Add-On Printed Circuit
Colleagues, I am seeking your input. Manufacturer A sells a complete, fully approved (CE, FCC Part 15, UL, etc) product (product A) Manufacturer B makes a device (product B) that will plug into a connector in product A (actually inside product A's enclosure - like a 'daughter' module) as a value added feature. There are no external interfaces on product B, and it is not accessible unless product A is totally dismantled. Product B is intended/sold only for use with product A, and is otherwise useless. The two products are sold independent of each other by the manufacturers to 'dealer/installers'. When the dealer/installer sells/installs product A, he can offer product B as an option. What are the regulatory requirements/manufacturer's responsibilities for product B? (est. 2-3 inches square, UL 94V-0 printed circuit board, tens of mA 12V DC, no external interfaces. On-board clock). Thoughts? John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3
I clearly remember this being a requirement, but I as I'm not in telecom anymore, I don't have the documentation readily available. I can't recall if it was a GR-1089 or an RBOC specific requirement. However, I do remember this issue when dealing with Bell Atlantic at the time (1997). John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:03 PM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 John Dorin, Please clarify as I am not aware of a requirement to isolate Signal Ground from Frame Ground. Please reference GR-1089-CORE, Section 9.6.2 as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:john.juh...@ge-interlogix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:12 AM To: 'Dorin' Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Be careful Dorin. For Central Offices, they need to be isolated. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dorin [mailto:dorin.op...@alcatel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:12 AM Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Hi, I am looking for a comparison, pros and cons, on the signal ground connected versus not connected to the chassis in a telecom system. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dorin --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Inrush and EN61000-3-3
Be careful Dorin. For Central Offices, they need to be isolated. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dorin [mailto:dorin.op...@alcatel.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:12 AM Cc: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Re: Inrush and EN61000-3-3 Hi, I am looking for a comparison, pros and cons, on the signal ground connected versus not connected to the chassis in a telecom system. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Dorin --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
EMC Directive
I know this has come up before, but I need to quote chapter and verse. In a conversation with an acquaintance of mine, the EMC Directive became a topic with DoW and use of superceded standards for presumption of conformity becoming a contentious area. I maintain the following understanding: A product is evaluated to standard A. At some point standard a can no longer be used for presumption of conformity (DoW) and standard B must be used. Therefore if a product is still being manufactured for sale after the DoW of standard A, then the product must be re-evaluated according to the new standard B. (An exemption being those items returned for repair and not modified/updated/upgraded). If the product was no longer produced and placed on the market after the DoW then there is no issue. My acquaintance notes that if the product was tested to standard A, as long as it has not been 'updated, modified, or changed in anyway' since the initial compliance test, it can still be manufactured and placed on the market after the DoW without re-test. I believe that my understanding is the correct one. I tried to locate it in the EMC Directive itself but I can't seem to find it. Am I incorrect? John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC Part15
Thanks to all who responded to my query. The sections are: 15.107 for Conducted Emissions and 15.109 for Radiated Emissions. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: John Juhasz Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 2:19 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: FCC Part15 Hi all, I am trying to find the section in FCC Part 15 that allows for the use of alternate testing (such as EN 55022 - Part 15 refers to CISPR 22). I've read it , but I can't seem to find the appropriate section. Do any of you know which section in Part 15 has this? Thanks. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Emissions quick test
Lisa, At minimum you really should have a spectrum analyzer, but that's my opinion. For a good 'homemade' probe try Doug Smith's web site. http://emcesd.com/ Scroll down the page. Good luck. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:35 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Emissions quick test Hi all, Does anyone know of a down- and- dirty , inexpensive method or equipment for sniffing out emissions issues? I've used a Spectrum Analyzer in the past with a series of different probes, but that tends to be costly. Also, Is there a universal probe kit out there? Thank you in advance. Lisa Lisa A. Cefalo, CRE Manager, Reliability and Design Services MKS Instruments 6 Shattuck Road Andover, MA 01810 (978)-975-2350 X 5669 lisa_cef...@mksinst.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
FCC Part15
Hi all, I am trying to find the section in FCC Part 15 that allows for the use of alternate testing (such as EN 55022 - Part 15 refers to CISPR 22). I've read it , but I can't seem to find the appropriate section. Do any of you know which section in Part 15 has this? Thanks. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Creepage on PCB Internal Layers
As always Rich provides excellent technical information . While a different standard was originally referenced in this thread, I'd like to consider for a moment Chris Maxwell's question ...there should be some minimum distance... on an inner layer of the boardL The 950-based standards have guidelines in this regard. In section 2.9.6 'Enclosed or Sealed Parts' For components or sub-assemblies which are enclosed or hermetically sealed against ingress of dirt or moisture, and which satisfy the following compliance requirements, the minimum internal CREEPAGE DISTANCES and CLEARANCES can be the values for Pollution Degree 1. The paragraph that follows states, Compliance is checked by inspection, measurement and by subjecting the component or sub-assembly to the thermal cycling test of 2.9.5 That section was developed for printed circuit boards. The samples spend a month going through thermal cycling 0-100C. If the printed circuit fab was of low quality, the test would uncover the development of voids due to layer separation where there could be subsequent arcing then tracking. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:12 PM To: chris.maxw...@nettest.com Cc: richard.pa...@exgate.tek.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Creepage on PCB Internal Layers Hi Chris: To me, it's sort of funny in that it just says that the Creepage and Clearance distances do not apply on inner layers of void free PCBs. That's nice; but I can't find where a distance is specified. I mean, I would think that there should be some minimum distance between an AC line and a 5V SELV line on an inner layer of the board To answer this comment, we need to look at what a creepage is and its role in the scheme of the product. Almost all product constructions employ solid and air insulations, both in parallel and in series, between conductors. We call solid insulation solid insulation. We call air insulation clearance. We call the interface between solid insulation and air insulation creepage. Note that solid insulation and air insulation are truly electrical insulations. Creepage is NOT an insulation. Creepage is not a material. It is simply a surface at which solid and air insulations meet. The surface of solid insulation is subject to deposition of airborne pollution. Typical products provide little or no control of airborne materials to prevent deposition of the polluting material onto the surface of a solid insulating material. Polluting material is a solid, uncontrolled (i.e., not a known insulating) material in parallel with the solid (and air) insulations. The polluting material bridges the solid insulation, and therefore could jeopardize the safety function provided by the solid insulation. When sufficient polluting material accumulates on the surface of the solid insulation, the voltage across the insulator and the pollution causes micro-arcs in the pollution. These micro-arcs are high temperature, and cause thermal decomposition of the surface of the solid insulation. When organic materials decompose, they free up the carbon atoms, leaving a tiny carbon resistor on the surface of the solid insulation. Each tiny carbon resistor is in parallel with the adjacent solid insulation beneath the surface of the solid insulation. So the tiny carbon resistor is shorting out a small part of the surface of the solid insulation. This phenomenon is known as treeing due to the tracking pattern of the carbon path on the solid insulation surface. To account for the effect of pollutants on the surface of organic solid insulations, we require the creepage distance to be larger than the air distance (clearance). Because some materials are more resistant to tracking across the surface, the creepage distance is a function of the relative tracking index characteristic of the insulation. Where a solid insulation is not subject to pollution, there is no requirement for a creepage distance. Many standards specify that a hermetically sealed assembly is not subject to creepage distance requirements. Likewise, the inner layer of a multi-layer printed wiring board is not subject to pollution and therefore is not subject to creepage distance requirements. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher:
RE: Laser Testing
Check out Ophir Optronics http://www.ophiropt.com/div/laser/index.htm John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:25 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Laser Testing Can someone suggest sources of test equipment for measuring Class 1 to Class 2 LED emissions to EN60825-1 and fiber optic cable emissions to EN60825-2? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ISO 9k/2k relevance
I went through the process at my last employer. I thought it was a good idea. 1) There was traceability in all areas, finance, tech support, sales, RD, purchasing, manufacturing, in short - everywhere. If a problem arose, it was traceable and could be remedied. 2) Better stuff? Perhaps. But there definitely was consistency. If you design junk, you'll at least be consistent in building it. 3) If your vendors have it, you could reduce or in some cases elminate, certain in-coming inspection steps/tests. That in itself saves time/money, and reduces problems. 4) In large RFPs that I dealt with, filling out the huge sections requiring large amounts of information to demonstrate quality/quality assurance practices, design control, etc. were waived if we had ISO certification. Saved A LOT of time, and we stood-out against those that didn't have it. It was an edge. There are many more reasons, but those are just a few of what I feel are key areas. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Brian O'Connell [mailto:boconn...@t-yuden.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:36 AM To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: ISO 9k/2k relevance Good People of the PSTC: I've had some conversations with our Component Engineers, Sales and QA people. I could not identify any customer that placed an order based on our ISO 9k and/or 2k certification. Nor could I identify any component specified and/or purchased that was based on whether a supplier has ISO certification. Is the ISO paper mill relevant? Is there empirical evidence that ISO certification results in better stuff? Is ISO certification a requirement for your purchasing policies? Has ISO certification been a determining or contributing factor for selection of your company's products? At this point, I am not being critical of the ISO process; I am attempting to understand its ROI and relevance to product quality. I speak only for myself; nothing said here represents my employer's policies. R/S, Brian --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Thermal breakers vs magnetic breakers for telecom
Yeah, I had used them . . . once. As they were a lower cost circuit breaker we spec'd them into a telecom system. What we didn't think about was the temperature extremes. For the higher temp tests for NEBS the higher temp breakers were too large and too expensive - for my management anyway. I suppose they could serve a purpose during the fire spread test - power disconnection of chassis. Just a couple of thoughts . . . John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: David Heald [mailto:dhe...@tellium.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:18 AM To: 'EMC_PSTC' Subject: Thermal breakers vs magnetic breakers for telecom Greetings all, In the spirit of the continual quest for cost reduction, I have been asked to look into the use of thermal circuit breakers instead of magnetic ones. It seems like we rejected thermal breakers before for some reason, but now no one can remember why. Does anyone know of any telecom (or general) reasons why thermal circuit breakers may be unacceptable for telecom products? Thanks and Best Regards, Dave Heald --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: A2LA Equivalent
Scott, Here's a couple of accreditation bodies to consider. One is the 'European co-operation of Accreditation' (EA) http://www.european-accreditation.org/ The description from their site: Until now, the branches of European national accreditation bodies have been handled separately by EAC (European Accreditation of Certification) and EAL (European co-operation for Accreditation of Laboratories) concerned with certification bodies or with laboratories. These organisations have joined to form European Accreditation (EA) which now covers all European conformity assessment activities: You may also want to check out ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) http://www.ilac.org/ The United States' NVLAP, and the EA described above are signatories of ILAC. Hope this helps. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of scott@jci.com Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:49 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:A2LA Equivalent To All, What is the European equivalent to A2LA here in the U.S.? Thank you. Best Regards, Scott Mee Johnson Controls Inc. Automotive Systems Group EMC Product Compliance 616.394.2565 scott@jci.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Reassessment of Equipment
That's the justification that I was looking for. Thanks. John -Original Message- From: Russell Beattie [mailto:rb...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:06 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'; John Juhasz Subject: Fwd: Reassessment of Equipment Russell Beattie wrote: List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:58:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Russell Beattie Subject: Reassessment of Equipment To: johnjuh...@ge-interlogix.com John With regard to the reassessment of your equipment which was first assessed several years ago. Quoting directly from the EMC directive, Article 3 Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that apparatus as referred to in article 2 may be placed on the market or taken into service only if it complies with the requirements laid down by this directive when it is properly installed and maintained and when it is used for the purpose for which it is intended Apparatus refers to each and every piece of equipment and not a product range. It applies to a specific, individual piece of equipment when it is placed on the market. Therefore even though your product may have been approved many years ago, if you manufacture new examples they are now required to meet the new, and more stringent requirements in place today in the form of harmonized standards. The EMC Directive IS NOT A TYPE APPROVAL REGIME. There is no Grandfather clause. I hope I may of helped, I was until I came to the USA a competent body in the UK best regards Russ Beattie _ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! http://health.yahoo.com/ Health - Feel better, live better _ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health http://health.yahoo.com/ - Feel better, live better
RE: C-Tick Artwork
Bob, Go to the following URL. There's a link there to 'Downloadable Compliance Marks' http://www.austel.gov.au/standards/index.htm GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:49 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: C-Tick Artwork Does anyone know if Australian C-Tick electronic artwork is publically available for downloading from the Web? I did not find anything on the ACA website. Thank you, Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Ground Fill on Multi-Layer PCBs
If you fill in the voids, take care to make sure you 'stitch' the copper to the ground plane in multiple places. Don't leave it floating, otherwise you'll get cross-coupling and radiated emissions issues. Be liberal in 'stitching' it to the plane. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY Darrell Locke wrote: Group, On two layer boards its always good to fill unused area with ground (signal return) for tight coupling. What about a six layer board with high speed traces sandwiched between two ground/power planes. Should the layer with only signals have ground fill? I don't think it would hurt EMC performance, but is the gain in decoupling worth the extra work? Anyone have expereince with this or know of technical papers on the subject? Thanks Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Two Questions concerning the subject of Laser Safety
Mike, Go to the following link of the CDRH (Center for Devices and Radiological Health). They're the ones to whom the reports will be sent. There are further links to information that will be very useful to you and should answer most of the questions you posed below. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/index.html Simply put, at this moment in the US LEDs are not regulated. But the CDRH will be aligning the regs with Europe (EN 60825) where verification that the LEDs are safe is required. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mda...@c-cor.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 9:59 AM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: Two Questions concerning the subject of Laser Safety 1.Are manufacturers required by the FDA to record serial numbers of Laser modules. Where is this requirement located? Does this apply to photodiodes also? 2.I have a concern of what I need to know about Laser safety but was afraid to ask (because it would cost more than my compliance budget ($0) would allow without manager approval). In other words (what is the second question?... I am getting there.) I am looking to hire a consultant or take a course. My supervisor wants me to create for him a proposal answering the type of questions that support the need to either attend a course or have a consultant educate me or our professionals here so that he can decide whether or not we need to hire a consultant, etc, etc. To keep this short, I will paraphrase by saying that the type of questions he would like to have answered is it worth the expense to getting smart, as engineers and a manufacturer of ITE, in the manufacturing of laser systems? Here is my question... Is there information available that summarizes the responsibilities to Laser Safety of Compliance, Design, Manufacturing, and Test Engineers that manufacture laser systems? You may respond either on or off line. Thanks in Advance! Michael S. Davis Compliance Engineer C-C0R.net Tel: 203.630.5788 Fax: 203.630.5762 mike.da...@c-cor.net --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Side Issue: Proximity Cards in Wallets ...
At my last company, we needed proximity cards to entire the building, and then certain areas within the building. I used to keep mine in my wallet. I never noticed any problems with my credit or bank cards. Most of my colleagues kept their cards in their wallets too, and I don't recall hearing anyone complain. I don't know the mechanism of the cards. The manufacturer was HID. Hope this helps. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:53 PM To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group Subject: Side Issue: Proximity Cards in Wallets ... A proximity card reading security system is used in a company, possibly based on the Wiegand Effect. Some of the employees put their security cards in their wallets to have them all the time. When needing access to an area that requires a card, users simply pull out their wallets, swipe the wallet in front of the reader and thus gain access. For those people with cards in their wallets, they do not pull the security card out of the wallet and then swipe the reader. They all swipe the reader with the wallet. A question was posed to me that involved the swamping of the card with a magnetic field to identify the card. The electronics in the card generates a series of pulses from the pulsed magnetic field that when received by the card reader validate or invalidate the card. Is this field strong enough to wipe any magnetic strips on any credit or bank or any of the other types of cards using magnetic strips that may also be in the wallet? Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: DOC Assembled from tested components
Rocky, While your message indicates that the FCC may not have a problem with the 'assembled from tested components' concept, it does not mean that the end-product will actually meet the limits. Poor routing of internal cables, insufficient grounding, just to mention a couple of items, can cause failures. This is why the EC doesn't have faith CE + CE = CE. Although it may work in some cases, it doesn't compare to actual testing. If you're going to 'mass produce' a particular configuration, take some time and check the emissions. You might surprised what you find. In the long run it doesn't pay to be 'dollar wise and pound foolish'. Just my opinion. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY All, Has anyone successfully issued a DOC using the assembled from tested components method for a personal computer? I have not been able to find a floppy disk drive manufacturer that has any DOC documentation for their device; even the ones marketing directly to home users. Have I just not found the right manufacturer? Best regards, Rocky -)-(- Kenneth P. Gonzalez (Rocky) Intergraph Solutions Group Integrated Products Division 170 Graphics Drive Madison, Alabama, USA 35758 phone (256) 730-2131 fax (256)730-2424 kpgon...@ingr.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
FDA lette rs of Accession - Clarification
I feel my prior message requires clarification: In the last paragraph where I stated that the CDRH sends the review letters 'automatically', I would like to believe that is only in the cases where the CDRH felt the product complied. I would suspect that they wouldn't send a letter with such wording if the product was not compliant. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:06 PM To: 'Gary McInturff'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA lette rs of Accession Regarding the Letters of Accession, Gary is correct, they really serve no useful purpose to the NRTLs. It is merely an acknowledgement that the report was received. The letter that could have 'traction' is the subsequent 'review' letter. That letter in most cases would state: Your product report date MM/DD/YY, accession number XXX, has been reviewed and no further information is required at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. While it is true that the CDRH does not officially 'approve' a product, it is my opinion the review letter conveys acceptance of the demonstration of the product's compliance to 21CFR 1040. I have successfully used these letters with a large NRTL in demonstrating compliance with the radiation clauses in the ITE specs. There was one instance where the NRTL asked to see the report that was supplied to the CDRH, but they didn't discredit it. The CDRH claims that they are under no obligation to send the 'review' letters. They usually do it automatically, but sometimes it 'falls through the cracks ' because they are short-staffed. If you don't receive one in a couple of months after receiving the 'Letter of Accession', call them and ask for one, they'll give you one. My experience, GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Peters, Michael [mailto:mpet...@analogic.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:19 PM To: 'Gary McInturff'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA lette rs of Accession Gary, I cannot comment on question 2) We use the E7415A software with an E7402A EMC Analyzer. The software is useful for the following: 1) Save calibration data for multiple instruments. 2) Program your own limit lines and use the ones pre-installed 3) Multiple setups (antennas, cables, lisns etc.,) 4) When you select a setup and communicate with the analyzer, the limit lines and corrections are loaded into the analyzer. 5) Display multiple traces on the same graphs (log and lin scales). This can assist in determining ambient from emission. 6) Graphs and tables are easily imported to Excel and/or Word (WordPad). 7) Make QP, Peak and Average measurements from computer and compare to limits. Feature 5) is probably the selling point of the software. You can generate an ambient trace and then compare trace(s) of when the equipment is on to quickly determine whether a spike is an emission or not. The caution with this is if emissions fluctuate a great deal. There are ways around this when you become familiar with the software. The license is controlled with a hardware key on the parallel port of the computer. The software will only communicate with an analyzer on the IEEE 488 bus if the key is installed. The software maintains most of its functionality without the key, so you can have a dedicated analyzer PC and then work on the data on another. The only negative I can think of is that the connection is a little slow and sometimes the analyzer gets locked into remote mode. If you end up using the software, be careful with the MAX HOLD and View traces. The software imports the 1 trace. If this is on Max Hold or View and the analyzer span is less/greater than what you set in the software, the graph will repeat the display of the MAX or Viewed trace on the computer display. This will result in an erroneous graph. The data file sizes can be large (5 to 10 MB) if you perform multiple scans. I definitely think you can speed up scans and get more use out of your EMC analyzer with the software. Michael Peters -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:26 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA letters of Accession 1) I believe someone out there commented on using the HP 74XX series analyzer for pre-compliance measurements. Do you also use the additional software that can be purchased? The unit I played with had no additional software, but I could make measurements against limits lines etc, and it factored in the transceiver gains/losses and then allowed me to export a summary sheet for any reports I wanted to generate. What functions and value does the additional software
RE: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA lette rs of Accession
Regarding the Letters of Accession, Gary is correct, they really serve no useful purpose to the NRTLs. It is merely an acknowledgement that the report was received. The letter that could have 'traction' is the subsequent 'review' letter. That letter in most cases would state: Your product report date MM/DD/YY, accession number XXX, has been reviewed and no further information is required at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. While it is true that the CDRH does not officially 'approve' a product, it is my opinion the review letter conveys acceptance of the demonstration of the product's compliance to 21CFR 1040. I have successfully used these letters with a large NRTL in demonstrating compliance with the radiation clauses in the ITE specs. There was one instance where the NRTL asked to see the report that was supplied to the CDRH, but they didn't discredit it. The CDRH claims that they are under no obligation to send the 'review' letters. They usually do it automatically, but sometimes it 'falls through the cracks ' because they are short-staffed. If you don't receive one in a couple of months after receiving the 'Letter of Accession', call them and ask for one, they'll give you one. My experience, GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Peters, Michael [mailto:mpet...@analogic.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:19 PM To: 'Gary McInturff'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA lette rs of Accession Gary, I cannot comment on question 2) We use the E7415A software with an E7402A EMC Analyzer. The software is useful for the following: 1) Save calibration data for multiple instruments. 2) Program your own limit lines and use the ones pre-installed 3) Multiple setups (antennas, cables, lisns etc.,) 4) When you select a setup and communicate with the analyzer, the limit lines and corrections are loaded into the analyzer. 5) Display multiple traces on the same graphs (log and lin scales). This can assist in determining ambient from emission. 6) Graphs and tables are easily imported to Excel and/or Word (WordPad). 7) Make QP, Peak and Average measurements from computer and compare to limits. Feature 5) is probably the selling point of the software. You can generate an ambient trace and then compare trace(s) of when the equipment is on to quickly determine whether a spike is an emission or not. The caution with this is if emissions fluctuate a great deal. There are ways around this when you become familiar with the software. The license is controlled with a hardware key on the parallel port of the computer. The software will only communicate with an analyzer on the IEEE 488 bus if the key is installed. The software maintains most of its functionality without the key, so you can have a dedicated analyzer PC and then work on the data on another. The only negative I can think of is that the connection is a little slow and sometimes the analyzer gets locked into remote mode. If you end up using the software, be careful with the MAX HOLD and View traces. The software imports the 1 trace. If this is on Max Hold or View and the analyzer span is less/greater than what you set in the software, the graph will repeat the display of the MAX or Viewed trace on the computer display. This will result in an erroneous graph. The data file sizes can be large (5 to 10 MB) if you perform multiple scans. I definitely think you can speed up scans and get more use out of your EMC analyzer with the software. Michael Peters -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:26 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: 2 questions. 1) HP software for 7400A analyzers, 2) FDA letters of Accession 1) I believe someone out there commented on using the HP 74XX series analyzer for pre-compliance measurements. Do you also use the additional software that can be purchased? The unit I played with had no additional software, but I could make measurements against limits lines etc, and it factored in the transceiver gains/losses and then allowed me to export a summary sheet for any reports I wanted to generate. What functions and value does the additional software bring to the table.? 2) Does anybody out there get any traction from a Letters of accession that the FDA sends to a optics vendor after receiving a request for a model addition? This letter says nothing useful for NRTL's and always includes This acknowledgement does not constitute approval or the document. The FEDS are disavowing any level of conformity assessment, and the NRTL's I use tell me they can't use it, even for an unrecognized componet, yet the vendors are insistent that I am the only unaccepting curmudgeon in the entire universe. Sorry if you've heard this before but I just can't believe it keeps
RTTE Directive
Having been out of the telecom arena for a few years, I am seeking some clarification on the RTTE Directive as it relates to a single-line, simple, analog POTS unit. With regard to specific testing of the telephone interface, the way I am reading the directive and associated guidance documents on Europa.EU http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/gener.htm it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to 'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21. Testing to those specs is recommended only to ensure that the product works properly when connected to the PSTN and it doesn't harm the network. Am I misunderstanding this? GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102, Bohemia, NY 11716 631-419-2324, Fax: 631-567-8322 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: FCC Contact
Contact the FCC's OET (Office of Engineering and Technology). http://www.fcc.gov/oet/contact/ GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:12 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC Contact Can anyone provide me with phone and/or name contacts for FCC rules interpretation (Parts 15, 18, and 68)? Bob Heller 3M Product Safety, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
FW: Part 15 section numbering
All, I contacted the FCC with regard to Part 15 and only the odd numbered sections. Apparently that's the way it was numbered. Here's the response from FCC. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102, Bohemia, NY 11716 631-419-2324, Fax: 631-567-8322 -Original Message- From: Tom D. Shirley [mailto:tshir...@fcc.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:13 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Subject: Part 15 section numbering Sir, The Part 15 numbering on that web site reflects the numbering in my current, printed version of Part 15. That is the section numbers are 15.1, 15.3, 15.5, 15.7, etc., and doesn't present an even number until it gets to 15.32. It then reverts to odd numbers pretty much throughout, except for an even number here and there, such as 15.204 and again at 15.214. I don't know why it's numbered this way, but nothing is 'missing' from the online version. Y'know, it's odd (sorry) but I never noticed this numbering configuration before you pointed it out. Best regards Tom --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: NEC Question
Steve, To further George's remarks, if you have a product that may be 'custom' or the construction is inconsistent enough to make a general 'listing' by an NRTL unfeasible (more common with industrial products/installations), you may want to consider a 'Field Evaluation' by an NRTL for the product. John Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:16 AM To: sbr...@prodigy.net Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: NEC Question Steve, If the products in question are going into U.S. workplaces, they are bound under the OSHA requirements in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations to be listed by an NRTL, regardless of the locale. Approved NRTLs can be found at: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html#nrtls Note that not all NRTLs are approved to test to all the standards. You can use any approved to test to the standard covering your products. George sbrody%prodigy@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/20/2002 10:57:28 AM Please respond to sbrody%prodigy@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: NEC Question Colleagues: The question was asked if all products sold in the US, specifically industrial products, that plugged into the mains had to be UL Listed. The answer was that not necessarily UL Listed, but according to the NEC they did have to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc., by a 3rd party. The answer went on to say that this was only applicable if the locality in which the product were to be used, and their AHJ, adhered to the NEC and that not all areas of the country adopted and adhered to the NEC. 1. Do you agree with the above responses? 2. How long has the NEC required products to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc.? Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Steve Brody sbr...@prodigy.net --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Conductive Coatings/Conductive Plastic
Thanks to all who responded to my message (below)regarding conductive coatings/conductive plastics. Everyone made some good points. GE Interlogix John Juhasz Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:42 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Conductive Coatings/Conductive Plastic Seeking comment on Conductive Coatings vs. Conductive Plastic Having dealt with metal (primarily steel) enclosures, my knowledge of conductive coatings/conductive plastics is strictly based on what I have been able to gleen from simple research and some conversation. It is my understanding the conductive plastic (metal fibers mixed with the plastic) is less effective at high frequencies ( 200MHz) than plastic with a conductive coating (i.e. electroless plating). Further, from a processing perspective (notwithstanding the shielding effectiveness), if good contact between mating pieces is required, conductive plastic is not a top ranked choice - the amount of fiber that is actually exposed to make contact is difficult to control and filing during product assembly may be required to expose sufficient fiber. And in both cases - SE and physical contact - the preparation (mixing) of the plastic/metal fiber needs to be tightly controlled (and is more difficult to control), with potential for greater variances from to batch to batch than there is for plated plastic. Comments please. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY 11716 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Conductive Coatings/Conductive Plastic
Seeking comment on Conductive Coatings vs. Conductive Plastic Having dealt with metal (primarily steel) enclosures, my knowledge of conductive coatings/conductive plastics is strictly based on what I have been able to gleen from simple research and some conversation. It is my understanding the conductive plastic (metal fibers mixed with the plastic) is less effective at high frequencies ( 200MHz) than plastic with a conductive coating (i.e. electroless plating). Further, from a processing perspective (notwithstanding the shielding effectiveness), if good contact between mating pieces is required, conductive plastic is not a top ranked choice - the amount of fiber that is actually exposed to make contact is difficult to control and filing during product assembly may be required to expose sufficient fiber. And in both cases - SE and physical contact - the preparation (mixing) of the plastic/metal fiber needs to be tightly controlled (and is more difficult to control), with potential for greater variances from to batch to batch than there is for plated plastic. Comments please. GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY 11716 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: (More) Laser Safety Questions
With regards to EN-60825, I would tend to believe (I did not want to say 'assume') that the enforcement parallels the that for CE marking - customs, market surveillance, customer/competitor complaints, etc. In the US I would say it's 'the Feds' - 21CFR 1040 is a 'Code of Federal Regulations'. In this case it would be agents from the FDA. But taking Doug McKean's response into consideration, focusing on OFCS, we can also include NRTLs in enforcement of compliance - at least with respect to the 'initial' compliance of the product. In the ITE standards (950, 1950, 60950) section 4.3.12 references lasers, and notes that equipment shall be so designed that harmful effects to persons and materials affecting safety are prevented . . .or something of that sort. In this case the NRTL (at least the big one that I use) would want to verify this - using 21CFR 1040 and EN 60825 as their guide. I have had to provide not only the 'document received' letter with accession number from the CDRH, but also with the report that I filed. My listing was contingent upon providing that supporting info. If you going to incorporate, and not modify an already classified laser, you would have submit that component manufacturer's supporting data. While perhaps a definitive enforcement 'Agency X' does not exist, there are hurdles that need to be cleared. And considering today's economy, I wouldn't think any of our employers would want to have trouble with 'the Feds'. Just my own opinions . . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Div. of GE Interlogix Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Laser Safety
Yes indeed, Jon makes a good point which I should've mentioned in my response as well (as I have been down this road). If you are fortunate enough to have input with regard to cabling consider specifying fiber optic cables which comply with IEC 794-2 with inherent mechanical protection are considered less likely to break. John Juhasz FIber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Jon Curtis [mailto:j...@curtis-straus.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:23 AM To: Doug Mckean Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Laser Safety Use caution with this approach. IEC 60825-2 is specifically for Optical Fiber Communications Systems (OFCS) and requires the consideration of fiber breaks exposing humans to the laser energy contained within. 60825-2 is referenced in 60825-1 and must be considered for OFCS. Additionally, you need to consider where the fiber goes as a break might occur downstream and expose not only direct users of the equipment. Jon Curtis Curtis-Straus LLC Doug Mckean wrote: Do the acid test type question ... During normal use, what are you exposing the end user to? For instance, with a laser pointer using a Class IIIb laser that emits unprotected from the pointer, the pointer is Class IIIb. If instead, you are using a Class IIIb laser for fiber optic communication and the entire beam is contained within the fiber, no lasing is emitted from the product during normal operation and/or service or maintainance, then you *could* declare the telco product as Class I. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Laser Safety
I tried looking real hard for free downloadable ANSI specs and couldn't find them - I had to buy them. Regarding labelling, there have been efforts (not sure of the status at this time - is there anyone out there who knows?) to harmonize the EN 60825 and 21CFR1040 to make it easier on manufacturers. As the final laser classifications are parallel (it's the methodology that has differences) the FDA, in the interest of manufacturer satisfaction(?) has been allowing the use of the Classification/Warning labels as described in EN 60825. But you still have to add the FDA-CDRH label This product complies with FDA Radiation Performance Standard 21 CFR Subpart J Hope this helps. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mda...@c-cor.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:26 AM To: 'Doug Mckean'; 'John Juhasz'; 'Mark Schmidt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Laser Safety I agree with Doug and with John but, I have the same question. And I will add, Doug is speaking of the FDA-CDRH requirement for the US. But, to ascertain what the European mode is, this requires a single-fault condition for classification as described by John Juhasz. That, I understand. John, is there a free downloadable copy of ANSI Z136.1 and .2 specs? I have used the calculations to determine the classification of a laser based on the no fault and a single fault mode. These lasers are operating in a pulsed mode at a 50% duty cycle. I have attached a sample calculation of a 1310nmn and a 1550nm laser that I used to determine that the lasers either do or do not fall within the Class 1 laser classification. Another question... Can the same label be used for FDA as for IEC? Has anyone had any feedback or problems with laser labels that deviated from recommended markings by the 21 CFR or IEC 825-1? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Laser Safety
Mark, The ANSI spec (in Z136.2) provides specific info for OFCS (Optical Fiber Communications Systems). This specific information relates to, among other things, installation location/product accessibility and personnel exposure/training and marking. ANSI developed 'Service Group'(SG) classifications, with the previously mentioned items lumped-in with the laser Class. For the most part the SG classification tracks the laser Class - Class I = SG1 . . Class 3b = SG3b. Are the installation/service personnel also the end-user/operator? Is there a possibility for the end-user, at any time, access the 3b without much difficulty? If yes, the manual would indeed be an additional place for a statement relating to 3b.. ANSI specifies that in SG3b areas (even if it's inside the product itself) must be marked with a DANGER statement see the spec for details). Also worth noting is that those who will be exposed to Class IIIb - installation or service personnel (which puts the product in the SG3b category) as you noted have to be trained. Only authorized trained personnel shall be permitted to install or perform service on SG3a, SG3b, or SG4 OFCS. In my opinion, whether or not the installers/service/end-user is trained or not (sometimes the trained are worse because they tend to be over-confident and throw caution to the wind) it's worth marking the areas on/in the product as well as putting references in the manual. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:09 AM To: Doug Mckean; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Laser Safety Hi Doug, During normal use the operator could be exposed to Class I. Service personnel and installation would require potential exposure to Class IIIb. Should the operators manual make reference to this. Also, wouldn't you have to warn the operator and service personnel with text in the manual and warning signs in the IIIb compartment of the system ? Thank you, Mark Schmidt Regulatory Compliance X-Rite Incorporated USA (616) 257 2469 mschm...@xrite.com -Original Message- From: Doug Mckean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:17 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Laser Safety Do the acid test type question ... During normal use, what are you exposing the end user to? For instance, with a laser pointer using a Class IIIb laser that emits unprotected from the pointer, the pointer is Class IIIb. If instead, you are using a Class IIIb laser for fiber optic communication and the entire beam is contained within the fiber, no lasing is emitted from the product during normal operation and/or service or maintainance, then you *could* declare the telco product as Class I. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All
RE: Laser Safety
While it is technically possible to have a Class IIIb-capable component laser in a Class I 'system' the path there is not clear cut. Besides the emitter's technical issues (AEL, exposure time, radiant power, wavelength, to name only a few) you have to take in consideration the failure modes of the laser driver circuitry - that Class I limits can be exceeded in event of failure, whether the system is a closed system (beam accessibility during service/normal use), the products installation location and acessbility to unauthorized personnel etc. Your best bet in classifying your 'system' is to look at ANSI Z136.1 and .2 specs. In my opinion (some may disagree) it's a good guide. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:17 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Laser Safety I am trying to gain a better understanding of lasers and I have had some discussion and been told some things that don’t make much sense to me so I am asking the group for some guidance. Here is my question. If the unexpanded raw beam of a Class III b laser was incorporated into a larger system, is then expanded and used in this same system reducing the beam intensity to Class I levels. Would the overall system be classified as Class I ? Thanks. Mark Schmidt Regulatory Compliance X-Rite Incorporated U.S.A. (616) 257 2469 mschm...@xrite.com mailto:mschm...@xrite.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: NEBS Standards
GR-63-CORE Covers the environmental aspects, seismic, office vibration, transportation/handling vibration/shock, temp/humidity - operating/storage extremes, airborne contaminants, fire spread, etc . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Veit, Andy [mailto:andy.v...@mts.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:41 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: NEBS Standards I know that this was recently covered, but I turns out deleted the postings. Can someone tell me what (Bellcore and others?) standards cover the mechanical (shock, vibration) portion of the NEBS tests performed on telecom equipment? Thank you- -Andy Andrew Veit Systems Design Engineer MTS Systems Corp Ph: 919.677.2507 Fax: 919.677.2480 1001 Sheldon Drive Cary, NC 27513 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning?
I'm sure there are products on the market just for this purpose. But I would be concerned about my design if pass/fail depended upon how clean the mating surfaces are. A component substitution or some other ECO to the product down the line could put the product over the limit. Refer to the thread on test margins. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: David Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:44 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Pencil erasers for pre-EMI cleaning? All, I'm preparing for an emissions test and I had started cleaning some of my chassis mating surfaces with a pen/pencil eraser then alcohol to ensure the surface to surface contact was good. A friend then told me that using an eraser would also remove the anti-corrosive coating that was on the metal (Thanks Paul!). So I would end up with a very short term benefit, then rust. What I am trying to determine is if maybe light rubbing with a pencil eraser might only remove surface contaminants and leave the metal and coatings intact. (the pencil eraser is much less abrasive than the pen side) So the real question is... Does anyone have direct good or bad experience with the aftereffects of using a pencil eraser to clean mating edges (card faceplates in a telco box for example)? I have both steel and aluminum surfaces to worry about so info for either type is welcome. (and don't worry the different metal types are not adjacent). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as the system is really dirty right now. Thanks and Best Regards, Dave Heald --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Bellcore LATA
Alex, Go to the following link for Telcordia (formerly Bellcore) and click on 'Document Center'. The LSSGR (Lata Switiching Systems Generic Requirements) are available from there. http://telecom-info.telcordia.com/site-cgi/ido/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Bellcore LATA Hi Group, I am not too familiar with the North American requrements: Our customer has requested Surge Protection testing to the Bellcore LATA Switching General Requirements. 600 Vpk metallic, and 2500 Vpk longitudinal. 1. Are you familiar with this spec? 2. Are these requirements covered in any of the Regulatory Telecomms or Safety specs or is our Customer wanting something beyond the regulatory requirements? 3. How can I get a copy of this standard? Kind Regards Alex McNeil Principal Engineer Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Initial Laser Reports submitions to the CDRH-FDA?
Jorge, Go to the following link and click on 'Lasers, Including Light Show' in the left window and you will see all the information you need to get started properly. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/index.html http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/index.html You can also contact me off-line for further info. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY 631-419-2324 -Original Message- From: jsarell...@tuvam.com [mailto:jsarell...@tuvam.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:36 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Initial Laser Reports submitions to the CDRH-FDA? Hello Group, Does anyone know what is the procedure to follow for laser report submittals to the CDRH? this is not a medical laser. It conforms to laser classification Class I. any comments, advice is appreciated. Regards, Jorge Sarellano TUV PRODUCT SERVICE Compliance Engineer Phone 408-919-3744 Fax 408-919-0585 Visit http://www.tuvam.com http://www.tuvam.com and discover the new CEU Mark, multiple markets one solution!
RE: Different shades of UL
try this Chris. It'll explain all. http://www.ul.com/mark/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:40 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: Different shades of UL Hi all, I know that this has been covered before. But please indulge my ignorance. There are many different forms of UL marks, each with subtle differences. There is the UL in a circle. There is also the mirror lettered RU. There are also some subscripts denoting approval for Canada as well. There may be some other variations that I can't remember. Anyone care to blow a few minutes on a Friday afternoon to explain which symbol means what? Thanks, Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Manufacturer's I.D. for Europe
Also in the US (with UL anyway) there's 'Multiple Listing' where the re-seller's identity is displayed but the manufacturer's is shielded from the public, however it's traceable thru UL. In my personal opinion, the method in Europe where the final reseller is the responsible party is a double-edged sword. a. After the initial manufacture, there could be value-added modifications by a reseller that in theory could compromise the end-product's compliance therefore the manufacturer should not be responsible. b. Turns out the product's design had some safety-compromising flaws that became apparent after some time of use. Why should the final reseller be responsible? (But he can always take the manufacturer thru litigation). Tough call. This can be debated endlessly, with numerous valid points on bothe sides. My opinion only . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:52 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Manufacturer's I.D. for Europe What are your thoughts on this issue? The prevailing ITE safety standards (e.g. IEC 60950) require markings that include the manufacturer's name, trademark, or identification mark (section 1.7.1). It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to allow another company to market their products under the 2nd company's logo. Often the 2nd company will retain the certified machine model/type number, but prefers no reference to the original manufacturer, including on the power rating label. In the U.S., manufacturer identification marks can be listed by UL in their Yellow Books. For example, in the case above, the original manufacturer's identity can be preserved by the use of a listed graphic, which is not obvious to someone buying the product through the 2nd company. In addition, the use of agency file numbers with their marks maintains traceability to the original manufacturer. However, in Europe, I am not aware of any means by which manufacturer's identification marks can be registered or listed. In addition, European safety agency marks are not required to be accompanied by file numbers etc. Therefore, replacement of the original manufacturer's name and/or logo with that of a 2nd party obscures any traceability to the original manufacturer. This may be acceptable, for as I understand it, the EU holds the responsible party as being the one placing the product on the market, i,e, not the original manufacturer. George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: CE - the abbreviation
The way I understood it since the 'EC 1992' hype is as Alan noted below. However, I think the more important meaning is: 'I have a job'. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 3:37 AM To: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: CE - the abbreviation Hi Amund I have always understood it to mean Conformite Europeenne. And that it indicates that the manufacturer has satisfied all assessment procedures specified by law for its product. It is not of course a quality mark. Alan E Hutley www.compliance-club.com - Original Message - From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 7:39 PM Subject: CE - the abbreviation Hi all, We had a short discussion last autumn about the abbreviation of 'CE'. Did we conclude that the characters CE didn't mean anything? I have seen papers recently that says CE is 'Communauté Européen', but we did conclude that it was incorrect, didn't we ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ITE Class A vs B Emissions
Although it can be argued that my products are Class A, we design our products to meet Class B. I have had the occassion where I was at the limit and was under pressure to release the product that I have taken Class A. Primarily we've designed for Class B as a 'specmanship' game with the competitors who mostly have Class A. Additionally I believe there's still debate in Europe that unless your product is 'heavy'industrial, it should be Class B - this reinforces my desire toward avoiding Class A entirely. I am certain the Class B will prevail. As a Boy Scout leader I believe in the scout motto 'Be Prepared'. I believe the push to ensure Class B for other than 'heavy' industrial, results from the fact that real estate is (or is becoming) a premium in many areas in Europe and you find 'light' industrial directly in a residential environment. This is even apparent within many metropolitan areas in the U.S. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY - Original Message - From: richwo...@tycoint.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: ITE Class A vs B Emissions We currently design our products to comply with the Class B emissions limits of EN 55022, but I am getting a lot of pressure from engineering to allow the limits to be raised to Class A. The equipment is intended for business use only. I understand that Class A is legal in the EU for business equipment, and our customers don't seem to understand or care if the equipment is Class A or B. So, the question is this - Are you successful in marketing your business ITE as Class A? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Pollution Degree vs. Creapage Distance
Just some anecdotal info . . . There was an occassion at a previous employ where, due to a brief mental hiccup on the part of several folks, a printed circuit get fabricated with not enough spacing (damn close though to the required) between a mains trace and secondary in an internal layer for a card-cage backplane. The discussion that ensued with knowledgable folks at a well-known NRTL brought forth the following: a) Extra tests - thermal aging and thermal cycling tests need to be performed. Time consuming and expensive. b) Tight quality control on the part of the fabricator to ensure layer dimensions, adhesion, etc. Reduces flexbility to change vendors at a moment's notice. c) Routine electric strength testing by us. In short, they noted that while possible, it is difficult to maintain the pollution degree 1 in a printed circuit. Typically the pollution degree is applied to 'potted' items. Taking all into consideration it was easier for us (and less expensive) to respin the board. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:50 PM To: rbus...@es.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Pollution Degree vs. Creapage Distance In a message dated 1/31/2002, Rick Busche writes: Does the application of a solder mask allow for a change from pollution degree 2 to pollution degree 1? I understand that conformal coating requires significant testing when used to reduce spacings per table 7, but in this case I am only asking if solder mask can be used to improve the pollution concern. Hi Rick: You do not mention which standard you are looking at, but if it is one of the IEC 950 derivatives there are some clauses that specifically address the questions you have. For example, in EN 60950, Third Edition, clause 2.10.5.3 addresses printed circuit boards, and clause 2.10.6 addresses solder mask. To the extent you can use inner layers, clause 2.10.5.3 should provide you some of the relief you seek. I have not ever tried to qualify a solder mask under clause 2.10.6 due to the burden of the additional tests, but you may want to consider it. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Pacemaker
My mother has a variable-rate pacemaker. Pacemaker manufacturers typically have a list of caveats including use of/proximity to certain electronics. It varies with manufacturers. Check with the manufacturer of the particular pacemaker. (PS: I would doubt anyone would answer this question directly as yes or no, lest they be sued for loss of life). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Pacemaker From: Cecil A. Gittens If someone has a pacemaker and wants to use a APS Camera with an internal clock 8MHz on the main CPU circuit board. My question is it safe for that person to use the APS Camera --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: RF immunity 1-2GHz
I have to agree with Peter - just because it passes in one band doesn't mean it will pass in another. For argument's sake in one instance, consider the loop area of a signal and it's return - it's effective at specific frequencies/frequency bands. Also consider why the new standard(s) added the higher frequency range - perhaps there were reports of/or concerns that products compliant at 800-1000 are now failing when in proximity to products emitting in the 1-2GHz range. Can't see the argument against testing. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: FLOWERDEW, Peter [mailto:peter.flower...@plantronics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RF immunity 1-2GHz I have been 'hardening' headsets and amplifiers to meet the 80 to 1000MHz, 1KHz 80% AM modulation requirements in EN55024, 3V/m. As our product lives on peoples desks we undertook to also provide immunity to mobile phones. We covered 900MHz, 1.8GHZ, 1.9GHz and 2.45GHz switched key modulation at 200Hz 1/8 pulse ratio, 10V/m to 3V/m. These higher frequency tests were MUCH more difficult to meet than the regulatory ones. The response of a system to signals in any particular frequency band just can not normally be predicted from the response to those in some other frequency band. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [ mailto:am...@westin-emission.no mailto:am...@westin-emission.no ] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RF immunity 1-2GHz RF immunity testing in the frequency range 80-1000MHz has been common in EU for several years. Now, new standards also include testing in the 1-2GHz band (3V/M or 10V/m, 1kHz sine, 80% AM) We have done a lot of testing in the 80-1000MHz band and quite often the EUTs failed. We have also done some testing in the 1-2GHz band, but never managed to disturb the EUTs in that manner so it fails (10V/m). What is your experience with RF immunity testing in 1-2GHz band ? Do the EUT fail? On one specific product we have tested 80-1000MHz (no failure) and emission testing 30-1000MHz (almost quiet, 20 dB margin). With these two tests performed, is it possible to assume that we will pass the immunity 1-2GHz test ? The answer might be, test it and verify, but we would like to argue that this test is not necessary to conduct, because to our previous experience with RF immunity. Many of your might not like this approach . so be aware, this is just a question. Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: surges on 24VAC
If the 24V AC is generated via a Class II Direct Plug-In power pack, wouldn't the test be run 'through' the power pack - the power pack plugged into the outlet on the surge tester? The power pack runs off of AC Mains. For argument sake, what's the difference of that scenario as compared to having to test a product which is configured with an IEC 320 power entry module through which a 24V AC transformer inside the product receives it's AC Mains? The functional circuit operates off of 24V AC, but the primary power is AC Mains - whether it's supplied through a line cord/power entry module combo or a direct plug-in transformer. My opinion only . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mavis, Robert [mailto:rma...@pelco.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:46 PM To: Jennifer Banh; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: surges on 24VAC The AC Mains test is just that AC Mains. The Definition of AC mains is basically what comes out of the wall. Since the product is 24VAC it falls under low voltage/signal lines. Test is as a signal line. -Original Message- From: Jennifer Banh [mailto:jb...@bb-elec.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:44 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: surges on 24VAC Hello everyone, I am currently trying to test a product of ours that falls under 50082-1 generic standard for light industrial equipment. Our problem is that we have a 24VAC power input port. The generic standard calls out for EN 61000-4-5 on AC power input ports. After looking at EN 61000-4-5 it seems that it is intended for AC mains voltages, but I couldn't find anything that says a 24VAC input is exempt from this test. I am looking for outside opinions on whether this test is truly applicable. Thanks, Jennifer Banh BTW, we already tried just testing to the spec, and failed. Any suggestions on how to protect against this test would also be appreciated. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Non-compliant product put into EU marked
Hmmm . . . Sounds to me that due to the limited marketing of the product, the manufacturer doesn't want to absorb the expense of compliance testing. Generally speaking, while a compliant test report (especially from a good independent lab)holds weight, as has been noted on several occassions testing is not the only route. Can the manufacturer produce justification that the original compliance has not been affected by the modifications? It doesn't appear to me that the manufacturer is TOTALLY ignorant, just lazy. As they are not applying the mark, they cannot be accused of falsley claiming compliance - but that doesn't absolve them from having to comply with the Directives applicable to their product. IMHO they're playing with fire . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY (The opinions expressed here, for what they're worth, are mine alone) -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:33 PM To: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Is the manufacturer serious, or completely ignorant? If serious, I would disassociate from them as much as possible. If merely ignorant, and you have some sort of association with them, I would recommend that you educate them fully. Another thought, -- is this product slated for mass distribution, even for only a month, or is it going to another location or a particular customer for some special in-house use or application? What does this customer think? Are they aware, and do they agree to this? The Directives do have special provisions for certain special applications where non-compliant (or is it merely untested !) product can be shipped to Europe, but I believe that under those circumstances, the name of the manufacturer and product model name or designation has to be published broadly in the EU. I don't remember the details. If anyone can shed more light, that would be very nice. taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Non-compliant product put into EU marked Hi all, You place a radio product into the EU marked with the following status: - Not been EMC, radio or safety tested (the previous model was tested and compliant, major modifications have later been implemented) - The product will only be in the marked for a time limiting period ( 1 month) - During the time limiting period it will be operating as in a normal condition - No CE mark on the product and no DoC I mean that you can't do this. You have to confirm that you fulfil the EMC, radio and safety requirements, DoC in place, even that the product just will be in the marked for 1 month and thereafter withdrawal. Any other comments from the list members ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
WEEE Directive
I am trying to find a link to the draft of the actual WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directive. What I found thus far at the following link is the proposal FOR developing the Directive, not the actual draft itself. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/00347_en.htm Does anyone have a link to the actual draft Directive? What is the proposed implementation date? Thanks. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Interesting thread . . . At the companies for which I managed the regulatory programs over the last 20 years, it has always been engineering's responsibility to release to production a compliant product,and I have always been a member of the engineering department. In the early days, before regualtory compliance became the industry that it is now, it was basically 'putting out the fires' after formal evaluation. After a couple of costly rework projects, 'design for compliance' became my mantra, and I have been able to carry that along to other companies as well. And fortunately for me, it has been well received. As part of the design team, I am able review all product designs before and during the prototype stage and provide guidance/input as necessary. Each time I announce that the product passed the first time (don't get me wrong, I do have the occassional 'gotcha') it gets easier to justify the 'design for compliance' concept. It's a lot more difficult to cost-effectively rework a product. So, besides making my job easier (and the cognizant design engineer's as well), 'design for compliance' does save costs in the long run. Additionally, as part of the corporation's quality team providing the opportunity to ensure continued compliance. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:15 PM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals My personal experience agrees with John. I prefer to work with Engineering and reporting someplace in Engineering;-- it makes my job easier when compliance is designed right from the very beginning rather than be responsible later to get it past agencies. At that point, it suddenly became my problem when it did not comply! When I told management that they should fix things before we submitted the product formally, the response was let's see what the agency will do This left me frustrated and embarrassed my ego. If you catch things in the very beginning, engineering is usually amenable to changing things. Later, it is very difficult and, obviously, much more costly. taniagr...@msn.com mailto:taniagr...@msn.com - Original Message - From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:48 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and Product Approvals I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Werlwas mark.werl...@home.com wrote (in 006701c1782b$69f56020$6401a...@frmt1.sfba.home.com) about 'Quality Assurance and Product Approvals', on Wed, 28 Nov 2001: On the aspect of the where to put Product Safety/Compliance in the organization discussion bears mentioning on the forum. In general I advocate that the Product Safety/Compliance department be separate from Engineering, Sales, and Operations. The Safety/Compliance group should avoid conflicts of interest (real or apparent) that may arise in the above mentioned groups. Even the occasional appearance of a conflicting interest can undermine the credibility of the Safety/Compliance team. But this militates strongly against 'designing-in compliance', and is very liable to create a 'them and us' conflict between Design Engineering and Compliance. The *maintenance* of compliance in manufacture is a Quality function. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CE-mark compliance
In the past I had been involved with integration of standalone products into a larger system. Ultimately my larger system would be required to be tested, and I would want it to pass. As the customer who would integrate production quantities of the standalone, I asked for the report. Those that tested their products sent it - those that didn't . . . lost a sale. In that manner, I reduced the possibility of integrating a product which could create failure that I would have to deal with. I suppose the question would be - what is acceptable risk for you? John Juhasz -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:46 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CE-mark compliance Hi all, Do all manufactures fulfill the EU-directives with testing in their own facilities or by an independent test lab? I guess the answer must be No. From my time working in a test lab, my experience is that big companies like Alcatel, Siemens and so on, do the required testing according to relevant requirements. I also got the feeling that small companies (I do not generalize) where a bit laid-back and often put the CE-mark into the products without any tests or with a very limited test process. Should a system builder trust a Declaration of Conformity from a big manufacturer, without asking for test reports in order to verify compliance with relevant directives ? Would you sleep well at night, if you only trusted the CE-mark 100% and build a large broadband telecom system only based on the CE-mark without any further documentation? What is your opinion? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: ULC vs. CUL
Joe, The ULC mark is describe at the following link. http://www.ulc.ca/marks.asp http://www.ulc.ca/marks.asp John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: bur...@andovercontrols.com [mailto:bur...@andovercontrols.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:18 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ULC vs. CUL Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL. Does anyone know the difference between these two marks? Your help is always appreciated. Thanks, Joe Josiah P. Burch Compliance Engineer II Andover Controls Corporation 300 Brickstone Square Andover,Ma 01810 (978)-470-0555 x335 (978)-470-3615 Fax
RE: Varient Model on Fcc.
I think what the question is here is not so much as 'Class' of emission levels I think he is refering to an OEM product. He is buying completed/fully-functional product A and will market it as product B. They are one in the same. His question is whether he can use (transfer) the FCC ID issued to product A on the marketed product B. I would like to know the same . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Don Rhodes [mailto:don.rho...@infocus.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 11:23 AM To: 'Jong Ho,Lee'; EMC-PSTC; EMC-PSTC Subject: RE: Varient Model on Fcc. Tommy, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. If you're asking if a Product which is labeled as Class A can be relabeled as a Class B product because they look the same, the answer is no. The product must be properly retested to assure its compliance with the Class B limits and then you must have a test report approved by the FCC. I have little doubt that if the two really were the same they would be labeled differently. Secondly, the FCC ID is a means of identifying the manufacturer. Therefore, unless your company is the holder of the FCC ID in question, I suggest you ask the printer manufacturer the question you're posing to the group. Respectfully, Don Rhodes EMC Engineering InFocus Corp. -Original Message- From: Jong Ho,Lee [mailto:upu...@samsung.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 PM To: EMC-PSTC; EMC-PSTC Subject: Varient Model on Fcc. Hi folk. A model has Fcc ID.It is Printer. Our buyer sale A model product to maket as B . There are not differnt between A and B. So I will use same Fcc ID on buyer model. Is it possible? If not,How can I do for get Fcc ID ? Best regards. Tommy --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: HiPot testing of DC mains powered products
If you conduct the functional tests of the chassis with the DC cable that ships with it, then it's not much of a hassle and you know that the whole package is fine. If you merely insert the cable during packing for shipment, consider doing a hi-pot on the cable itself on it's production line. Personally, I would prefer to test both, whether it was together or not. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 10:36 AM To: EMC-PSTC Internet Forum Subject: HiPot testing of DC mains powered products Hi all, I have a question. I have a 48VDC powered product which will be hipot and ground continuity tested off of the production line in order to maintain agency certification. The product uses D-shaped three pin power connector. (Same size as a DB15, but has three large power pins instead of 15 signal pins). When we sell the unit, we pack it with an accessory kit which includes a 15' cable assembly terminated with the mate to the product's power connector. So, essentially, we sell the unit with a DC mains cable that we make. Now, where should the hipot test be performed? Should I make a test cable assembly for the hipot/ground bond tester which is terminated with the proper connector so that the tester can plug directly into the chassis? This would essentially test the chassis only. (because we would use this same test cable for every unit) Or Should I take each unit and connect the DC mains cable to be shipped with it, then apply the hipot/ground bond probes to the other end of the DC mains cable? This would test the entire system including the chassis and the cable. In my mind, this question comes up because we are making a custom mains cable for this DC product. It is different than AC products; because, with AC products, we can test the chassis by itself and assume that the mains cable is OK because we buy mains cables that have been previously hipot/ground bond tested by their manufacturers. Any words of wisdom? Thanks, Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC stan dards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query
A . . . naiveté! I remember those days . . . Break it to him/her gently. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:54 PM To: Ken Javor; Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query You are right ??? May I add the following quoted part of an email inquiry we received today from one reputable USA manufacturer I received today in my mail box : QUOTE I apologize for the delay in responding back to you, but my boss is informing me that we simply have to fill out the EC Type Declaration of Conformity and put the label on it. The system will then be ok to send out. No documentation is needed until the system itself is questioned by the authorities or the customer. If we do get questioned, what sort of documentation will I need. Especially if I have not got the system officially tested. END QUOTE ?? This is maybe just because their own philosophy about safety and spectrum protection exceeds the requirements of current standards .. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 6:05 PM To: Gregg Kervill; 'John Woodgate'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query My opinion only. There was a time when the reputation of a manufacturer or business in general was a very important part of the success of that company, and the honesty and integrity of that company, extending to high quality products, was the major part of a good reputation. That is part of a free-market economy. The rationale behind immunity standards (indeed, gov't enforced emission standards) is that the free-market place does not work and it is more efficient to impose external political control. This is untrue a priori but becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: once you impose rigid governmental standards industry-wide, there is nothing to be gained by exceeding the standard performance and everything to be gained by finding ways to meet these limits in the most cost-effective way. In effect, industry-wide standards tend to make what might have been a unique product into a commodity to be purchased from the lowest priced vendor. In this way, gov't imposed standards are are an assault on the integrity of the marketplace and ultimately justify their imposition by destroying the integrity that previously existed, while destroying the perception of individual integrity on the part of the consumer. Here is a simple example that works in the USA. Sometime in the 1930s the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was formed to insure bank deposits. Banks still like to boast about how strong they are, but for the average depositor the strength of the bank (the quality of their loans) is a moot point of little or no interest. If the bank goes bust, they are insured by the Fed. One bank looks pretty much like another to the average depositor. -- From: Gregg Kervill gkerv...@eu-link.com To: 'John Woodgate' j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Have we lost something? was John Woodgate - RE: New EMC standards; now CISPR24/EN55024 query Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2001, 9:20 AM I agree whole heartedly with John's point.And while deliberation may not always be a bad thing, a lack of immunity in an industrial computer must always be a bad thing, and very possibly a BAD THING! -- However it is not so much a lack of standards but a lack of will and commitment to Quality designs that I believe is the problem. Back in the dark ages - long ago - one of my design jobs was with a company making industrial photo-electric controls. We checked out emissions on all of our products using a LW/MW/VHF radio and a TV. We checked out susceptibility by wiring a BIG contactor as a buzzer and put x-y caps between the open contact end of the coil and ground and neutral. IT wiped out radios for about 50 feet! (But was only used sparingly maybe less than 30 seconds a month) GOOD - meant the unit continued to function normally. That was my EMC practice during the 1970's. Product Safety followed a similar pattern Later I worked in a larger company that employed a few sages; although they may have been a little past their prime in terms of innovation they were wonderful mentors and ensured
RE: FDA
How about trying the basics, definitions: FDA = Food Drug Administration FCC = Federal Communications Commission I think that's a pretty good indication of the differences. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Colgan, Chris [mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:43 AM To: 'am...@westin-emission.no'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: FDA The very basic difference is that the FDA are safety related and the FCC EMC related. Both have very comprehensive websites http://www.fda.gov/ http://www.fcc.gov/ Regards Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [SMTP:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 26 October 2001 10:15 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA Hi all, What is the basic differences between FDA and FCC ? Don't laugh, yes I know it is a silly question, but if you want to certify medical equipment, are the requirements covered in the FDA or in the FCC regulations ? As you understand, within this field, I'm a really novice ... Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
EFT Failures..Solved! - Part Substitution
I have made it a requirement here that the Compliance/Regulatory/Homologation/Approval Liaison engineer sign-off all engineering change orders (ECOs). There is such a space on the ECO form. (This is from my earlier days as a BABT Approval Liaison Eng. - ALE- where BABT required this of telecom companies). Additionally, 'Substitution Request Forms' that purchasing has to fill-out (and supply a sample and data sheet) at least minimizes surprises. While it is nearly impossible to fully retest the product every time a minor component change is made, it at least raises a flag and for critical components the appropriate tests are made in addition to reviewing data sheets. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Jacob Schanker [mailto:schan...@frontiernet.net] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:10 PM To: Alex McNeil; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EFT Failures..Solved!+ ESD symbol question Alex: Good Show. I am curious as to HOW the unfamiliar manufacturer's driver got into your product. It seems this was a costly substitution in terms of time and lab fees. I wonder if you are a victim of the Purchasing as a Profit Center Syndrome. This is the characteristic of too many organizations, where the purchasing agent has the authority (or takes it) to make parts substitutions on the basis of lower cost, or sometimes, social relationships. I've seen many cases of equivalent or as good as parts that were anything but. I shudder at the engineering hours I have seen wasted due to substitutions. The best approach I can offer is that parts should have approved and released engineering drawings which cannot be changed except by going through a formal change control process - which engineering either controls or participates in. Purchasing cannot purchase parts from a vendor who is not approved on the part drawing, except at their own career risk. Engineering change notices (a.k.a. Design change notices DCN) should require the approval, in some fashion, of the EMC and homologation person in the organization. I have used a check box on ECNs which say: _may affect EMC/EMI __ may affect approvals/homologation or something to that effect. This lets the originator do the alerting, and hopefully actually think about the broader implications of a change that is being contemplated. I'm sure that others on this forum have their own approaches, either personal or organizational. Perhaps they will share them. One last remark, and this applies also to vendors who change parts but not part numbers. An example being the smaller die sizes of FETs being discussed here lately. I have always found it helpful to keep a S-H-one-T list (SH1T) of rogue vendors not to buy from, and freely share the list with engineers and, yes, even purchasing. Cheers, Jack Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. 65 Crandon Way Rochester, NY 14618 Phone: 716 442 3909 Fax: 716 442 2182 j.schan...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: FCC Class A and Class B testing
Cecil, Cost here is not the issue. Market is the issue. If the product is put on the retail consumer market then it has to be Class B (requires an FCC ID number as well). If sales are limited to commercial (the average consumer could not obtain one) then Class A. If the sales will not be so restricted, then you will have to go Class B. John Juhasz FIber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: cecil.gitt...@kodak.com [mailto:cecil.gitt...@kodak.com] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:15 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FCC Class A and Class B testing From: Cecil A. Gittens I am in process in creating an EMC test plan for a Photo Color Printer that will be sold for about $1200.00. My question is can I test this product for either FCC Class A or B? Does the cost of a product matters if it is Class A or B for the US market? Cecil --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: UL - marking - gentle warning not to extrapolate.
Chris, The use of a 'generic' UL mark, in the case of ITE products, is not possible. As was noted in an earlier thread about the mark, a proper UL mark consists of 4 elements (as per the Listing Mark Data Page in your FUS procedure): 1) The UL Logo 2) The word 'Listed' 3) A 4 digit alphanumeric 'control number' OR the Applicant/Listee's file number 4) The product identity (i.e. I.T.E., NWGQ, etc). The control number (or File number) is used to identify the manufacturer. The control number is typically issued when the manufacturer provides a drawing on how the Mark will be depicted on the product. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:25 PM To: Gregg Kervill; am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: UL - marking - gentle warning not to extrapolate. This thread brings up a question that I have been wondering about. Amund's question dealt with a product that had the UL label and a file number. The file number was used to identify the manufacturer. My understanding of the response that Amund received is that this identification is adequate My question is: Does the file number need to be on the label? Can the manufacturer leave the file number off of the label and simply put a generic UL (or CSA) mark on the product along with their nameplate identifying the manufacturer, model and serial number? If this can be done, are there any sources for pre-printed UL and/or CSA labels? I'd especially be interested in one with the CSA mark and the C US subscript denoting dual UL/CSA certification. These days, management likes using less custom parts and saving money. Even if it's labels :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Steel ball for impact tests
Don's message brings up a key consideration for any type of test that is performed - repeatability. If you can't repeat the results, you need to re-evaluate your methodology. For instance, in the event you had a failure, it would be difficult to determine if your fix actually worked. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; sco...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests Scott, You had indicated that A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. . . I also used to test bombs away, somewhat as a sport to see how close I could come to the desired spot. We had an interesting experienced that permanently changed our approach. We had a device with a plastic enclosure with re-enforcing ribs in various locations. When we eyeballed the drop, we would miss critical spots by 1/2. Didn't seem like much at the time, until we discovered that with the tube, we could hit exactly the critical spot and observed that the enclosure failed unsafely (and repeatably), i.e., hazardous voltages were exposed. This is something you want to discover prior to having a NRTL witness or perform the test. Searching for a new sport, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: Scott Lacey[SMTP:sco...@world.std.com] Reply To: Scott Lacey Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 5:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Steel ball for impact tests To the group: Having monitored some of the discussion on this thread, I thought that I would weigh in with some of my experience with this test. The purpose of the test is to subject the E.U.T. to a specific force of impact from a hard steel impactor (ball) of known radius. The surface should be smooth to avoid subjecting the E.U.T. to additional point stress (the center punch effect). Anything else is frosting on the cake. It does not matter whether the ball is dropped or swung, as long as the force is consistent and the E.U.T. is firmly mounted. A ball bearing is perfect for the job. A typical chrome steel ball is more than hard enough to meet the specification. If the weight is a little off just raise or lower the drop height to compensate. An eyebolt is nice but not really needed. The reason the official balls cost so much is the difficulty of machining the ball for the bolt, and the fact that these are very low volume items. A trailer hitch ball will also work without modification. Just weigh it, calculate the drop height, hold it by the threaded bit and bombs away. A tube is nice but not needed if you can drop the weight accurately. The idea of standing on a chair is excellent as a 1kg ball can make a serious bruise! I would also recommend padding the floor (except under the E.U.T.) with cardboard or carpeting scraps so the ball won't get all scratched up. If you really must have an eyebolt and don't want to spend the money thread a flanged nut onto an eyebolt and epoxy it onto the ball with a steel-filled epoxy (common at auto parts stores). It may break off occasionally but you can just re-epoxy it. Just degrease all the parts before gluing and it works surprisingly well. Have Fun Scott Lacey --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Importing to Australia with a twist
Dave, An Australian presence is required - by the entity which will market/sell the product to Australian end-users. That is also the same individual who will need to register with the ACA (Australian Communications Authority) in order to apply the C-Tick mark to the products. Here's a link for you - http://www.austel.gov.au/standards/index.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Dave Heald [mailto:davehe...@mediaone.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:19 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Importing to Australia with a twist Greetings all, I have an unusual question. Say my company was to sell an IT product to a North American or European client who then would place the product in Australia. We meet all of the EMC Safety requirements for Australia and have documentation, but here is the difficulty: Does my company need an agent/representative in Australia, or would our client suffice for these purposes? Also, do I need to register or otherwise apply with Australia before applying the C-Tick mark? (I assume yes but have been unable to find contact information) Best Regards, Dave Heald --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CFR requirements for the workplace
Good stuff. For further info, here's a link I use often to explain. http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, Long Island, NY UNITED States of America -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:36 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Patricia Knudsen (EWU) Subject: Re: CFR requirements for the workplace Patty, Here is a little something that I put together previously to give to some of our folks when they asked the same question. I found it has saved a lot of time in having to present it every time I'm asked the question. (See attached file: Why NRTL Required - Generic.doc) Oscar (The usual disclaimer as related to my opinions and my employer.) Patricia Knudsen (EWU) ewupael%am1.ericsson...@interlock.lexmark.com on 09/14/2001 11:37:56 AM Please respond to Patricia Knudsen (EWU) ewupael%am1.ericsson...@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: CFR requirements for the workplace Does anyone know the specific section of the CFR that refers to equipment at the workplace (specifically computer or test equipment) being Listed by a NRTL? Patty Knudsen Sr. Regulatory Engineer Ericsson Wireless Communications (858) 332-5014 patricia.knud...@ericsson.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: CE Mark
I have kept this link handy in case anyone ever asked me what CE stood for. http://www.conformance.co.uk/CE_MARKING/CELOGO/ce_logo.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Jody Leber [mailto:jle...@ustech-lab.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 7:31 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: CE Mark Is there an offcial website that defines what the CE actually stands for? I believe it is Conformite Europeene, however I have seen other definitions. I seached the europa site but did not have any luck. Best Regards, Jody Leber Laboratory Manager jle...@ustech-lab.com http://www.ustech-lab.com U. S. Technologies 3505 Francis Circle Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.740.0717 Fax: 770.740.1508 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: UL approval IT equipment
I've been down this road . . . The power supply will have to go through the approval process too, including multiple samples of the magnetics, providing drawings, etc . . . You will also have to a) have the manufacturer put a 'freeze' on the design of the unit (it's now a 'custom unit' for you) OR b) have them update you on all the engineering changes and you have to coordinate the changes with UL. It's painful process in either regard. It'll be easier to have the manufacturer hold the approval and let them be responsible for it. Just my opinion . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:08 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL approval IT equipment What about this one: We want our IT product to be UL approved. We purchase a modified power supply (PS) which is not UL appoved. The original PS is UL approved. The only difference in the PS is the value of one resistor which means that we now can take 2.3A/28VDC out instead of 1.9/28VDC. It exist av TUV CB report on the original PS. A local test lab tells us that thay can approve the total IT product (including the PS), but I feel we can get trouble with UL during the audits (4 times a year). Am I right ? Best regard Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: ENV 50121-5
ENV 50121-5 Fixed Power Installations for Railway Applications http://www.yorkemc.co.uk/Technical/Tins/tin6.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) [mailto:daniel.bi...@gefanuc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:59 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' (E-mail) Subject: ENV 50121-5 I am looking for a short description of ENV 50121-5. What does it cover? What tests does it specify? What limits does it specify for tests? Thanks, DB --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: Infineon contact
Peter, Try UL's Certifications Directory. You can search by Company Location or File Number . . . http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/index.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:02 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Infineon contact Someone ... anyone ... I am looking for a contact within Infineon (formerly Siemens) who is responsible for their optical transceivers. I have been dealing with staff at their local sales agents and they have proven incapable of providing me with a UL Recognition report. Can anyone help? Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina Homologation Services peter.tar...@sanmina.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Conductive Coatings
Greetings . . . Beginning to consider conductive coatings for EMC shielding. To be used inside a plastic cover (material as yet unknown) in a low power/voltage (SELV) application. This is unfamiliar territory. I'm sure someone on this listserv has experience with these. I know to at least consider shielding effectiveness, material compatibility (plastic housing material to coating), and end-user environment. What are some other critical criteria? Thanks. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engineer Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 631-419-2324 (direct) Fax: 631-567-8322 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Hot Chassis?
Nice e-mail 'schematic' !! That's a first . . . for me! John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:37 PM To: dpie...@openglobe.net Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Hot Chassis? Hi Dan: with a three prong NA cord set. I have found that if I bypass the earth ground plug I can measure a 80 VAC potential from my chassis to earth This is normal. Consider the circuit: L o- 120 V rms | | 2200 pf - - | | o--- ~60 V rms | | (depending on the | | tolerances of the 2200 pf - | capacitors) - | | | | | N o---)- 0 V rms | | PE o (open) | | | - / / / The capacitors form a 2:1 voltage divider. So, if the chassis is not grounded, then about 1/2 of the supply voltage appears on the chassis. (You need a 10-megohm input meter to measure this voltage; otherwise, the meter impedance affects the measurement.) The current is: I = E / Xc Xc = 1/(2*pi*f*C) = 1.206 megohms (for 60 Hz) I = 120/(1.206 x 10*6) or ~100 uA This confirms what the manufacturer told you. grounded bench and got zapped. Is there guidelines regarding this? I see the UL mark on this power supply. I want to use a two prong NA cord set This current is well below the two typical values permitted by safety standards: 500 uA 3500 uA Some people can feel this current (i.e. 100 uA) when they are solidly grounded and they lightly touch the chassis. If they hold on firmly, most people cannot feel the current. Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that you do this. (We had a discussion about a month ago as to the physiology of the light touch.) the UL mark on this power supply. I want to use a two prong NA cord set not a three prong NA cord set and I have been told OK by the manufacturer. I disagree with the manufacturer on this point. The safety of the product was designed on the condition that it be connected to ground. If the unit is used without a ground, then one of the two safeguards against electric shock is defeated. With respect to electric shock, safety standards require a principal safeguard and a supplemental safeguard. The ground is one of several supplemental safeguard schemes. Without a ground, then the customer or user has only the principal safeguard providing protection. If that principal safeguard should fail, then there is a risk of electric shock. If you want a two-wire product, then I urge you to use a product whose safety is expressly designed for two wire connection. Such products are known as double-insulated and bear the square within a square mark. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
How Safe ???
Bravo! Now if we can get lawyers and judges to read this. Is there a legal listserv to send this too? Oops! Wait a minute. Might get sued for sending spam . . . . -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:26 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: How Safe ??? In light of the recent e-traffic on labels, warnings, and litigation I think that this is a good article. A better rant than I could write (and have written). When you need a break ... ___ By Mark Morford morning...@sfgate.com All contents, except the swearing and the random blasphemy, (tm) (c) 2001 Hearst Communications Inc. MARK'S NOTES ERRATA Where opinion meets benign syntax abuse... *** Twenty-one-year-old college student bangs and rocks and tilts 900-pound Coke machine to dislodge a can of soda. Coke machine finally tips over on top of college student. College student dies. College student's parents sue Coca-Cola, vending-machine manufacturer, and school, claiming there should've been some sort of warning. The gods of Fate and Destiny shake their heads and sigh. This is a true story. Coke begins placing cautionary stickers on vending machines: Warning: Tipping may cause injury or death. This part is also true. Many employees at the vending machine company undoubtedly got a good laugh out of this, wondered what's next, stickers on fine cutlery saying Warning: Inserting butcher knife into body may cause injury or death? Or perhaps on large bridges: Warning: Leaping off may cause death or at least a bad headache. Buses? Warning: Do not step in front of this vehicle or you might die in a manner everyone jokes about and then how would you feel? The list goes on, and it too may cause injury or death. Oh how the jokes were flying, yes indeed, much like they probably were at snide ol' McDonald's HQ a few years back when that old woman spilled hot coffee on herself and sued because the coffee was too hot and it burned her and everyone knows coffee is supposed to be lukewarm and pleasing and mild. She won her case. The jokes stopped. And the cynicism began. And let us pause for a moment to pay our respects to what must be a horrendous level of sadness and loss for the family in question, what can only be a miserable and terrible event in the life of a parent. There is genuine sorrow and rage here and the need to assign blame and of course it can't be laid at the feet of the college student in question because he was clearly the innocent victim of a malicious vending machine attack and we as humans can *not* be held responsible for our frequent lapses of judgement or common sense, can we? Can we? Because after all this kid was just being a typical mindless male and was likely just following the behavior of other students who he'd seen bash the machine to score a free Mountain Dew and besides someone at the school probably knew the machine was kinda tippy and folks at the vending machine company probably knew those old models weren't as completely secure as the newer versions. But hey, it's not like the machines were malevolent capsizing demons just lying in wait for the next hapless student to come along and breathe on them wrong and then, whump. It is not as if this laptop computer right here in front of me is right this minute poised to to electrocute me if I decide to slam the lid repeatedly to get it to unfreeze. See that big bookshelf in the library? Pull on it too hard, it'll probably fall over on you. Should you sue the shelf manufacturer? The book authors? Gravity? What if our college boy had climbed atop the Coke machine and jumped off and broken his neck? Is the manufacturer responsible? The shoe company? The concrete floor? Where do you draw the line? This is the ultimate question. It's an ever-shifting line in the sand of human stupidity, a vague cultural boundary defining how much we expect our products and corporations to protect us from ourselves and how much we're willing to be answerable for our actions, a line dividing how logic-impaired we're willing to admit we sometimes are and how responsible a given corporation should be for dumping shoddy and/or dangerous products on the market without warning. In a perfect world (like, you know, Atlantis), it's a fair distribution of both, an equal balance of good faith: people take full responsibility for their lives and actions and don't blame the government or the media or God or big mean corporations when they themselves are caught in incredibly dumb behavior; and concomitantly, thuggish corporations and the government take full responsibility for their products and services and don't try to duck and shirk and scam and dance around the law and pretend they had no idea nicotine was lethal or their SUV tires exploded. Instead we've devolved into a famously litigious culture that rewards
RE: Agilent EMC analyzer
I just realized I shouldn't have gotten into so much detail on about my experiences about the analyzer on the general board. I should've responded in person. Could be viewed as free advert for Agilent. My apologies . . . John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engineer Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 631-419-2324 (direct) Fax: 631-567-8322 -Original Message- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br [mailto:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Agilent EMC analyzer Fellows I am looking for a spectrum analyzer for EMC pre-compliance. The Agilent E7401A is an option we are studying. Does someone have any comments about this equipment ? Did someone have experiences with this analyser, and want to share some good or bad aspects ? Thank you all Günter J. Maass EMBRACO S.A. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Agilent EMC analyzer
I have one, I LOVE it! For the price (I paid around $16k), you can't go wrong! Color Display 3-Traces Built-in Pre-Amp AM/FM Demodulation Hard Disc 3.5 Floppy Disk Limit set-up (packaged floppy has limits for all popular int'l emissions standards) Correction factors for popular antennas (also included) Create data lists (can compare peak, avg. quais-peak) and there's plenty more. You get the picture . . . the rest is on the brochures. It is easy to set-up and use. It's portable - I've taken it to the lab when I encountered unforeseen problems, took data with my set-up, and saved it onto the floppy as an aid for troublshooting. You can also by the report generation S/W package and create some really nice reports. The analyzer can be standalone or PC controlled. For continued emissions compliance it's nice too. If you're changing vendors for a device (IC, oscillator, etc), or considering an ECO on a printed circuit, you can do a 'before after' to make sure that you haven't affected the emissions compliance. I save the 'before after' data onto a floppy or print out the traces and attach it to a copy of the ECO and keep it with the product's compliance folder. I've had it for almost 2 years and haven't had a problem. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engineer Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 631-419-2324 (direct) Fax: 631-567-8322 -Original Message- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br [mailto:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Agilent EMC analyzer Fellows I am looking for a spectrum analyzer for EMC pre-compliance. The Agilent E7401A is an option we are studying. Does someone have any comments about this equipment ? Did someone have experiences with this analyser, and want to share some good or bad aspects ? Thank you all Günter J. Maass EMBRACO S.A. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: VCCI - is it voluntary?
On another note, many companies (both US and Japanese) belong to VCCI. As a member of VCCI, they pledge that the products that they market will be evaluated for compliance with the specifications, and be marked as such. So if you are planning on doing business with a VCCI member, you will be asked to demonstrate compliance. http://www.vcci.or.jp/vcci/vcci_e/faq/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mowbray, John H [mailto:jm134...@exchange.canada.ncr.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:11 AM To: 'George Stults'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: VCCI - is it voluntary? VCCI is a voluntary organization in that it is self-policing the ITE industry, and is not mandatory in a legal sense (you can't be dragged into court for non-compliance), BUT the Japanese consumers are aware of the mark and look for it. On the other side the failure to comply when you have attached the mark can result in the details being published in the popular press -- then try to sell ANYTHING there. John Mowbray, P. Eng. Senior EMC Engineer NCR Canada, Waterloo 580 Weber St. N. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 4G5 519 884 1710 X5371 FAX: 519 884 0610 email: john.mowb...@ncr.com
RE: US Mains Plug/Earthing
Hmmm . . . you didn't specify the category of equipment, but from the perspective the UL standard 1950 (ITE) Clause 1.2.4.1 defines Class I equipment as: Equipment where protection against electric shock is achieved by: a) using BASIC INSULATION, AND also b) providing a means of connecting the protective earth conductor in the building wiring those conductive parts that are otherwise capable of assuming HAZARDOUS VOLTAGES if the BASIC INSULATION fails. NOTES 1. Class I equipment may have parts with DOUBLE INSULATION or REINFORCED INSULATION, or parts operating in SELV circuits. 2. For equipment intended for use with a power supply cord, this provision includes a protective earth conductor as part of the cord. NOTE 2 is clear that a protective earth conductor should be part of the cord. To me, this is a basic design issue . . . and not likely limited to UL 1950 . . . That customer should recheck there info source. My opinion only . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Enci [mailto:e...@cinepower.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 11:47 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: US Mains Plug/Earthing I am in the UK, a customer in USA wants us to fit 2 pin mains plugs to the Class 1 appliances he is going to be buying from us. He is very firm that there are no regulations in US that requires this to be so. Is that true? Thank you. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
Product Safety - Japan
In my previous employ (telecom) I dealt with JATE, and product safety was part of the JATE approval process. In a 'nutshell' how is ITE product safety handled? John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
RE: New Immunity/ESD Specs.
Thanks to all who responded to my message (below) regarding EN 50082-1:1997. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY 11733 From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:49 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: New Immunity/ESD Specs. Hello all . . . A 3rd party statement was made to me today about 'new' immunity specifications for ITE. More specifically for ESD. I am currently using EN 50082-1:1997 for the immunity series, my ESD being EN 61000-4-2:1995. Is there anything newer going to be introduced any time soon? Thanks John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
New Immunity/ESD Specs.
Hello all . . . A 3rd party statement was made to me today about 'new' immunity specifications for ITE. More specifically for ESD. I am currently using EN 50082-1:1997 for the immunity series, my ESD being EN 61000-4-2:1995. Is there anything newer going to be introduced any time soon? Thanks John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
Compliance In Columbia
Hello group . . . I am looking for some 'basic' information on EMC Product Safety in Colombia. Do they have a regulatory infrastructure? If yes, is based on European specifications or are they looking for UL FCC compliance. Any input would be greatly aprpeciated. Regards, John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
RE: UL1950 vs EN60950
Amund, I am going to be simplistic here (excuse me if I left something out) .. . . primarily the differences are with mains voltage rating and the tests that are involved (if you have 'universal input' they will test the product - like temperature testing- at various input voltages) and national deviations. The rest of the text (construction, insulation, wiring, etc.) is nearly identical. When I have my product evaluated to UL 1950, I have them include EN60950 at the same time. It saves a lot of money. Hope this helps. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:48 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL1950 vs EN60950 Safety folks, What are the major differences between UL1950 and EN60950 ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/Norway ... still winter ... 25cm powder this morning... -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: RCIC is dead?
Thanks for the info. I am surprised that they (RCIC) didn't post that information themselves .. . .. I'm sure there's a good reason . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: James, Chris [mailto:c...@dolby.co.uk] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 3:16 AM To: 'Benoit Nadeau'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RCIC is dead? It was working about two weeks ago, however I just found a different (new?) and incomplete site at http://www.cfont.com/ , where under newsgroups / emc-pstc your very question below is listed! Chris -Original Message- From: Benoit Nadeau [mailto:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: 06 April 2001 16:31 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RCIC is dead? Bonjour de Montréal, I have been trying to reach the RCIC web site at : http://www.rcic.com for days and I always get a error back. Is this site dead? Did it change location? Thank you in advance for your replies, == Benoît Nadeau, ing., M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gérant du Groupe Conformité (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox == Tel : (514) 822-6000 (2475) Fax : (514) 822-6275 mailto:bnad...@matrox.com http://www.matrox.com == Président / Chairman 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility mailto:bnad...@ieee.org http://www.2001emcmtl.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: 950 Pollution degree detirmination
Doug, While I would tend to agree that this may be acceptable, and I would too like to see some sort of 'official' determination on this (I may have a similar situation arise in the next couple of months), I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment to further this discussion . . . As you quoted . . . EN60950 3rd Ed., clause 2.10.1 defines Pollution Degree 1 for components and subassemblies which are sealed so as to exclude dust and moisture (see 2.10.7). It clearly states for components and subassemblies. Your Pollution 1 argument requires the use of the IP66 enclosure. But is the product/enclosure pairing still considered a 'component' or subassembly'? The way I see it is that the product without the enclosure is the component or subassembly, and that installing the product in the IP66 enclosure make the product a 'top-level'. If for some reason the gasketing on the enclosure fails, or it is not closed properly, the product would not comply. Seems risky to me? (This is my opinion only, not that of my employer). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Massey, Doug C. [mailto:masse...@ems-t.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:47 AM To: 'IEEE Forum' Subject: 950 Pollution degree detirmination Hello group - In the -950 series standards, three Pollution Degrees are defined for detirming insulation coordination. For instance, in EN60950 3rd Ed., clause 2.10.1 defines Pollution Degree 1 for components and subassemblies which are sealed so as to exclude dust and moisture (see 2.10.7). Clause 2.10.7 gives test requirements for temp cycling, humidity, and electric strength tests, although compliance to the clause is given as ...inspection from the outside, measurement, and, if necessary, by test. I would like to use Pollution Degree 1 when evaluating a product that has a dust and water ingress rating of IP66 per IEC - 60529, Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code) . The product itself is intended for use in a Pollution Degree 3 environment, but the creepages and clearances inside the unit are subject to Pollution Degree 1, thanks to the protection provided by the enclosure. Is the IEC-60529 report, showing a IP rating of IP66, adequate to satisfy the requirements of 2.10.1 2.10.7 for using Pollution Degree 1 when assessing clearance and creepage ? Thanks in advance. Doug Massey Safety Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. Norcross, GA., USA Ph. (770) 447-4224 x3607 FAX (770) 447-6928 e-mail: masse...@lxe.com Cruise our website at: http:\\www.lxe.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer?
Oops! Typo . . . $16 would've been a GREAT bargain!! Thanks to Gary McInturff for pointing it out! It should've been $16K . . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:17 AM To: 'O'Shaughnessy, Paul'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer? Paul, I bought a portable HP (just before it became 'Agilent' - ugh) 7401 EMC analyzer. It only goes up to 1.5Ghz, but I think there is a version that goes higher. It has a built-in hard disk, and a 3.5 floppy drive (it for saving data - traces, analyzer state, and screen, as well as loading antenna factors for the major, popular antennas). It is a color screen with 3 trace capability, screen split, built-in pre-amp, etc . . . I paid $16. It works very well when you need to do troublshooting. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [ mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:45 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer? Dear List, I am looking to purchase (new or used) a good general purpose spectrum analyzer, mostly for use with an EMCO sniffer loop set for locating hot boards, shields, and cables, panel joints which are leaking, etc. The frequency range of interest is up to a few GHz (this is to assist with EN 55011 emissions testing). I also want to get something that other engineers and techs don't shy away from. So, I don't need or want anything incredibly fancy, and I'm not trying to set up an open field site. Just reliable and straightforward to use. Any brand name and model suggestions? My thanks in advance. Paul O'Shaughnessy Test Engineering Manager Affymetrix, Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: From - Wed Mar 14 19:12:44 2001 X-UIDL: mp9gsaamk7r6e...@jmwa.demon.co.uk X-Mozilla-Status: X-Mozilla-Status2: Return-Path: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([199.172.136.3]) by mtiwgwc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id 20010314215337.zasf7682.mtiwgwc25.worldnet.att@ruebert.ieee.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:53:37 + Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id QAA05731; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:49:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: mp9gsaamk7r6e...@jmwa.demon.co.uk List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:03:56 + To: Wagner, John P (John) johnwag...@avaya.com Cc: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org, Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Flicker problem References: 4203d61676d0ae468aa5cea90a891c13235...@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com In-Reply-To: 4203d61676d0ae468aa5cea90a891c13235...@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739 Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ruebert.ieee.org id QAA05731 4203d61676d0ae468aa5cea90a891c13235...@cof110avexu4.global.avaya.com, Wagner, John P (John) johnwag...@avaya.com wrote: I think this refers to Amendment 1of IEC 61000-3-3 published January= 2001.=A0=20 Apparently it has not yet been transposed into an EN. It was dual-voted, so it will be. =A0 The amendment (at=20 least as it effects me) deals primarily with requirements and limits= for=20 inrush current. Well, inrush current is dealt with in the unamended standard, but neither that or the amendment deal with it directly. Limits are expressed as 'dmax', the maximum relative voltage change, measured as an r.m.s. value over the worst half-cycle, starting from the zero-crossing. The amendment goes into much more detail about this, and gives relaxed limits for some types of equipment. The main problem with inrush current is where there is a lot of equipment in one location, and there is a power outage. When the power comes back on, cumulative inrush current may reach many tens of times normal load current, causing protective
RE: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer?
Paul, I bought a portable HP (just before it became 'Agilent' - ugh) 7401 EMC analyzer. It only goes up to 1.5Ghz, but I think there is a version that goes higher. It has a built-in hard disk, and a 3.5 floppy drive (it for saving data - traces, analyzer state, and screen, as well as loading antenna factors for the major, popular antennas). It is a color screen with 3 trace capability, screen split, built-in pre-amp, etc . . . I paid $16. It works very well when you need to do troublshooting. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: O'Shaughnessy, Paul [mailto:paul_oshaughne...@affymetrix.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 6:45 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Recommendations for a portable spectrum analyzer? Dear List, I am looking to purchase (new or used) a good general purpose spectrum analyzer, mostly for use with an EMCO sniffer loop set for locating hot boards, shields, and cables, panel joints which are leaking, etc. The frequency range of interest is up to a few GHz (this is to assist with EN 55011 emissions testing). I also want to get something that other engineers and techs don't shy away from. So, I don't need or want anything incredibly fancy, and I'm not trying to set up an open field site. Just reliable and straightforward to use. Any brand name and model suggestions? My thanks in advance. Paul O'Shaughnessy Test Engineering Manager Affymetrix, Inc. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Repeat Postings
Interesting . . . When I came into the office Monday morning . . . I had a list of messages that appeared to be the same ones that I read, sorted, and or deleted on Friday. Hmmm . . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 3:27 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Repeat Postings Has anyone noticed that postings to this listserver repeat several days later? For example, Chris Colgan's question about switching NRTLs first posted about 3/6/01 appeared again this afternoon? George --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RE: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion.
Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion? One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com ] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU New Approach process. He says: In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean. The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible. All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't. For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself. Mr. Hunter discusses ...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage. Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep ...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade. Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. Best regards, Rich --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall,
RTTE
Hi all . . . Does anyone have a link to the RTTE? Thanks. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engineer Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 631-419-2324 (direct) Fax: 631-567-8322
RE: IEC60825
Hi Mark . . . I'll try to keep this brief, the EN 60825 Standard applies to the optical (laser or LED) portion of the product - AEL (Accessible Emission Level), wavelength, interlocks (if required), labelling, etc.. It does not address all the other 'product safety' parameters such as power supplies, hazardous voltages, insulation, etc . . . The product would still have to meet a product safety standard such as EN 60950. In fact, Clause 4.3.12 of EN 60950 references 60825 . . . Equipment that can generate ionaizing radiation or ultraviolet light, or that uses a laser . . . So if your product does fall under tthe scope of EN 60950, you would select a power supply accordingly. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Mark Schmidt [mailto:mschm...@xrite.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:22 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: IEC60825 Hello everyone, I am new to laser regulation and was wondering if there is such a thing as your basic open frame power supply meeting the requirements of IEC60825? I need a + 15 Vdc output at approximately 100 Watts. I have not read the standard yet and don't know how it compares with IEC60950. Does such a thing exist or do I just qualify a supply that meets 60950 and then submit the system to 60825 or does 60825 apply to the laser only and not the system. The laser is a Class 3A Device. All advice is welcome. Thanks Mark --- 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: UL standards for Automotive ESAs
Chris, Welcome. Try this UL Standards link. You can search there. http://www.ul.com/info/standard.htm John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Chris Chileshe [mailto:chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:36 AM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: UL standards for Automotive ESAs Hi all, New subscriber here. I have recently moved from designing variable speed drives to automotive electronics and hence aiming for the 'e' as opposed to the CE mark. As part of our drives release procedure, we were required to meet UL standards and used to test to UL 508C. I have clearly established the other standards I need to be designing to such as ISO-7637, ISO 10605, ISO-11452, CISPR-25, CISPR-12 and CISPR-16, but I have been rather hard pushed to find a UL equivalent for automotive electronics i.e. is there a UL safety standard for vehicle Electronic Sub-assemblies (ESA), the likes of engine management units etc? Would appreciate some advice. Regards Chris Chileshe Ultronics Ltd Cheltenham, Glos. UK This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet, delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit: http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Product Risks
As always . . . George has provided excellent commentary! Well said George!! John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:08 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Product Risks Product safety is a relative term. It usually means that a product meets the public's generally accepted level of risk for the benefits it provides. My plastic coffee mug is quite safe, aside from the stuff that I sometimes allow to grow inside. My chain saw is a nightmare waiting to happen, but it provides benefits well beyond the hand powered bow saw I once used. Humans are willing to take many risks which have some rewards, driving a car, flying in a plane, skiing, filling up their gas tank, etc. In my opinion, even if cellphones are someday found to increase the risk of cancerous brain tumors, the public will not let that stop them from suing what has become a part of the culture, moreso in underdeveloped countries, as their existing land line phone systems suck. However, there are some products we purchase and use all the time for which we assume there is little or no risk. A good example might be the home or office ITE devices we use. Do you really think of possible injuries when using your PC, printer, scanner, etc.? Aslo, look at how many CPSC recalls are for seemingly benign products; pajamas, plastic toys, curtains, ..? Speaking of vehicle safety, when was the last time you heard of an accident that was totally due to a defective part. Accidents are largely due to bad drivers. When we speak of car safety, don't we usually mean that when a bad driver causes an accident, the car's design should protect us from any serious consequences? Most folks in first world countries have enough drugs in their medicine cabinet, and flammable liquids in their garage to either poison or burn down the entire neighborhood. Is this safe? I don't think so, but these are products we have accepted as a part of everyday life. Go figure George Alspaugh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Product Marking
Courtland, There is nothing in UL1950 that says you MUST have an NRTL logo . . . there are requirements for ratings/safety markings, but not a logo. NRTLs typically have specifications on their logos, and how they must appear/be used. I don't recall seeing that you MUST apply the mark . . . Simply put, the NEC dictates (I don't have the exact location handy) that an electrical/electronic product must be evaluated by an NRTL against the standard that is applicable to that product. Once you have permission to apply a mark from an NRTL, you demonstrate the 'listing' by application of the logo. Electricians (competent ones) look for a logo and act accordingly. If they don't see one they may not wire it up, or they can unplug it (they have that right through the NEC). On another note, using one NRTL over another does have it's advantages (evaluation cost aside). Some NRTL logos are more readily recognizable than others by consumers. In many cases that I've directly experienced, market pressure forced my to use one NRTL logo over another. It depends on your customer base. If your customers are regulatory savy, and understand the NRTL program, it doesn't matter who you use . . . Unfortunately, the average person does not know about any other logo other than one particular prominent one. That makes it difficult . . . It is wise to evaluate your customer base from this respect. . . . The opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 4:05 PM To: emcpost Subject: Product Marking Hello group, I have a question concerning labeling a product. If we go to a NRTL and get Safety testing performed, we typically put the Safety logo (UL for example) on the product label. Our marketing people have a problem with having different logo's. They would like to standarize on a single logo such as UL. This kind of thinking hinders the process of getting the best price possible. I would like to get the testing performed at a lab which doesn't use UL. Would it be possible to just put Conforms to UL 1950 and CAN/CSA 1950 on the label and forget the logo? Or is there a requirement to have a logo? Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton 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
FW: Client Presence During Testing
Here's my experience: a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? I am indeed allowed to be in the 'technical area', or I may stay int eh customer lounge. Beverages/food are not allowed in the technical area. Only in customer lounge. Typically I just take my product to the lab and drop it off. I normally don't stay to witness the tests unless there is a concern with a particular test. Then I only witenss that test. b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? I typically do all engineering type tests in-house, the exception being radiated immunity. That is conducted by the testing laboratory and the set-up/procedure is conducted jsut as a compliant run. c) What about formal witnessing of tests? All our compliant tests are done by a well regarded local lab. We do not conduct compliant tests in-house that may require formal witnessing. If I conducted in-house compliant tests, and formal witnessing was required, I would have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide. d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? I would indeed want to be able to witness a test. If I wasn't allowed to do so, I would be suspect of the lab. f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? Haven't experienced this. e) Any other comments about this? No John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
History Lesson - Pagers Cordless phones
While I don't personally care for 'spam' messages, I thought the group would find this interesting . . . a brief history lesson about pagers, walkie-talkies and cordless phones (as well as a lesson to be learned - don't let your patents expire!) It is actually an obituary about the inventor that was written by the Los Angeles Times and noted in the Long Island Newsday yesterday. *** Al Gross' ideas took decades to catch on. And by the time they gained wide-spread popularity, he had suffered the fate of a legion of inspired inventor: his patents had expired. But what a difference Gross' gizmos made. Gross, who died Dec. 21 in Sun City, Arizona at 82, invented the walkie-talkie, the wireless pager, and the cordless telephone. He also pioneered Citizen's Band radio. His patents led to technological developments that have become icons of the late 20th century, such as the cellular phone. Gross also inspired the wristwatch radio, tha twas indespensable to a 1950's cartoon-strip detective named Dick Tracy. Half a century ago, however, when Gross tried to market his pager at a medical convention, doctors smirked at the device. It would, they complained, ruin afternoons at the golf course. By the end of the 20th Century, 300 million pocket pagers wre in use around the world. I was born 35 years too soon, he once told The Arizona Republic. If I still had the patents on my inventions, Bill Gates would have to stand aside for me. Gross was born in Toronto. By 1937 he had built a hand-held radio that could transmit messages across town. He called it a 'walkie-talkie.' In 1949, he devised the first wireless pager, and in 1951 the wireless telephone. in 1958 he came up with the first battery-operated calculatory, developed for the military. Gross held about a dozen patents, all of which had expired around 1971. Last year Gross was honored with a $500,000 Lemelson-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lifetime Acheivement Award for Invention. Along the way, he earned a degree in electrical engineering from what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He also studied under Albert Einstein at Princeton. GRoss is survived by his wife Ethel Stanka Gross of Sun City. ** That man could've been very wealthy . . . don't let your patents expire! John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
Transient Surge Suppressor
I am trying to find a second-source for a TVS (Transient Voltage Suppressor) that I now use to meet the 61000-4-5 1.2/50us 1kV transient. Surface-mount, small(?) form factor Anyone have any successful/favorite TVS that'll do the job. . . ? Thank you in advance. John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engineer Fiber Options, Inc. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA Tel: 631-419-2324 (direct) Fax: 631-567-8322
RE: F-Squared Labs
Group, Please accept my apologies for posting a reply to a message that I had thought (incorrectly 'assumed') came via the emc-pstc listserv (I must've been seeing things - that happens with age). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Russell, Ray [mailto:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 2:41 PM To: 'John Juhasz' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs John, I share your opinion that commercial advertisements should not be included on this newsgroup. So I am confused. I did not receive the mail from F-Squared labs, I only received it from you, via the IEEE newsgroup. Ray -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:25 AM To: 'mna...@f2labs.com' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: F-Squared Labs Mark, This is my own opinion, but it may/may not be shared by others here . . . While I personally welcome posts from anyone who offers sound regulatory information, especially those from laboratories (we have a few regular contributors who are lab managers), everyone here has been good at policing themselves from posting commercial advertisement. Please feel free to comment and interject into this forum. We would welcome your expertise . . . Regards, John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia -Original Message- From: Mark naber [ mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com ] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:21 AM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Subject: F-Squared Labs Who? F-Squared Laboratories? F-Squared Laboratories can test and certify a product that you manufacture or brand label if it... · is electrically-powered, · is considered a hardware product, or, · is a mechanical, process control, or medical device, or a laboratory instrument. We can get your products into one or more of the US, Canadian, European and/or International Markets, via FCC/CISPR, Product Safety, EMC/EMI, Environmental or Hazardous Location testing. On a regular basis we test and certify products to countless US and Canadian Standards, and various European Union Directives and International Standards and Country Deviations, so that you can obtain applicable approvals or certifications for; · NRTL for North America, to include field-labeling, · EMC for North America, the European Union and International markets · Industrie Canada, equivalent to FCC Pt. 15 testing in the US, · FCC - Declaration of Conformity, Verification or Certification, · HAZ-LOC (Hazardous-Location) for the US Canada, · Ex Marking and ATEX Directive for International Markets, · CE Marking (LV, EMC Mechanical Dir.) for the European Union (EU), · CB Scheme for 30+ countries, which includes Asia and Australia, and, · IEC for other International Markets. Our website www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com speaks about our capabilities in an introductory manner. Of course detailed literature is always available upon request. Please give us an opportunity to provide you with a competitive bid for your next project. Our quick turnaround service is as attractive as our pricing! Call me directly at 301.368.2590, or contact me via email at mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com . Lastly, feel free to print this out for your files, and also forward to others!! Cordially, Mark W. Naber
RE: F-Squared Labs
Mark, This is my own opinion, but it may/may not be shared by others here . . . While I personally welcome posts from anyone who offers sound regulatory information, especially those from laboratories (we have a few regular contributors who are lab managers), everyone here has been good at policing themselves from posting commercial advertisement. Please feel free to comment and interject into this forum. We would welcome your expertise . . . Regards, John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia -Original Message- From: Mark naber [mailto:mna...@f2labs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 10:21 AM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Subject: F-Squared Labs Who? F-Squared Laboratories? F-Squared Laboratories can test and certify a product that you manufacture or brand label if it... · is electrically-powered, · is considered a hardware product, or, · is a mechanical, process control, or medical device, or a laboratory instrument. We can get your products into one or more of the US, Canadian, European and/or International Markets, via FCC/CISPR, Product Safety, EMC/EMI, Environmental or Hazardous Location testing. On a regular basis we test and certify products to countless US and Canadian Standards, and various European Union Directives and International Standards and Country Deviations, so that you can obtain applicable approvals or certifications for; · NRTL for North America, to include field-labeling, · EMC for North America, the European Union and International markets · Industrie Canada, equivalent to FCC Pt. 15 testing in the US, · FCC - Declaration of Conformity, Verification or Certification, · HAZ-LOC (Hazardous-Location) for the US Canada, · Ex Marking and ATEX Directive for International Markets, · CE Marking (LV, EMC Mechanical Dir.) for the European Union (EU), · CB Scheme for 30+ countries, which includes Asia and Australia, and, · IEC for other International Markets. Our website www.f2labs.com http://www.f2labs.com speaks about our capabilities in an introductory manner. Of course detailed literature is always available upon request. Please give us an opportunity to provide you with a competitive bid for your next project. Our quick turnaround service is as attractive as our pricing! Call me directly at 301.368.2590, or contact me via email at mna...@f2labs.com mailto:mna...@f2labs.com. Lastly, feel free to print this out for your files, and also forward to others!! Cordially, Mark W. Naber
RE: TCF's
William, That's a good question . . . but this is where the Competent Body (that is actually the correct authority - not Notified Body), comes in. If the 'variation' is developed after the TCF is made for the installation, they would be the ones to determine if any tests need to be performed, or a detailed addendum be added to the TCF. Choose your CB wisely. Trust is important. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: William D'Orazio [mailto:dora...@cae.ca] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:55 PM To: emcpost Subject: RE: TCF's John, What if the installation has variants, do the tests have to be repeated, or is it sufficient to compile a new TCF describing the changes. Thanks, William D'Orazio CAE Electronics Ltd. Electrical System Designer Phone: (514) 341-2000 (X4555) Fax: (514)340-5552 Email: dora...@cae.ca -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:04 PM To: 'Courtland Thomas'; emcpost Subject: RE: TCF's For the sake of brevity (?) I am going to try and keep it simple . . . For one example a TCF (Technical Contruction File) is useful for a company that has numerous products in a product 'family'/ For instance, there may be a dozen variations based on one design (i.e. printed circuit board partially populated with components for one product, fully populated for another, etc). This may make it difficult (or impossible) to test every single variation. In that case, a manufacturer would take the TCF route to compliance. One set of tests and then a file consisting of documentation describing/detailing all the variations along with engineering considerations for each. That 'package' is reviewed by a Notified Body who basically agrees that, based on the documentation presented, the one set of tests covers the whole product family. The NB affixes their 'stamp of approval'. Another example maybe a product (installation) that is too large to test. In that case certain sub-assemblies or groups of sub-assemblies (the Notified Body will determine) would be tested to all or only some of the tests, and a TCF describing the entire product (installation) would be generated. I was trying to keep this short, so I may have not described it completely (or totally acccurate), but this should give you the idea. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [ mailto:ctho...@patton.com mailto:ctho...@patton.com ] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:09 PM To: emcpost Subject: TCF's Hello group, I would like to know the intent of TCF's for CE. There are numerous standards such as Radiated Emissions, Conducted Emissions, ESD, Radiated Immunity, Fast Transients, Surge, etc..., that apply. What actually is the intent of the TCF? Is it to allow the manufacturer to select only certain standards in lieu of testing to all the standards? Courtland Thomas Patton 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: Telephone Line Cords
Go to the UL link I attached, go to 'keyword search' and do a search on 'Communication Circuit Accessories' It'll give you a whole list of companies. http://www.ul.com/database/ John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:47 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Telephone Line Cords Hello Group, Can someone recommend a good source for telephone cords listed under Communication Circuit Accessories (UL1863) with conectors at both ends. Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il TO LEARN ABOUT AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT ME AT THE EARLIEST STAGES OF YOUR DESIGN; REQUIREMENTS CAN BE TRICKY! --- 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: TCF's
For the sake of brevity (?) I am going to try and keep it simple . . . For one example a TCF (Technical Contruction File) is useful for a company that has numerous products in a product 'family'/ For instance, there may be a dozen variations based on one design (i.e. printed circuit board partially populated with components for one product, fully populated for another, etc). This may make it difficult (or impossible) to test every single variation. In that case, a manufacturer would take the TCF route to compliance. One set of tests and then a file consisting of documentation describing/detailing all the variations along with engineering considerations for each. That 'package' is reviewed by a Notified Body who basically agrees that, based on the documentation presented, the one set of tests covers the whole product family. The NB affixes their 'stamp of approval'. Another example maybe a product (installation) that is too large to test. In that case certain sub-assemblies or groups of sub-assemblies (the Notified Body will determine) would be tested to all or only some of the tests, and a TCF describing the entire product (installation) would be generated. I was trying to keep this short, so I may have not described it completely (or totally acccurate), but this should give you the idea. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 1:09 PM To: emcpost Subject: TCF's Hello group, I would like to know the intent of TCF's for CE. There are numerous standards such as Radiated Emissions, Conducted Emissions, ESD, Radiated Immunity, Fast Transients, Surge, etc..., that apply. What actually is the intent of the TCF? Is it to allow the manufacturer to select only certain standards in lieu of testing to all the standards? Courtland Thomas Patton 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
RE: Radiated Immunity
Oh . . .how I WISH that were the case!!! With all due respect, you may want to re-consider using that source for regulatory information . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Courtland Thomas [mailto:ctho...@patton.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:51 PM To: emcpost Subject: Radiated Immunity Hello group, I have heard that the Radiated Immunity test is not required for 'CE'. I don't recall reading that anywhere, so I would like to know what the story is. Thanks, Courtland Thomas --- 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: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved
If I may interject my opinion here . . . On only two occassions have I had to provide a report to back-up my DoC. The laboratory has their accreditations listed at the bottom of the cover page. I did not receive any further queries about the data or the lab that performed it. Was it because the lab was accredited? I don't know for sure. But I do know that I have plenty of work to do without having to worry about trying to convince someone (whether their queries are justified or not) that the data was generated in a properly NSA'd site buy competent indiviuals. If all it takes to prevent that is using an 'accredited' lab, then so be it. (If a company goes through the expense of creating their own site, it may be worth to at least have some 'minimal' - if that exists, amount of accreditation). John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:19 AM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'lfresea...@aol.com'; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, Personal opinion time. You may want to re-think the Europe thing. Even if you are correct that you don't currently need them for Europe, accredited labs are really the underpinnings for global acceptance of EMC data (Okay - not Korea but don't get me started on them for the moment, besides I believe the FCC frowns on the language that would be necessary). The concept is that if differing countries can agree on how and to what criteria labs are accredited, and by such accreditation provide some reasonable assurance that their site, equipment, personnel, and process will product accurate data we can get MRA's signed that will allow one stop testing, if you will. The benefits of an accredited lab seem to be a little more obvious in the US, because we no longer have to wait six weeks after test for review of the data and equipment grant, but I would contend that the long term benefit is much greater. Besides I have never seen a cost impact on using an accredited lab, and knowing that my test lab reads this forum, I had better not see one (Morning, Paul and Jim), so it just doesn't seem prudent to me not to use an accredited lab. Heck, accreditation of a lab also does some of your homework for you in giving you a back-door quality audit of the facilities you intend to use, because these labs have to first prove their competency but they have to be audited every other year. So I guess I am confused why you would chose not to use accredited labs. Take Care Gary -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:44 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; Pettit, Ghery; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved No argument there, Derek. I was looking at a wider picture which includes personal computers under the FCC Rules. In that case, for self declaration, an accredited laboratory is required. For the EMC Directive in Europe, no accreditation is required. Ghery Pettit -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 2:34 PM To: ghery.pet...@intel.com; tjm...@accusort.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Complications of self-declaration without an independent test lab being involved Ghery, in your reply it reads as though an accredited lab is required. I want to make sure it is clear that for compliance with the EMC Directive it IS NOT the case. Use of an accredited lab may make life easier, but, I reiterate, it is not required. Best regards, Derek Walton --- 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: USA DoD Document Source
Already came in handy today. Had to review 'salt fog' method of MIL-STD-810, Method 509. This forum was indeed worth it's weight in gold today!! Thanks Ed!! John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:04 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Cc: 'pmerguer...@itl.co.il' Subject: USA DoD Document Source Hi Listees! The year is starting out on a good note. I just found out that the USA Department of Defense now has a public access site for all 100,000 or so DoD documents. [This is new, since they previously required that you sign up for a commercial account.] All you have to do now, to get a pdf of any active USA specification, is just go to: http://astimage.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ and search by number, title or subject. Wouldn't it be nice for all the other regulatory bodies to take a hint here? Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis --- 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: Looking for Mexico (NOM) information
Try UL . . . http://www.ul.com/mexico/ John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Ted Chaffee [mailto:tchaf...@qtm.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 7:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Looking for Mexico (NOM) information Group, I am looking for information to get product into Mexico. The product is a garage door opener (low power transmitter). Currently, the product has been tested for compliance to FCC 15.231 and sales would like to take it to the Mexican market. Any information regarding contact persons and / or regulation requirements will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ted Chaffee AHD tchaf...@ahde.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: creepage distances (EN61131-2)
Dan, I would like to add to reinforce Ned's response concerning Pollution Degree 1 . . . while (at least from my 950 experience) Pollution Degree 1 is indeed typically for potted or hermetically sealed environements, I do recall a conversation I had with an engineer at one of the 'well known' NRTLs, you can use Pollution Degree 1 if you test for it and pass . . . but even with good gasketing, that could be difficult? Talk to your NRTL . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options -Original Message- From: Ned Devine [mailto:ndev...@entela.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 2:19 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: RE: creepage distances (EN61131-2) Dan, I don't have access to EN61131-2, but I think you may of misinterpreted the standard. I believe that for double/reinforced insulation you will need two times the values in table for basic/supplementary insulation. Also, your product is Pollution degree 2 and not 1. In general, there is a table for Basic/supplementary and different table for double/reinforced. But in some standards, they just say that the requirement for double/reinforced is twice the values in the table for basic/supplementary. This comes from the fact that double insulation is defined as basic PLUS supplementary. Therefore twice the value for a single basic/supplementary insulation. Pollution degree 1 is generally for potted or otherwise sealed components only. Normal products are pollution degree 2. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Dan Kinney (A) [mailto:dan.kin...@heapg.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 12:03 PM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: creepage distances (EN61131-2) I know most of you don't use EN61131-2 (Safety for Programmable Controllers but I'm hoping the questions I have can be answered in general terms. And if anyone does have/use EN61131-2, I provide paragraph and table reference numbers. This is a very convoluted and confusing standard but I think we have looked at the creepage and clearance section long enough that we finally have it figured out. But before I commit to something, I'd like confirmation from this group. The standard provides definitions for basic, supplementary, double, and reinforced insulation (paragraph 1.4.26). It also provides a general rule of thumb, worst case creepage and clearance table for basic and supplementary insulation (paragraph 4.3 subparagraph 3) and its table). I interpret this to mean, if I use these very conservative creepages and clearances, I more than meet anything presented later in the standard. I also interpret this to mean the numbers within this table provide double insulation since the definition of double insulation is basic and supplementary insulation combined. The standard then provides several tables of creepage and clearances under very specific conditions that includes material types and pollution degrees. The one I'm most concerned with is the table for basic and supplementary creepage distances for printed wiring boards (Table 23). As with the previous paragraph, I interpret this to mean double insulation. The standard provides definitions for pollution degrees (paragraph 1.4.42). It says: Pollution degree 1: No pollution or only dry, non-conductive pollution occurs. The pollution has no influence. Pollution degree 2: Normally, only non-conductive pollution occurs. Occasionally, however, a temporary conductivity caused by condensation shall be expected. Pollution degree 3: Conductive pollution occurs, or dry, non-conductive pollution occurs which becomes conductive due to condensation which is expected. Our products, are intended for industrial or commercial environments and are specified to be mounted in a metal enclosure where pollutants are sealed out. Further our specifications clearly state our products work 5% to 95% non-condensing relative humidity. Thus I interpret the standard to mean our products should be evaluated under pollution degree 1. Lastly, paragraph 4.3.4 states creepage distances for reinforced insulation shall be double the value for basic insulation. I interpret this paragraph to be non-applicable to the work we are doing since all the tables list basic and supplementary (double) creepage and clearance distances. It does not list basic creepage and clearances individually and thus I have nothing to double. But by using the values provided in the tables, I meet double insulation requirements. I apologize for this lengthy message. And I apologize if I haven't provided enough information to understand the situation. As I said, this is very confusing for we, the uninitiated. My questions center around my interpretations and can be distilled down to one question; have I interpreted each point above correctly? Any advice, general or specific, will be greatly appreciated. Happy Holidays all. Dan Kinney Horner APG
Product Family Standard Applicability
Hello all, I had an EMC standard applicability question posed to me, and I am not quite sure how to answer. What makes this difficult is that I have been asked not to reveal specifics. Here is the scenario: A company is going to develop a product which can be used in a number of markets - from commercial (in a clearly non-residential environment) ITE market - industrial with other markets in between. There are no 'product family specific' EMC requirements in place at this time for this type of product. However, the 'product family' that the new product can be categorized is listed under the 'ITE' heading in product safety standards UL1950 3rd Ed, EN 60950, and IEC 950. One of the target markets (not ITE) of the product will generate at least 60-70% of the product sales. That particular market, does haveit's own 'product family' EMC standard for the various electronic devices that are 'essential' for operation of the systems listed in that 'product family' standard. While this new product is 'not essential' for the operation of the type of systems that fall under the product family standard (in fact, those systems have worked for years without this product), the product can be used to 'facilitate' extended operation of such systems. (NOTE: The EXACT same product can be used in a variety of other markets not even remotely affiliated with the market). Does the new product have to meet the 'product family' standards of the market in which it will primarily be used? (even if it is considered 'non-essential for proper operation') Or can the generic (read as ITE) standards be used? Your kind thoughts/opinions please . . . (I hope I have enough disk space for this one . . . LOL!! ) John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY
RE: Polarity Markings on AC Adapters
Try this link for IEC 417 symbols http://w3.hike.te.chiba-u.ac.jp/iec417/ver2.0/html/index.html John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:45 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Polarity Markings on AC Adapters To the safety professionals I need some input on a subject for which I am no expert. Typically, our AC adapter suppliers provide units with polarity symbols a la: - + O-C-O ...where the -/+ signs are within the circles. The C represents the outside of a standard barrel connector, and a bold dot in the center of the C represents the inner portion of the connector. Such adapters may be polarized in either direction. I was recently asked the standard specifying this polarity symbol, and did not know, and if it is mandatory. Since the connector typically involves only SELV voltages, I could find no specific references to this polarity marking in IEC 60950. Section 1.7.2 would not apply unless a hazard was introduced by the use of an inappropriate polarity adapter with the intended load. Certainly I could search for the basis of this marking, but like many of you, have found that this forum is often the fastest way to obtain such information. Thank you for any information you may be able to provide. George Alspaugh Lexmark International Inc. --- 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
