zinc chromates, electroless nickel and copper as well as various paints. Any experiences out there with practicality, durability, cost and environmental friendliness. Thanks in advance for your comments. -Regards, | M.J. Sitarski, Environmental Regulatory Compliance | |*| - Knowledge is Power
Blue Angel
Can anyone point me in the direction of any information on this subject...
RE:
Good Question. The best information I have is that you can expect the release of prEN50082-1(1996) mid to late this year. However, the real question is - what is the transition time? Currently the transition time (i.e. when the old standard MUST be withdrawn) is four years!!. So if that holds the 1996 version will supercede the 1992 version about 2001. A spec for the new millenia!! -- From: Marco Tran[SMTP:mht2...@lxe.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 2:31 PM To:emc.p...@ieee.org Could anyone please let me know when will the Generic Immunity Standard--Part 1: Residential, Commercial and Light Industry, prEN50082-1:1994 supersede EN50082-1:1992. Thank you very much in advance. Marco Tran Product Approvals Engineer
RE: IEC 1000-4-6
1000-4-6 is referenced in prEN50082-1(1996). The best information available indicates that this standard will be released sometime in 4Q1997. It is currently held up due to a disagreement over the transition period. The other standard that 1000-4-6 is referenced in is prEN55024 (ITE Immunity). The release date for this standard in UNKNOWN!! -- From: Larry Barnette[SMTP:larry_barne...@instrumentassociates.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 1997 9:29 AM To:emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC 1000-4-6 Fellow Treg members, I'm looking for the status of the Conducted RF Disturbance test requirements for Light Industrial and Commercial use, in the EU. (Previously exempt) One source indicated that it will be effective July 97. I would appreciate reference to solid input sources. - Larry Barnette Compliance Engineer Instrument Associates -
RE: Penalty for Non-Compliance
Have you any information as to the results of this inspection?? -- From: brian_mcauliffe_at_irela...@pcmail.tellabs.com[SMTP:Brian_McAuliffe_at_irela n...@pcmail.tellabs.com] Sent: Sunday, February 23, 1997 9:06 PM To:emc-p...@mail.ieee.org; Brian Kunde Subject: Re: Penalty for Non-Compliance One statistic: In Germany alone during 1996 authorities planned to inspect 8000 products (over 150 per week) in relation to compliance with EMC Directive. I have not heard the outcome of these inspections but on these figures, if selling into Germany, surely the risk cannot be considered cost effective when prosecutions can include: a substantial fine withdrawing product being banned from ever selling in the EU again Also provision has been made for a criminal penalty of imprisonment (watch out whoever is signing the Declarations of Conformity!) Brian McAuliffe Tellabs Ltd __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Penalty for Non-Compliance Author: Brian Kunde brian_ku...@leco.com at smtplink-tellabs Date:21/02/97 11:07 I hear a very disturbing subject being openly discussed among several of my European contacts. Distributors in Europe are saying that the CE marking is a joke. That many companies (European Companies are mentioned most often) are simply applying the CE marking to their products without testing. Some say that many companies were initially forced to do this because of the time and cost of testing and redesign, but since there is very little checking going on the risk is Cost Effective. IS THIS TRUE? Has anyone heard of specific situations where a company or person has been fined or jailed for fraudulently placing the CE marking on non-compliant equipment? What is the penalty for non-compliance? What is the penalty for fraud? Is anyone checking? Is anyone getting in trouble? I have been asked to obtain strong evidence to counter this opinion. More or less to put the fear of God into distributors and reassure our marketing and sales force that delaying product to market for the CE mark is the right thing to do. Can you help? Please post or email me anything you can. Thanks, Brian Kunde brian_ku...@leco.com
RE: Penalty for Non-Compliance
I just saw this E-Mail and I have to say I find NO FAULT with this approach. The rules DO allow for limited testing based on sound engineering judgement. However I understand that if limited testing is performed, then you need to get a competent body to agree with you bingo - you are legal! So why don't you chat with a few competent bodies and have them sign up to your approach. Chas Grasso -- From: Paul Rampelbergh[SMTP:rampelberg...@infoboard.be] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 1997 11:14 AM To:Eric Lifsey Cc:Brian Kunde; emc-p...@mail.ieee.org Subject: Re: Penalty for Non-Compliance Hello, I put products on the market without performing ALL the required EMC tests and stick the CE label on it. Surprised I tell you that so openly? Now this doesn't mean that I do nothing to make the product conform. The product is checked by simple measurements means (I don't like to discus the subject anymore due to the fact that some people spoils, on purpose, all efforts I made previously to have joined efforts, opinions, recommendations in a discussions group in this mail list). On the other hand, in the design I use as low as possible clock frequency's, the communication busses are filtered, printed circuit boards layout has special attention, the line input uses commercial reliable filters, everything is put in a commercial available specific EMC well designed metal box, etc.. ALL possible precautions are taken and considered to avoid problems including possible injuries to people, etc.. but NO I do not all compliance tests to the specified rules. I CAN NOT AFFORD IT. For INFORMATION: I was in charge of the flight simulator department of SABENA airlines (30 years, 40 people: maintenance engineers, 3 commercial and 2 military simulators and if the project had not collapsed, the flight simulator of the HERMES European space shuttle for astronaut training). Budget and cost of test equipment in front of a flight simulator with visual and motion system prices ($15,000,000 each) was of no concern. I'm retired now. Things are different. Now I design and produce small equipment's for handicapped people, not for profit. That's it. Who put the blame on me? I'm a stupid CE sticker man. The above expressed is not only my personnal opignion but also that of my compagny. Regards. Eric Lifsey wrote: IMO the penalties are far from being an acceptable risk; and they vary from country to country, so enforcement is not even. It is often the final integrator or customer that ends-up enforcing compliance. Sometimes customs gets involved too. A source within the US delegation to the EU told me (circa mid-1995) that a US manufacturer of non-compliant machinery had a shipment refused by customs of France, while three other EU countries permitted entry of the same product at the same time. There was no mention of fines - but having a shipment refused entry/delivery had to smart some. I know of other cases that do not bear repeating here, but suffice it to say, enforcement is indeed taking place; although from what I see it seems that the enforcement is the result of user or competitor compliants instead of random action by the authorities. Naturally, we're all experts on European Law, right? (Wrong. Blatant sarcasm intended.) Regards, Eric Lifsey ___ Subject: Penalty for Non-Compliance From:Brian Kunde brian_ku...@leco.com at Internet Date:2/21/97 11:07 AM I hear a very disturbing subject being openly discussed among several of my European contacts. Distributors in Europe are saying that the CE marking is a joke. That many companies (European Companies are mentioned most often) are simply applying the CE marking to their products without testing. Some say that many companies were initially forced to do this because of the time and cost of testing and redesign, but since there is very little checking going on the risk is Cost Effective. IS THIS TRUE? Has anyone heard of specific situations where a company or person has been fined or jailed for fraudulently placing the CE marking on non-compliant equipment? What is the penalty for non-compliance? What is the penalty for fraud? Is anyone checking? Is anyone getting in trouble? I have been asked to obtain strong evidence to counter this opinion. More or less to put the fear of God into distributors and reassure our marketing and sales force that delaying product to market for the CE mark is the right thing to do. Can you help? Please post or email me anything you can. Thanks,
