100 Base-T Hub
Good Members, I'm having some issues getting together a decent test set up for immunity testing when I have a network connection at 100 Base -T. I've had several hubs in the lab but I can't get one to even pass level 1 EFT testing ( for CE EMC testing) . Would any of you be able to recommend a hub (100 Base T) with a decent immunity tolerance. I'd love to get something immune at industrial levels but at this point I would settle for just passing generic levels Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
New Approach Directives and DOA and DOW
Hello Group, I've just been told a story by a notified body under the Construction Products Directive in Europe that as far as they were concerned, despite the fact that a standard was published in the OJ and it's DOA has already passed that they were under no obligation to accept that standard or indeed follow the CPD at all until the DOW (removing their national standard) had passed. In this case, the notified body under the CPD is the same agency that currently is their notified body under their national system. I have always presumed that the choice of systems to follow in the transition time between DOA and DOW was the manufacturer's and not the notified body's. Comments? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
ESD Levels and recent research
Dear Group, We have a client who demands levels of ESD protection well beyond what any of our product norms call for and to test using their own (unique) test methods. Their standards were clearly written more than a decade ago (probably two) and I would like to gently show them that perhaps it could be updated. As part of this I would like to point to recent research showing the what the current thoughts are on what sort of worst case levels one could normally expect for human body model and furniture type discharges and perhaps in what proportion one could expect worst case discharges as compared to the average event. Has anybody written or read something well researched on this topic recently. Kind Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
List of notified bodies under the CPD
Hello Group, Does anyone know where I might obtain an official list of notified bodies under the European CPD. I supposed it would be on the Europa site but if it is, I can't find it. Thanks Kevin Harris This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Brazilian Test Houses Accredited to do Anatel testing
Dear Group, Could any of you who have worked with a test house in Brazil that is accredited to do Anatel testing (and that you are happy with) forward me the contact details of that test house off line please Thank you Kevin Harris 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Calibration Lab Accredited to 17025 for Temperature and humidity measurements
Hello Group, We are in the process of seeking formal accreditation of our in house lab. One of our difficulties is the requirement to get a calibration of our environmental chamber (temperature and humidity) from a calibrating service that is 17025 accredited to make those measurements at a customer location. (i.e. our chamber is not moveable). We have been unable to find a company in Canada with those credentials. Does anybody know of one? Alternatively does anybody know of one in the Eastern US (the closer to Toronto the better :)) ? Thanks Regards, Kevin Harris Approvals Manager Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Regulations for fire control panels in Hungary
Hello, I have been requested to get the contact information of somebody who would know the regulatory requirements for selling fire control panels in Hungary over the last several years. As we are in the alarm panel business and not the fire business I was stumped but I'm hoping some of you may know or know of someone who does. Please reply to me offline Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Environmental Testing to EN 50131-5
Hello Group, Would those among you who work for test labs in the EU and that can test to the above spec in its entirety please contact me directly Thanks and Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.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
Construction Product Directive
Hello, The construction product directive is one of the most recent directives affecting fire detection devices. Currently if you have a smoke detector you would like to sell in the EU then you have to go through all the local national agencies (ANPI, VdS LPCB etc) in Europe to obtain approvals. As of next March (when the first standard get published in the OJ for the CPD ) the manufacturer can now go to any one of those agencies ( provided they have been listed as a certification body under the new scheme) and be approved across the EU. Hooray say I! Chop tens of thousands of Euros off my testing bill! Unfortunately it is not all as it seems! The CPD writers in their wisdom have a provision in the directive that not only does the notified body have to do type testing and regular auditing but they must also certify the quality plan!. The certified bodies take this to mean that they must do something like an ISO9000 certification and audit plan. I'm wondering why the directive was written this way. If one already has a quality plan in place that is registered, why do we have to do it again? It seems to be counterproductive to say on one hand that a particular agency is qualified to assess quality plans and then have a directive that says otherwise. This also has the effect that if I choose one certification body to test something then I must choose them again and again or else face re evaluation of my quality plan by yet another certification body. What a convenient clause for non competition amongst the certification bodies! Is there anyone out there that may have contributed to the Construction Product Directive that might shed some light on this subject? Am I missing something? Was that the intent of the directive or perhaps this wasn't foreseen? Grumbling complete Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals and CAD Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.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: equipment class identification under RTTE directive
Hi, Go to http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/listeq.htm for a complete listing of equipment class identifiers Regards Kevin -Original Message- From: Van, Vi (Vi) [mailto:v...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:27 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: equipment class identification under RTTE directive [fadr] Importance: High Hi, Does anyone know what equipment class identification under RTTE directive is for a UMTS Base Station? Regards Vi --- 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
RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ESD Generator confidence test
Vic, A couple of years back at the Seattle IEEE EMC show a go/ no go confidence tester for static testing was discussed and demonstrated. I'm not sure if that still is commercially available but if you email Ivan Hendrikx at i...@hevrox.be he will be able to tell you more I'm sure. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: vic.gibl...@raytheon.co.uk [mailto:vic.gibl...@raytheon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:00 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ESD Generator confidence test The ESD standard IEC 61000-4-2 gives details for the manufacture of a current target, used for verifying the ESD waveform. I appreciate this could be used as a confidence check before administering the test, but does anyone have another approach that they would be willing to share. Many thanks Vic Gibling EMC Engineer Raytheon Systems Limited --- 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: Company close down due to EMC phenomena
Hello , I think we are missing the point here. CISPR 22 is an emission standard not an RF standard. CISPR 22 limits do not apply to the intentional radio frequencies. As this is an intentional radiator the product falls under the RTTE directive. That will also mean that notification must be given. If a particular country refuses your product then they must provide written reasons to Brussels. I think they would have a problem denying a radio access to their market based on it's transmit frequency exceeding the permitted power level for emissions in CISPR 22 :) How about another argument on a completely different tack? If one uses CISPR 22 then I noticed you quoted a peak measurement for the transmission. Assuming this is not a typo then the measurement is taken incorrectly. Pressing peak hold on a SA doesn't cut it for this measurement. It must be quasi peak and average measurements. If one ignores the problem of even capturing the transmission properly, then consider the following. As CE bus transmissions :jitter over a wide band you may pass when you consider the settling time of the detectors, the measurement bandwidth and the apparent bandwidth of the transmission and the shortness of your transmission. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:53 PM To: am...@westin-emission.no; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Company close down due to EMC phenomena A technical response from an American. I sympathize with the viewpoint that the duty cycle is very low and the on-time is very low and the potential for mischief is near nil. I would add a further argument. 55022 CE limits protect AM radio reception. In the USA there is no AM broadcast below 530 kHz. In the EU there is some LW broadcasting from I believe 150 - 300 kHz, and then MW picks up again at 530 kHz. So the potential for rfi is limited. That officials would even consider banning such a product is an argument against anyone having such power. -- From: am...@westin-emission.no To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Company close down due to EMC phenomena Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2002, 2:17 PM Well, this might be the reality in a case I have been introduced to lately. Case: A company are manufacturing PowerLine Communication products. They communicate via the power lines and a typical link is between a consumer residence and the nearest power station. The products can of course also communicate inside the consumers residence. The communication protocol is called CEBus http://www.cebus.org/which and make use of the frequency band 100kHz-400kHz and the amplitude is approximate 2-5V. A typical length of a transmission is 25ms and occurs approximate one time pr hour. First of all, AFAIK PowerLine Communication and PowerLine Transmission (broadband 1.6MHz-30MHz) are now coming will full force in EU and CENELEC/ETSI are working together regulate this type of transmission path and also coming up with standards. The problem for the manufacturer is the conducted emission requirements in EU. According to the EN55022B levels the maximum quasi-peak emission is 66dBuV@150kHz, and a typical PLC (under transmission) which has been measured, showed the value of 120dBuV (peak). With no transmission it had a margin of 10dB (quasi-peak) and 30dB (average). The radiated emission had a margin of 10dB. Well, conducted emission is the problem when transmitting. But, as I said, the transmission occurs only 25ms/hour. The national authority will not allowed this product to be placed into the marked because it do not fulfil the EN55022B limits (100kHz-400kHz) under transmission mode. No way. Other national authorities have other approaches on this case, they say as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. They also say install it even if it does not fulfil EN550022B, but we will remove it if it disturb others. Two completely different approaches as you see. Questions: 1. Is it possible to have different approaches within EU ? 2. Since PLC/PLT is quite new technology and since we do not have any EU product standard (no standard for whose who are using 100kHz-400kHz band), I like the approach as long as you do not disturb other equipment, install it. If you do disturb, we will come and remove it. What is your opinion about this? 3. The transmission occurs very seldom. 25ms/hour, that is 7e-6 and approximate 0,001% transmission rate. Can this seldom transmission rate be an argument to not test the PLC product under continuous transmission ? I would say yes, but which rate is acceptable / reasonable ? So, why should the company close
RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6
Hello Robert, Clearly, for absolute correctness you follow the ENV because that is what is called out in the standard, and the section in EN 50130-4 on Dated references requires you use it. However, if you document your substitution for the more recent document I don't believe any enforcement agency would (or could) fault you. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Mavis, Robert [mailto:rma...@pelco.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:09 AM To: cet...@cetest.nl; John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 So what do I do? Follow the EN 50130-4 : 1996 standard that states; The test apparatus procedure shall be as described in ENV 50141 : 1993, with the following modifications and clarifications taken into account. or do I substitute EN 61000-4-6 in place of ENV 50141. -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 10:55 AM To: Mavis, Robert; John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 It looks as if you are right, but in the case of any ENV version of a standard, this calling out is incorrect. Any ENV standard is NOT a standard. It was never meant to be used as a standard but temporarily. The EN version following it WAS. However, in this case the EN 50141 was not published, so the only alternative is the EN 61000-4-6. The ENV version, as it says itself, automatically becomes non-existent as soon as its successor is published. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ === -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Mavis, Robert Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 4:55 AM To: John Woodgate; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 John, Even though the ENV is a pre-standard, if a Product Family Standard calls it out you must test to it. Am I not correct. Case in point, EN 50130-4 Product Family Standard for Alarm Systems calls out specifically ENV 50141 not EN 61000-4-6. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6 I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk wrote (in 01c19a92.f4398e80.chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk) about 'EN 50141 and EN 61000-4-6', on Fri, 11 Jan 2002: I am testing to the generic immunity standard EN 61000-6-2 which refers to EN 61000-4-6 for immunity to conducted disturbances induced by radio-frequency fields. A query has arisen that EN 50141 is missing from my list of tests. Is my understanding correct that these two standards are essentially the same? I do not have a copy of either and currently awaiting delivery of EN 61000-4-6 which I have recently purchased. 50141 is an ENV (a 'pre-standard'), not an EN and is not called up by EN61000-6-2. Whoever threatened you with 'EN50141' is unaware of the facts. If it was a test-house, get another one! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web 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
Noise Laboratory INS 420(A)
Hello Group, I'm trying to figure out a message in Korean from a test lab laboratory. From what I can gather they seem to be applying an electrical noise source to our DC power in lines with a Noise Laboratory INS 420(A). Has anybody heard of such a beast? Better yet, do you know if it was made to generate noise to a particular standard? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: EMC-related safety issues
Hello John, If the BSI site says that, then it is yet another proof of you can't always believe what you read. :) My Aug 2001 version of the BSI electronic catalog shows a publication date of 1996 for the BS EN ( but the document was actually released in late 1995) with an addendum A1 published in 1998. The hard copy sitting in front of me (from BSI) agrees with the electronic catalog :) There was a very generous transition period which ended in January of 2001. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 1:59 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: EMC-related safety issues I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FD5@flbocexu05) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002: more severe immunity requirements apply. Those requirements are either specified in EN 50130-4 According to the BSI web site, BS EN 50130-4 is not yet published. Comments? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
ETS 300 440 Status
I got just a little hasty with the send button with my last message. The original email should have said I was looking in the OJ for the RTTE directive Hello Group, I was just looking at the http://europa.eu.int site and looking at their (somewhat dated) version of the OJ. I noticed there was no variant of ETS 300 440 listed. Is this still the case? If it is, does anybody have some information as to it's status. Finally is there a better place to see up to date OJ information? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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.
ETS 300 440 Status
Hello Group, I was just looking at the http://europa.eu.int site and looking at their (somewhat dated) version of the OJ. I noticed there was no variant of ETS 300 440 listed. Is this still the case? If it is, does anybody have some information as to it's status. Finally is there a better place to see up to date OJ information? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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.
RF Immunity Testing to 50V
Hello Group, Does anybody know of a test lab being able to test small objects (less than 15cm in any axis) up to 50V (with 80% AM 1KHz tone) from 80MHz to 1GHz Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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.
Class Designation under the RTTE directive
Dear Group, I just was reading the a list to assist one in choosing one's class designation under the RTTE directive at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/listeq.htm http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/listeq.htm and I noticed that there are items under Class 1 that I never saw before (i.e. items 19 to 24) It just so happens that item 20 applies to me and relieves me of having to follow the notification period. People in the security business may want to look at the page! Up until now we had always classified ourselves as Class 2.7 (SRD). My question is (out of idle curiosity) does anyone know when items 19 to 24 were added. The page has no indications of when it was updated but I have a printed copy from last November showing a much shorter list. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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.
Test Houses in Europe for EN 54-7
Hello, I'm trying to compile a list of test houses able to test smoke detectors in Europe to EN 54-7. I currently know of BRE (Formerly LPC) in England ANPI in Belgium VdS in Germany Delta in Denmark Does anyone know of others? Please respond to me offline if you are part of another test house that does this testing so we don't violate the advertising restrictions of the group Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: RF testing question
Hi Ed, If this were a true signal to noise test wouldn't the interfering signal be referenced to the power of the desired signal and not the sensitivity of the receiver? I rechecked what the standard called this particular test and they call it Interference within the band. Interference is a phenomenon which is peculiar to whatever location you happen to place your device. It will not change in level when you change to a different receiver with a different sensitivity so shouldn't a proper test designed for testing inband immunity select a fixed level of interference. Did I miss something in your explanation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [mailto:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:47 PM To: 'Kevin Harris'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:RE: RF testing question Kevin: You are actually testing a signal-to-noise ratio. The desired signal is reduced until you get to a certain level of degradation (which is unique to the receiver you have chosen). You then use that level to determine the amount of undesired (interfering) signal. You apply that undesired signal, while also applying the restored desired signal. And if the message failure rate is under 25%, you pass. This method actually adjusts the interfering signal level to match the sensitivity of the selected receiver. If your receiver is more sensitive to your desired signal, then you are right, the applied undesired signal level will also be lower. You should use the same illuminating antenna for both signals. Be sure your power combiner and antenna balun are safe from RF overload. If you can, use isolators to protect the two signal sources. If isolators are not available, try using about 6 dB attenuators ahead of the signal sources. Unless the antenna is uniquely designed into the receiver, military testing prefers that you do this all within coax, in essence performing an antenna port conducted susceptibility test. 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. 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: RF testing question
Hi Ken, Let me try to explain it better. The standard asks that you stop reducing the signal strength one you cross the 25% threshold. I would imagine that it would be very hard to get exactly 25% So for example if you got a 10 % failure rate at one level then reduced the transmit signal strength by 1 dB and got a 30% failure rate you would stop there. Also many digital systems would likely have an all or nothing response so getting a 25% failure rate would be not possible. As to restoring to full power the power level of the transmitter in this case is fixed, the signal strength of the system is reduced by adding attenuation in line to the transmitter antenna. This is simply removed once the threshold is determined and the interference signal is added to the equation. Regards Kevin -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:48 PM To: Price, Ed; 'Kevin Harris'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject:Re: RF testing question Either I am being dense, or there is not enough info in the problem statement. Mr. Harris states that after determination of the interference level (that signal which yields no better than 25% error rate plus 40 dB) the transmitter is returned to full power. How is full power defined? The success or failure of this test will depend on that. Also, the words 25% OR MORE of the signals are not understood (my emphasis) are unclear. If I wanted to pass this test, I would reduce the transmitter level until no signals are understood, then add 40 dB to that number and I would get a lower susceptibility signal than if I had stopped at precisely the 25% level. So to me it seems that there are two uncontrolled variables here: the baseline for establishing the susceptibility signal level, and the level at which the desired signal is transmitted. What am I missing (besides maybe some of my dear, departed brain cells)? --- 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,
RF testing question
Hello, I'm puzzled by a proposed RF link performance standard I have just reviewed that is calling for some immunity to inband interference signals. The proposed procedure to do this to is to place a system receiver in an anechoic room and then transmit to it. The transmitter signal strength is then gradually reduced until 25% or more of the signals are not understood by the receiver. This level is recorded and then an inband interference signal at 40dB greater than the receiver level recorded earlier is introduced to the system. The original transmitter is restored to full power and the system must receive any transmission from it without fault. My question is why would you base an interference signal based on receiver sensitivity. This would mean if you had a receiver that was more sensitive than the other guy you would be subject to a less intense interference signal. Why wouldn't the interference level be fixed? Not being an RF guru, this seems plain wrong to me but perhaps there is a good technical reason for it. Any thoughts? Regards, Kevin Harris DSC --- 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,
TS002 (Australian Telecom)
Hello Colleagues, We just ran across a nifty piece of standards writing. In Australia in of their telecom standards (TS002) there is the following safety statement in it. 5.1.1.2 CE should not cause harm or damage to a Telecommunications Network or Facility when CE is operated outside the range of operating voltage and environmental conditions specified by the manufacturer Our testing facility correctly has asked us to provide a DoC on this point as it is un-testable but I have serious liability concerns about the statement as it lets somebody hook up our device in any environmental condition to any supply voltage and then when things go wrong point to the DoC and claim they were justified in doing so. This standard is not new so I'm sure many of you have come across this product safety issue before. Does anyone know of some sort of interpretation guideline for this issue or failing that, how have you solved this problem. Thanks for your help Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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,
Odd CE Marking Question
Hello Group, I just had a question posed to me that made me think a little bit. So I will pose it to all of you. First some preamble. A device is going to be made for the European market. It is in fact a dummy device in that it looks like the real thing but it is not. The only electronics inside is a bridge rectifier and a RC circuit to blink a LED. The device can be powered by either an AC or DC source up to 30 V. The power source is not supplied. For this industry (security) there is a product family standard for EMC. The device is not a mock up for store display purposes but is in fact used in the industry to give the impression that there are more of these devices around than there really are. So the moment has arrived, do you CE mark the device? If you say yes, what directive did you apply? If you say no, what is your reasoning? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: 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: RTTE Placing in Service
You are right Richard. More directly to your point here is a quote taken from http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/interp.htm and then click on question 12 In the context of the new approach placing on the market is defined as: « A product is placed on the Community market when it is made available for the first time. This is considered to take place when a product is transferred from the stage of manufacture with the intention of distribution and/or use on the Community market . Moreover, the concept of placing on the market refers to each individual product, not to a type of product, and whether it was manufactured as an individual unit or in series. Now the quote is in the middle of a fairly muddled analysis and perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt but what I get from that is it seems like a sale need not take place to be taken into service and therefor you would have to notify. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:04 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: RTTE Placing in Service Thanks for that info Kevin. I think that publication only affects needing a Notified Body per Annex III. The -3 lists the essential test suites, so it is no longer necessary to ask a Notified Body to identify them. Richard Woods -- From: Kevin Harris [SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:07 PM To: 'wo...@sensormatic.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Placing in Service Hi Richard, I think it all becomes a moot point on Feb 7. I was looking at the ETSI site yesterday and they indicate there that EN 300-220-3 will be published in the OJ for the RTTE directive on that date. EN 300-220-3 is the harmonised EN covering the essential requirements under Article 3.2 of the directive Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RTTE Placing in Service Consider a low power radio transmitter subject to EN 300 220 that is to be used only by the manufacturer's service organization and will not be placed on the market for sale. EN 300 220 is a harmonized standard, but the operating frequency is not harmonized. It appears that the provisions in Article 6 do not apply since the product will not be placed on the market. Article 7 contains the provisions for putting into service. Notification to the spectrum authorities (from Article 6) does not appear to be a requirement even though the frequency is not harmonized. It appears that it is sufficient to comply with the essential requirements and apply the CE marking which must include the alert symbol per Annex VII since the frequency is not harmonized. A member state may restrict the placing in service, but only for the three reasons specified in Article 7.2: efficient use of the spectrum, interference and public health. It appears there is no legal requirement to notify the state prior to placing in service. Thus, any restriction would occur due
RE: Fire alarm equipment - EU approval regime
Hello Amund, Frustrating isn't it. Here we have European Norms but the individual countries are insisting on doing their own testing to the same standard. There was a meeting in October in Madrid of EFSAC (European Fire and Security Advisory Council) on this very subject. Go to http://efsac.org http://efsac.orf to see a PDF of the proceeding. I don't see resolution of this problem any time soon Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [mailto:am...@westin.org] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Fire alarm equipment - EU approval regime Hi members My questions are related to Fire alarm equipment (panels, detectors, etc) and the approval regime in Europe. Today the EN54-series are mandatory in most/all countries within EU. But as a manufacturer you have no chance to carry out a one-stop-shopping/testing for all national approvals. That means, if you want a Belgian approval, you have to visit a national lab in Belgium and make all the tests. If you also want to have an UK approval, you have to visit a national lab in UK and full testing, and so on #8230;. Well, some of these labs might have agreements that they accept test reports from other foreign labs and the certification bodies might also accept foreign test report. 1. So, when will it be possible to carry out testing according to EN54-series at an accredited lab and thereafter have full access to the EU market? 2. Which legislation makes it possible to operate like this today in EU? Where is the common market? Thanks for you help. Best regards 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. To 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
RTTE Directive Article 6.4 Notification Contact for Greece
Dear Colleagues, Has anyone has any success finding a contact to give notice to under Art 6.4 for Greece? Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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: RTTE Directive Notification Period
Hello All, I see by the replies that I didn't state my problem clearly. I don't mean to imply that the devices are variants of each other they are not. They are separate devices each of which has been tested to the full extent required. The proposition is purely this. Since I notified the PTTs before about products with the same application and RF characteristics previously and I had no objections from the PTTs and that furthermore the only way PTTs can ban a device is to object on the basis of network harm then they cannot ban my new products and I need not wait the four weeks. Comments anyone? Rest Regards Kevin Harris -Original Message- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:08 PM To: Wismer, Sam; Kevin Harris; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period As always, people are pragmatic, and technical reasons, how valid they may be, cannot prevail over legal ones. Any compliance matter will (-in case of dispute-) finally be judged by a legal specialist, not a technical-, and if in the end you manage to convince a lawyer that A equals B, he will ask you why calling it A anyway. Furthermore , many technical properties of radio devices nowadays depend heavily of software, such as the modulation scheme. If your previous uP served well to extremes of the test range, does the newer one ?? Your reasoning Richard, and Kevin would do well for submitting your device to a test house, as a motivation for no in-hour pre-compliance testing, but not for safeguarding your boss or customers against legal charges. Sorry... Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) Ce-test, qualified testing == Web presence http://www.cetest.nl http://www.cetest.nl/ CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ == -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Wismer, Sam Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 7:42 PM To: Kevin Harris; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hi Kevin, Unless you give it the same model number etc., there will always be what appears to someone who tries to check on it, an un-notified(is that a word?) product on the market. I suppose you could have notified a family of products if you had visibility of them prior to the initial notification. It's a bit like adding a new antenna to a spread spectrum device here in the US. If the antenna is of the same type and equal or lesser gain than one that has already been approved by the FCC, then you don't have to test it. However, you do have to identify it. This means you have to file a class 2 permissive change to add the antenna to the file and wait the 12 week cycle time or so until it gets granted. For your question though, if the label cannot identify it as something that has been notified, then you should re-notify. Just be glad you only have to wait 4 weeks and not 12. My 2 cents... ~ Sam Wismer Lead Regulatory Engineer/ Radio Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [ mailto:harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com ] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:35 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE Directive Notification Period Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
RTTE Directive Notification Period
Hello Sages, I am trying to assess what could possibly happen under the following scenario for the notification period. Lets say I had some SRD devices that have gone through the notification period without comment. At some later point I decide to introduce further devices in the line. The radios are not identical schematically but all the RF characteristics are identical, including percentage on time. The new devices are all type tested, EMC and safety tested in exactly the same manner as the devices previously notified and will be used in the same application. My proposal at that point would be to not wait for 4 weeks to expire on notification but to market the devices immediately. My reasoning for this is that a country can only object to a device being marketed on harm to the network and then follow the procedure in Article 9.5 for banning the device. Since they did not happen previously, they cannot object now. I know that attitude might put some regulatory noses out of joint but does anyone see a problem with the argument. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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
RTTE Directive DoC Requirements
Hello Group, OK I'm confused. Some of you who get Conformity update may remember that at the beginning of the month there was an article on the RTTE directive having to do with DoC requirements. In part it .referred to a TCAM document 6 (30)0 in which a proposed compromise solution was suggested If you didn't include a formal DoC with each product you could have a simple statement in the manual in all 11 languages of the community and give a pointer to a web site for the formal DoC. However I just ran across some minutes from TCAM 6 which state NOTES ON TCAM 6, 25-26 September 2000 6.3 DoC in Manuals: Industry expressed concerns about the compromise reached. It was not usual to put all 11 Community languages in all versions of user manuals. Languages were clustered in meaningful groups to suit commercial distribution arrangements. It was agreed that only relevant languages need be included and that the obligation to supply declarations to users should be revisited in the coming review of the Directive. There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy here. Are either of these documents to be taken at their word? If I invoked either of them do I run any risks of not meeting the requirements of the directive? Any TCAM folks out there care to comment? By the way (since some of us are airing grievances or pet peeves these days) Why is the TCAM site closed except to those who member states deem worthy. Sharing the information with all surely can't hurt. As it stands it certainly gives manufactures within the member states a huge jump on what's happening. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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
RTTE Statement Translations?
Hello Group, Does any of you know of a web location where I might get the 11 language translations of the proposed manual statement (Hereby, [Name of manufacturer], declares that this [type of equipment] is in compliance with the essential requirements and other relevant provisions of Directive 1999/5/EC.) for RTTE directive Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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: RTTE PTT Notification
The following link from the Low Power Radio Association may prove useful http://www.lpra.org/html/era.htm http://www.lpra.org/html/era.htm Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Wismer, Sam [mailto:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 4:39 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: RTTE PTT Notification No, seemed fairly simple once I figured out where to send the notifications to. Let me know if you need some of that information, I have developed a good database. Oh I did get a call from someone in France about my notification. He sounded like he was at a payphone in a train station. On top of that, his English was bad and my French was worse so you can imagine the call wasn't productive. I'm still not sure why he called although he did say everything was okay. That's all I needed to know, so that's where the conversation ended. All in all, my 1st experience with the new directive has gone well. I am now in the process of converting our existing approvals over to the new scheme. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:19 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE PTT Notification Thanks for blazing the trail, Sam. Did you run into any quirks in other EEA countries? Richard Woods -- From: Wismer, Sam [SMTP:wisme...@lxe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:04 PM To: wo...@sensormatic.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE PTT Notification Hi Richard, Yes that was me. For our 2.4GHZ equipment, I made notification to the RegTP declaring complaince to the essential requirements of the RTTE Directive as required by Article 6.4 of the directive. The response I received back was that it was necessary to declare complaince to their national standard, BAPT 222 ZV 126 in this case, as well as the ETS standards(ETS 300 328). I thought this to be in violation of the directive and thus European law and asked my notified body for advice. They too thought this to be a violation of the directive and agreed to look into the matter. I never heard back from them on this issue. I went ahead and re-issued my notification form declaring compliance to both standards since after review, I found them to be technically equivalent. ~ Sam Wismer RF Approvals Engineer LXE, Inc. (770) 447-4224 Ext. 3654 Visit Our Website at: http://www.lxe.com http://www.lxe.com -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [ mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com ] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 9:29 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE PTT Notification We are about to begin our RTTE notification process to the various PTTs in the EEA member countries. I read on this forum that Germany requires declaration to their national standard and not an ETSI standard. Are there any countries that have special requirements for the notification? Richard Woods
RE: Battery Safety
Hi, I've seen this done before on low current designs. Sometimes when you replace the batteries in this type of design the circuit voltage does not have time to drop completely away due to the charge saved on bulk capacitors. When the new batteries are added the circuit comes up in a peculiar state. This is particularly true of uP power on reset circuits. There are more elegant ways to take care of this problem but I suppose a single resistor would be the cheapest (if one ignored battery life). Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls -Original Message- From: Maxwell, Chris [mailto:chr...@gnlp.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 11:31 AM To: 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum' Subject: Battery Safety All, We have inherited a design from a company which we purchased. The product is a handheld and can be operated from a pair of Alkaline batteries. Inside the unit, there is a 91 KOhm resistor across the + and - terminals of the batteries. Since the people who designed the instrument are long gone, some of my collegues have asked me if this resistor could be a safety feature. I can't think of any way this resistor would help the safety of the instrument. I did read through the safety test report; and I found no reference to this resistor being required. All it does is provide a constant drain on the battery (reducing battery life). It has been suggested to me that some designers put resistors across batteries to reduce the electrical noise in a product. To me a capacitor would be better for this because it wouldn't drain the battery while it was filtering. Even so, isn't a battery the ultimate capacitor? I'm just drawing a blank why anyone would do this. I'd love to recommend that we pull this resistor out because it's a pain to solder and it affects battery life. However, I don't want to sacrifice the safety of the product. Anybody want to take a guess at this one? Thanks. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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
EN 54 Pat 7
Hello Group, For some time now there has been a pr version of EN54 Part 7 going through the approval process. I've been hearing that the new version will become official any day now for at least a year. Is anyone out there have more informed knowledge of the progress of this revision Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.com mailto:harr...@dscltd.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
South Korean Spectrum Use
Hello Group, Does anyone know of an online source of rules for South Korea spectrum usage. Failing that where could I write to obtain a hard copy. Do you know if they follow an other counties rules or are they unique to South Korea Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 --- 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
UL Surge Generator
Hello Group, Well it is time to replace one of our surge generators. The unit we are seeking to replace with something a little more modern is one that produces surges such as that specified in UL 864 (amongst others) as a 1.2 J waveform. Typically UL tests at 100, 500 1000 and 2400 Volts with this waveform. This waveform seems to be odd man out in most modern generators. Anyone know of generator manufacturer that fits the bill? Thanks and Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls --- 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
Power Supply Recommendations
Hello Group, We need to get a power supply to provide 230 to 254 V AC 50Hz at 5KVA Min (3KVA just to overcome the backfilter for my surge generator!!!) from a North American mains supply. Does anybody have any recommendations for reliable units. Thank you for your input. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 --- 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
MoU between Czech Republic and EU countries?
Hello Group, Does anyone know if there is a MoU between the Czech Republic and EU countries for the acceptance of each others type approval test reports for low power transmitters (CEPT/ERC 70-03 type) . Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 --- 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: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive
Hello Again Group, Well the group's total silence on this point is indeed interesting. Does nobody know how to proceed or is everyone just keeping their corporate heads down : Please reply offline if you feel uneasy answering this question in a public forum. Regards Kevin Harris -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:38 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: European Standards in conflict with the EMC directive Greetings, Is there an established procedure for demanding the withdrawal of EMC clauses within standards who's primary purpose is industry regulation, not EMC. In my company's industry there is an established product family standard for EMC (EN50130-4) but the good people at CENELEC seem to be ignoring the EMC directive, and have published within the last year or two, EN standards which include EMC testing clauses, with methods that are at odds with the EMC document EN50130-4 published in the OJ. Especially troubling to me is the fact that all of the test organisations that test for the industry regulation specification do not accept either third party or self declarations that the product is EMC compliant. I do not wish to test the same product more than once for a single market. What path do you recommend I follow to demand the repeal of these clauses. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 - - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
LVD Production Line Tests
Hello Group. In last weeks thread about ground bonding no one commented on the side issue for Europe of production line testing to EN 50116 if the equipment was type tested to EN60950. I get the impression that many firms are not testing to EN50116. Does anybody use some other production line test method? Can one say one meets the LVD if one chooses another method for production line testing? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
LVD and notified bodies
Hello Group, Here are some LVD protocol issues for you. If you had a product type tested by one notified body then at some later time a second notified body (doing market surveillance) determines that they feel the product does not meet the LVD ( We are assuming the type tested product was the same as the one examined by the second notified body i.e. This is an interpretation issue only) Who rules here? Can the second notified body deny the first's interpretation? Who could give an official interpretation? (the Commission?) Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Grounding Bond Test
Hi Rich, Interesting P.S. comment. Surely this can only be so if one is not dealing with a CE country. I don't see how a test agency can waive the requirements for meeting the LVD in Europe. If it is indeed as you say, then where does it put those of us who have in house safety testing and self certify. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 4:37 PM To: carmen.fili...@leitch.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; fra...@csa.ca Subject: Re: Grounding Bond Test Hi Carmen: You ask how to resolve the difference between two, different production-line (routine) test standards. If your product is certified by CSA, then you test to the 30-ampere value. If your product is certified by a CB Certificate and Test Report, and the issuing body invokes EN 50116, then you test to the 25-ampere value. If your product is certified by UL, then you test to any current of your choosing. So, the answer to your question is: Whatever your certification house says. In essence, the requirement is proprietary to the certification house. The certification house can invoke any production-line test it feels is necessary. CSA uses 30 amps, 2 minutes. A certification house that invokes EN 50116 uses 25 amps, 1 minute as a maximum test. UL does not require a high-current test. The CSA 30-amp requirement derives from the fact that a CSA circuit-breaker rated 15 amperes (the most common 120-volt circuit in Canada) is not required to trip before 2 minutes at a current of twice rating, 30 amperes. So, the equipment grounding circuit must withstand 30-amperes for 2 minutes. The CENELEC 25-ampere requirement history is not at all clear. It has been in both European standards and UL standards as a type test for many, many years. It only appeared as a routine test when EN 50115 was published a few years ago. By the way, neither high-current test (as a production-line test) will identify continuity problems any better than a low-current test. The presumption is that the high-current test will identify a manufacturing defect in the grounding circuit, while a low-current test will not. In actuality, the grounding circuit, in order to pass the type test, had to be properly designed to handle the high current, no matter whether 25 amps or 30 amps. So, for the production-line, we need to be assured, by test, that the high-current circuit has been assembled correctly and with no defects. The high-current test WILL NOT identify loose screws if the conductors are making contact! The high- current test WILL NOT identify cut strands of wire if there are 3 or more strands in the circuit! (Feel free to duplicate these tests or any other grounding circuit defects you can imagine; the circuit will pass the high-current test!) The high-current test does not identify continuity problems any better than a low-current test. I did point this out to the EN 50116 committee when they asked for comments before it was published. Interesting that the committee ignored the data and required the test anyway! I guess the lesson is: don't confuse a technical committee with technical facts. Rich - Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group AiO Division Tel : +1 858 655 3329 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 858 655 4979 San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com - ps: In high-volume production, both the 1-minute and the 2-minute tests are unacceptable to the manufacturer. It seems that most certification houses will waive the long-term test in these cases! This seems to admit that the high-current test is not particularly valuable. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
EN 54 Part 7
Hello, Is anybody out there in this list that sits on the working group involved in this spec? Do you know if there are any plans for updating it? My particular interest is the EMC portion. As components of fire and burglary systems are now covered by the family product EMC specification EN50130-4, is there any plans to drop the EMC requirements from EN 54? Thanks and Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: French Customs demand EC Declaration!
Sorry I don't have a legal type answer for you, although I agree that it is against the spirit of the directive. I just though I would expand the controversy and ask if you know if they are also demanding that declarations for other directives like the LVD are also included with the shipment? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com [SMTP:roger.vi...@wwgsolutions.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 11:34 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: French Customs demand EC Declaration! Recently French customs have started to demand that shipments of CE marked electronic products are accompanied by a copy of the EC Declaration of Conformity to the EMC Directive. Companies are having product held up and are being fined. This seems contrary to the spirit of the single market and is NOT envisaged in the EMC Directive, which requires only that the Declaration be held in the EU. It is required by French Law under Bulletin Officiel du Douane no. 6267 of 26 June 1998. This includes a specific law: DA no 98-112 - E/S (P.6112) concerning EMC of electrical and electronic equipment. This includes a section (III - Role du Service) which reckons that any importation is the first placing on the (EU) market of that item and demands that the importer must produce, at the time of importation, the necessary documents, including the EC Declaration of Conformity, in order to support the customs declaration. Production of the document at a later date is not authorised. Because customs inspections are applied only to goods from outside the EU, the problem occurs with products imported from US, etc. Does anyone have experience of this or believe it contravenes any EU laws? Thanks for any help, Roger Viles Group Standards Manager Wavetek Wandel Goltermann - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Spread Spectum Frequencies
Hello Group, I few years ago I remember seeing an article in one of the EMC/ Approval trade magazines with some in depth country lists of what frequencies were available for spread spectrum use. Does anyone remember that article and can they point me to it, or alternatively does anybody know of a good list. Thanks Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Request for Environmental Chamber Info for North American Market
Hi Folks, Well it is time for me to get a new environmental chamber. I need a unit with temperature and humidity control and also automated control from a computer. We are looking for a capacity in the 8 cubic foot range. Does anyone have some manufacturer names and model numbers for a chamber they have used and liked or perhaps some info on units to stay away from (perhaps it would be better for the second part to be offline). Thank you Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
OSHA and restrictions on suspending a mass on a wall
Hello Everyone, Our products are typically low mass ( 2-5 Kg) and are typically hung in a cabinet on the wall. We have a new device being designed that will be considerably heavier and is intended for the US market. Do any of you who are familiar with OSHA regulations in the US know of restrictions in a) a person lifting a mass to hang on the wall and or b) restrictions on a mass suspended from a wall. Is there a particular OSHA document that would give me this kind of information. Thanks for your help. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EMC Canada
Benoit is entirely correct, however a word to the wise for Canadian political correctness. There are some in Canada, who take great offence when somebody leaves off the official language of their choice from any literature. Since most of us cannot say for certain what official Canadian language our customers will speak, it is generally easier to place both languages on the label and be done with it. Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 11:45 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Canada Interesting. A thorough reading of clause 6.2 indicates that a written notice indicating compliance in the form of a label... must be used. Then it says, A suggested text for the notice, in English and in French, is provided in the Annex. I always understood that the wording could be changed, but it never occurred to me that French was optional. However, there is nothing in the text that says that either or both languages are required. Thanks for catching that. -- From: Benoit Nadeau [SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 10:37 AM To: WOODS, RICHARD; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC Canada Bonjour, ICES-003 requires a special statement for the Canadian market but this statement could be in english only or in french only or both. Regards, At 08:28 23-03-99 -0500, WOODS, RICHARD wrote: For digital devices, the emissions limits are the same for Canada as they are for the USA. Industry Canada is the controlling agency and the specification for digital devices is ICES-003 Issue 2, Revision 1. I believe that you can find the document on line. A special statement is required on the device in English and French. You may self-test and no submission is required. -- From: roger...@astec-asia.com [SMTP:roger...@astec-asia.com] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 9:17 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC Canada Can anybody advise the EMC requirements for power supply units (desk top and stand alone adaptors) shipping to Canada. Is there any logo required? Should the tests be done in the accredited test lab, if so, is HOKLAS accredited lab accepted? Thanks and regards, Roger Hsu - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). -- Benoit Nadeau, ing. M.ing. (P.Eng., M.Eng) Gerant du Groupe Conformite (Conformity Group Manager) Matrox http://www.matrox.com/ -- 1055, boul. St-Regis Dorval (Quebec) Canada H9P 2T4 Tel : (514) 822-6000 (x2475) FAX : (514) 822-6275 Internet : bnad...@matrox.com, mailto:bnad...@matrox.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
EMC Requirements for the Czech Republic
Hello All, I seem to remember reading that the Czech Republic now accepted DoCs for ITE based on European norms, both for EMC and safety. Can anybody confirm or deny? Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Fire Safety Requirements for the UK
Hello Group, Does anyone know of test houses in Britain that are certified to test equipment such as smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors to British standards? Who is the regulatory body in Britain for fire detection and related equipment? Are there national laws in Britain on fire detection equipment or do manufactures follow some industry standards? Thanks for you help? Regards Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: EN 61000-4-4
I'm sorry I disagree with Mike's assessment. To take that argument to it's logical conclusion would mean that I have to test the AC side at the same time as I did my I/O. I've been told before by a couple of test houses in the UK that all the cables at once is not acceptable according to UKAS (UK test house accreditation agency). In section 6.3 of the standard paragraph 5 says The clamp itself shall be closed as much as possible to provide maximum coupling capacitance between the cable and the clamp (no plurals there). This test is difficult enough to reproduce this test from set up to set up without introducing the uncertainties of how a bundle of cables was arranged in the clamp. Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com -Original Message- From: Mike Hopkins [SMTP:mhopk...@keytek.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 3:34 PM To: 'Collins, Erik D.'; 'emc-pstc list server' Subject: RE: EN 61000-4-4 Place all cables in the clamp together I agree the standard is not clear, but the intent was always that all the I/O cables be placed in the clamp together. The idea is to simulate transients being coupled between lines in cable trays, especially where noisey ac lines are run near or adjecent to I/O lines. It's not likely the signals would be coupled to one line and not to another; in fact, because of the very fast pulses, everything gets very well coupled very quickly. Mike Hopkins mhopk...@keytek.com -Original Message- From: Collins, Erik D. [SMTP:collin...@lxe.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 10:40 AM To: 'emc-pstc list server' Subject:EN 61000-4-4 When performing EFT/B on signal and control lines using the capacitive coupling clamp, should you: 1. Place all cables in the clamp together 2. Place all cables in the clamp independently 3. Both Thanks Erik D. Collins EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer LXE Inc. Phone 770-447-4224 x3240 Fax 770-447-6928 Check out our website @: http://www.lxe.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Lab Required for Specific Australian Standards
Hello Group, Could any lab that is accredited to perform the following Australian Standards please contact me directly AS3100 AS3108 AS1931.1 Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email: harr...@dscltd.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Shield Room Grounding
Hi Barry et al, I'm I missing something here? Is this exercise worth the trouble? If one doesn't have a clear margin to any commercial limit line with any kind of resistive dummy load attached to your LISN shouldn't you examine the your system setup? Accurate determination of your measurement system noise floor with a known impedance through the frequency range is really only of academic use in this case, isn't it? This should have no bearing on pass/fail of an EUT as the measurement system noise floor and the limit line should be well separated for conducted emissions in a shielded room. Regards, Kevin Harris -Original Message- From: b...@namg.us.anritsu.com [SMTP:b...@namg.us.anritsu.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 1:33 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Shield Room Grounding Hi Ed, I appreciate your kindness to share your experience with us about constructing equivalent load: I constructed a load bank consisting of 16 surface mount light bulb sockets, all wired in parallel. I just screw in an array of 25/60/75/100 Watt rated lamps until I get the necessary current. Sure, there's some unknown slight lead inductance and capacitance. But all I want to do is draw a few amps DC I have two questions: (1)What is the impedance of your bulb array at 30 MHz? i.e., Zb=? @30 MHz. (2)What is the impedance of EUT at 30 MHz? i.e., Ze=? @30 MHz If we are not sure Zb=Ze @30 MHz, I am afraid, it's hard to say the spectrum analyzer would receive the same RF emission at 30 MHz from noise sources other than EUT, although the bulb array draws the same current at 60 Hz as EUT does. In other words, Zb=Ze @60 Hz is one thing, and Zb=Ze @30 MHz would be another. Let's see an example, assuming Ze=Re+jXe, where Xe=Omega*Le, and Omega=2*Pi*F. Re=20 Ohm, Xe=0.1 Ohm @60 Hz, Ze=20+j*0.1=20 Ohm Be=20 Ohm, Xe=5 Ohm @30 MHz,Ze=j*5 Ohm Conclusion: As far as the equivalent load is concerned, we can only pay attention to the equivalence of resistance part of Zb and Ze @60 Hz. At 30 MHz, however, we should pay more attention to the equivalence of reactance part of Ze and Zb instead. Suggestion: We might need to check the equivalence of Zb and Ze @30 MHz by using an Impedance Analyzer, e. g., HP4191A(?). Thank you. Please correct me. Best Regards, Barry Ma - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
CE Industrial rated RS-232 interface card sources
Hello, Does anybody know of a RS-232 interface card that can meet CE industrial ratings including industrial level surge on the I/O lines themselves? Thanks for your help Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
The EMC Directive and Insurance Companies
Hello All, I work in an industry in which ( in Europe ) we are subject to insurance regulations as well as the EMC directive. In many countries having your equipment meet these standards entitles the users of the equipment to a premium discount with the insurer. In some countries submitting your equipment for test is optional in others it is required by law. Most, if not all, of the insurance regulations include EMC tests in their suite of tests (including some mighty peculiar ones). I've thought up until now that I would just put up with it until the DOW for our family product comes around and then I thought all these extra tests would go away. I have recently hear for a source in Europe that the insurance industry is exempt from the EMC directive and that they could continue to impose their tests. Can anyone confirm or deny this exemption. Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Multiple EMC requirements for Fire Equipment in EU
Hello All, I've been looking at the 1998 version of EN 54-2 which is the performance standard for Fire systems control and indicating Equipment. In that standard they have decided to call out some immunity testing. My first question is why! The family product EMC standard for these items already is covered by EN50130-4 (1996). Futhermore EN54-2 is a few years out of step by calling out tests from the 801 series. Can anyone out there from the working group for this standard offer some insight as to why this happened or if there are any plans to modify the standard to either call out EN50130-4 as the test method or to repeal the EMC provisions. What is the groups feeling? Can I safely ignore EN54-2 for it's EMC testing sections and just test to EN50130-4 (its more comprehensive) and declare compliance for the EMC directive on that basis . I really don't feel like taking the time and expense to extend my testing to old standards. Finally this brings up an intesting general point. Lets assume that both of these standards reach their dow. We know one conflicts technically with the other. Both documents have standard statements in their forewords about dates. The first one (dop) is the latest date by which the EN has to be implemented at a National level by publication of an identical NATIONAL STANDARD or by endorsement. the last one (dow) is the latest date by which the NATIONAL STANDARD conflicting with the EN have to be withdrawn. A country implementing an EN makes it a NATIONAL STANDARD as per the definition of the dop. Now we have two standards saying the other must go! Who wins the battle? Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax 416 665 7753
CEPT/ERC Recommmendation 70-03 (Tromso1997)
Hello , I have some questions related to the above CEPT/ERC recommendation related to the use of short range devices. 1.How do CEPT/ERC documents fit in the scheme of things for approvals in Europe. Do these documents get used as basis for a document that gets published in the OJ, or are they in fact just recommendations and national laws take precedence. 2. Has the remarks/restrictions area for Annex 7 (Alarms) changed at all since 1997 Thanks for you help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 email harr...@dscltd.com
EN50130-4 Rated Video Security Cameras
Hello Group, I'm going to be doing some immunity testing for a system that will have security video cameras attached to it. As we do not make cameras ourselves I need to get hold of some PAL units that have passed EN50130-4 (family product spec for security devices. This norm specifies levels generally associated with heavy industrial specifications). This device should also meet EN55022 Class B. Does anyone know of such a vendor? Thanks for your help! Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax 416 665 7753
Re: Chart of EMC standards !!!!!
Hey Group, This unethical jerk's web page causes your PC to spew information to him (it simulates a form) when you access his pages. Is this the same person that somebody warned about browsing earlier? I guess we all know now who not to use for constancy or testing in the Netherlands Regards to all but Gert Gremmen, Kevin Harris P.S. What do the moderators think? Is this just cause for removal of this individual from the group? -Original Message- From: Gert Gremmen ce-test cet...@cetest.nl To: emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: hfarn...@physio-control.com hfarn...@physio-control.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Chart of EMC standards ! Dear members, May I draw your attention to the web site below, it has a list of so-called harmonized standards per sept 97, to be used for ce-marking. It is a large list, and listing the scope of each standard would be to much asked. If any questions stay, don not hesitate to ask me Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen cet...@cetest.nl http://www.cetest.nl --- - ce-test , qualified testing Electro Magnetic Compatility - Electrical Safety Compliance testing, Education and Workhops, Consultancy Bezoek de Nationale Electronica WeB Ring (Dutch only) http://www.cetest.nl/e-ring.htm --- - -- -- From: Farnsworth,Heber hfarn...@physio-control.com To: Post News emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Chart of EMC standards? Date: vrijdag 12 december 1997 0:24 Does anyone know where I can find a chart showing which EN or IEC EMC standards apply to what equipment? I'm interested in medical, information processing and test measuring equipment, both emissions (EMI, harmonics etc.) and immunity (radiated, conducted, ESD, etc.)
EN 60950 and component heating
Hello All, In testing some product for excessive temperatures I have come up against the following problem. Consider a diode (part of a bridge rectifier circuit) and the PCB underneath the component. If one measures the temperature of the diode it does not come close to the specification for the part. However if we place a thermocouple on the pad where the diode is attached to the PCB and we consider that as a temperature measurement for the PCB material itself ,then the temperature obtained is above the board manufacturers spec of 110 C (when we take into account our maximum permissible ambient temperature of 49 C). By the by all this is NOT operator accessible if that makes any difference. Questions. 1. Is this a valid temperature measurement for the PCB? I'm of two minds on this. It could said that I'm really measuring the diodes temperature and not the PCB. On the other hand the diode pad does touch the PCB . 2.Would it be more reasonable to measure the temperature in the same neighborhood as the pad but make sure that the probe does not touch the PCB pad? Would a notified body be of the same opinion? 3.If you feel that the first method is a valid measurement technique then do you know of any ways to work around the problem? There are many power devices that can easily and safely exceed a PCB material spec of only 110 C. Thanks for your opinions! Best Regards, Kevin Harris email harr...@dscltd.com
Re: Type Approval Agencies ...(Clarification)
Hello Again, In my last message I left out one little piece of (critical) information. I am looking for RF type approval government agencies. Thanks again to all who responded. Regards, Kevin Harris Hello Everyone, Does anybody have any contact information (email or phone or address) for the government agencies responsible for type approvals in the following long list of countries. (Can you tell we don't often do type approvals in Europe ) Austria Finland Spain Portugal Luxembourg Switzerland Netherlands Thanks for your help! Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada +1 416 665-8460 Ext 378 e-mail comp_...@dscltd.com
Attachments (as in e-mail not telephoney)
I have noticed more and more of the people who subscribe to this list server are using attachments to send their e-mail. Usually the attachment is named without a three letter extension. For those of us using WIN95 and IE 3.0x these documents cannot be opened by clicking on them unless there is an extension (Thank you Bill Gates). This forces us to save and rename the document to view it. If people who use the attachment form of sending e-mail could please include some form of commonly used extension for your attachment (such as *.txt *.doc) it would be very helpful. Thank you Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada +1 416 665-8460 Ext 378 e-mail comp_...@dscltd.com
EMC and Safety Standards for Hungary
My information on Hungarian EMC is a little thin. Does anybody know the state of things for ITE equipment? Are they following the EC on this? Thanks for your help Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378
Re: Notified Bodies and Test Samples
Richard Woods wrote A Notified Body for EMC has told us that we must keep the test sample for 10 years. Since there is nothing in the Directive that requires samples to be kept, we find this request to be unacceptable. We have a TCF and understand that it must be kept for 10 years after production ceases. Has anyone else encountered this type of requirement by a Notified Body? I agree with you Richard, I haven't read anywhere that you legally must keep your sample for 10 years. I suppose though if at some point if things have gone badly and someone questioned your results, it might help your in your defense of due diligence if you could produce the item tested and could show that it didn't differ from your production. Really though, for most of us to keep a sample or samples as the case may be, of everything we ever tested would call for some pretty big warehouses. Perhaps you should get them to quote you exactly what document and clause that they have extracted this requirement from, maybe then will have a reply more to your liking. Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378
Telecom Regulatory Test Equipment
Does anybody know of any companies that manufactures a good telecom test set (or parts of test sets) that are flexible enough to adapt to several countries regulations (especially Europeen}. I know this isn't strictly a EMC or PS issue but I figure most EMC and PS people live next door to telecom types so I'll give it a shot By the way is there a similar group for telecom folks? I can be reached by e-mail at kev...@ica.net or by mail at Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario Canada M3J 2J6 or by phone at 416 665-8460 Ext 378 or by fax at 416 665-7498 Thanks Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering, D.S.C.
