Non-NRTL Test Reports
Greetings, I'm trying to get a feel for how well the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC's) have accepted non-NRTL test reports for GR-1089, especially for sections 2 and 3 (ESD and EMI). From what I understand, the requirement for NRTL-generated test reports has been relaxed within the past year or two. Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor Compliance Engineer, Wireline Systems Division ADC Broadband Access and Transport Group Tel: 919.875.3382 Fax: 919.876.1817 allen_tu...@adc.com Learn about ADC - The Broadband Company at www.adc.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: Draft WEEE Directive - BeCu
I was recently told by a representative of Instrument Specialties that beryllium-copper is no longer banned in Europe. I can provide a name and number if you need it. -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:14 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Draft WEEE Directive - BeCu Trying to identify if beryllium-copper is controlled or Banned in Europe. Looked at the waste directive (4th edition) and didn't see a reference to it. Anybody have an information on it (or did I either just miss it or am I looking at the wrong place?) Thanks Gary --- 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
Site Correlation
Greetings: What's the best way to correlate a pre-compliance chamber (smaller than a 3m chamber) to a 10m anechoic chamber? Should I use a signal generator and antenna or should I use a comb generator? Would the answer be different if I were correlating the pre-compliance chamber to an OATS? Thanks in advance. Allen Tudor, Compliance Engineer ADC DSL Systems Inc. 6531 Meridien Dr. Raleigh, NC 27616 phone: 919.875.3382 email: allen_tu...@adc.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: Which Antenna?
Thanks for your response. Since our lab will be used for pre-compliance in an RD facility, I foresee several engineers wanting to use the equipment. I would hate to see someone drop an antenna or knock one off the wall that isn't being used. I didn't think of the scenario you mentioned where an unused antenna is left in the room but I can definitely see that happening. As for the standard, I have referred to a preliminary standard from BSI. Its document number is 96/216005. The title is CONCEPT EMC STANDARD ANECHOIC CHAMBERS: PART X: EMISSION MEASUREMENTS IN FULLY ANECHOIC CHAMBERS. I ordered it from Global for about $35. One of the interesting things in the standard is that instead of calculating the absence of reflected signal from the ground plane, it recommends a 6dB fudge factor. The reasons we are building a FAR chamber is that you don't have to raise and lower the antenna to compensate for reflected signal from the metallic ground plane. Also, theoretically, you get a much better correlation to a 10-m OATS than you do with a 3-m SAR. There was a very good article on FAR chambers in the May/June issue of Compliance Engineering magazine entitled Examining the Use of Fully Anechoic Rooms for Full-Compliance EMC Testing. -Original Message- From: eric.lif...@ni.com [mailto:eric.lif...@ni.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:41 PM To: Tudor, Allen Subject: Re: Which Antenna? Allen, Use the biconolog. When I hear people knock it I reply with - how much wear on the N connectors can the antenna and cable take before it's a bigger factor? Also, each time a bicon and log antenna is changed on the mast or tripod, you take a risk of an accident that renders the antenna clearly out of calibration; you could be shut down for weeks unless you can afford a spare set of antennas. Also, people tend to rush things and will leave the unused antenna sitting on the pad during a test, almost directly under the antenna in use! I've seen this at an accredited test lab. That alone introduces error. Our chamber is just a semi-anechoic 3 meter box and uses the same biconolog as our OATS does. When I justified the purchase, I added a 3rd biconolog to the order as a spare. The spare also acts as a 3rd identical antenna so we could self-cal the antennas, and it lets us run NSA checks on the OATS without shutting down the chamber. We're thinking of adapting our 3 meter chamber for the new fully anechoic (FAR) test method, but is the new test standard published yet? Is that why you are buidling a FAR? Best Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager National Instruments Please respond to Tudor, Allen allen_tu...@pairgain.com Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc: Subject: Which Antenna? Greetings, I am having a fully anechoic pre-compliance test chamber built. By fully anechoic, I mean ferrite tiles will be installed on the floor as well as the walls and ceiling. The inner dimensions of the chamber will be 24 feet long by 14 feet wide by 13 feet high. The chamber will be used for radiated emissions as well as radiated immunity. Radiated emissions testing will be from 30MHz to 1GHz. I am looking at a biconilog antenna that can be used for emissions and immunity testing. However; for emissions measurements, the salesman recommends that I use separate biconical and log-periodic antennas. He says that if I use the biconilog antenna for emissions measurements, there will be some coupling to the ground plane when the antenna is in the vertical position. However, this chamber will have ferrite on the floor, so I don't know if that is a valid argument. Aside from the expense of two additional antennas, I have two conflicting concerns. 1. I would rather not have to work with more than one antenna if I don't have to due to down time and possible damage to an antenna. 2. On the flip side, I want to make sure that I have repeatable results, especially at the low end of the spectrum. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --- 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
Which Antenna?
Greetings, I am having a fully anechoic pre-compliance test chamber built. By fully anechoic, I mean ferrite tiles will be installed on the floor as well as the walls and ceiling. The inner dimensions of the chamber will be 24 feet long by 14 feet wide by 13 feet high. The chamber will be used for radiated emissions as well as radiated immunity. Radiated emissions testing will be from 30MHz to 1GHz. I am looking at a biconilog antenna that can be used for emissions and immunity testing. However; for emissions measurements, the salesman recommends that I use separate biconical and log-periodic antennas. He says that if I use the biconilog antenna for emissions measurements, there will be some coupling to the ground plane when the antenna is in the vertical position. However, this chamber will have ferrite on the floor, so I don't know if that is a valid argument. Aside from the expense of two additional antennas, I have two conflicting concerns. 1. I would rather not have to work with more than one antenna if I don't have to due to down time and possible damage to an antenna. 2. On the flip side, I want to make sure that I have repeatable results, especially at the low end of the spectrum. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --- 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: Hygroscopic Dust Troubleshooting
Texas Instruments (TI) has switched to a palladium lead finish to address European environmental concerns associated with lead disposal. There have been documented failures of the hygroscopic dust test attributed to palladium coated leads. TI is aware of the problem, but to my knowledge nothing has been done about it. -Original Message- From: Kretsch, John Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 11:06 AM To: 'n...@world.std.com'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: Hygroscopic Dust Troubleshooting I thought I would try to contact the collective on this one... We have a shelf system that is failing GR-63 hygro dust with excessive bit errors (unit did pass Gaseous contaminants no problem). Air is filtered. Anyone have experiences that they would like to share (non-proprietary of course) about how to trouble-shoot and solve this problem? This was the only GR-63 test to have a failure. Regards, John K.
RE: Enclosure Material Immunity
Henry Ott's book Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems, Second Edition provides good insight into your question. The ISBN # is 0-471-85068-3. From chapter 6, I quote the following passages: With respect to magnetic fields: High permeability materials are most useful as magnetic field shields at frequencies below 10 kHz. With respect to electric and magnetic fields and plane waves: At high frequencies (above 10 MHz), absorption loss predominates, and any solid shield thick enough to be practical provides more than adequate shielding for most applications...As a practical matter, the intrinsic shielding effectiveness of the material is of less concern than the leakage through seams, joints, and holes. He also shows how to compute shielding effectiveness of various materials and thicknesses. I am sure others would agree that this book is well worth your investment. -Original Message- From: Dick Grobner [mailto:dick.grob...@medgraph.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 10:22 AM To: IEEE EMC-PSTC E-Mail Forum (E-mail) Subject: Enclosure Material Immunity Good Day Forum Members I have just been posed with a question here at work and I have no immediate answer. Someone asked if an electronic enclosure constructed of stainless steel is in any way more superior (or equivalent too) against EMI/RFI (ESD, radiated RF, Magnetic, etc.) over one constructed of steel (zinc plated). In the past all of our enclosure have been constructed of steel or aluminum and plated accordingly. I do not have much in the line of resources on this subject so any input from the forum would be appreciated!! Provide me with your experiences, good or bad! Thanks (in advance) Dick Grobner Compliance Engineering Medical Graphics Corporation 350 Oak Grove Parkway St Paul, MN 55127 651-766-3395 651-766-3389 (fax) dick.grob...@medgraph.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Near Field Versus Far Field
Consider how the reflected wave from the ground plane at the 10m site might add or subtract to the incident wave depending on frequency and antenna height. Also, the near-field probe measurement is taken in the near-field (obviously) while the antenna at the 10m sight is in the far field. Also, your results with the near-field probe will depend on probe orientation and distance held from the product. -Original Message- From: Bronaugh, Edwin [mailto:edwin.brona...@icn.siemens.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 5:10 PM To: 'marti...@appliedbiosystems.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Near Field Versus Far Field Mr. Martin, have you thought about the fact that the near-field probe does not integrate the whole radiation sphere from your product? On the 10 m site, your antenna sees radiation components from all parts of the EUT, including any cables; while your near-field probe in the lab cannot pick all of these up at the same relative levels and phases as does the antenna on the OATS. This may not be your problem, but in my opinion, it invites investigation. Regards, EdB -Original Message- From: marti...@appliedbiosystems.com [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:08 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Near Field Versus Far Field I am having a difficult time answering the following question for a non-technical person. Hopefully, someone can put the answer into a language that a non-technical person can understand. We have a 400 MHz clock and are failing radiated emissions at 10 meters by 10 dB at 400 MHz. We bring the product back to our lab and start making modifications on the clock circuit and taking measurements with a near field probe. With these modifications and measuring with a near field probe, we realize a 10 dB reduction in emissions at 400 MHz. Why would we not see the same reduction when taking the product back to a 10 meter site? Your help is appreciated. Regards Joe Martin marti...@appliedbiosystems.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Immunity Uncertainty
This question is in regard to the radiated immunity test specified in section 3.3 of GR-1089-CORE in which the test signal is 80% AM modulated with a 1KHz tone. In testing analog voiceband channels for idle channel noise per section 3.5.3(c) of GR-1089-CORE, we have been using a Transmission Impairment Measurement Set (TIMS). It is my understanding, that the TIMS input should be designed to see only the 1KHz demodulated signal originating from the EUT. It has become apparent that on more than one occasion that the TIMS itself has demodulated the test signal and displayed a reading that would indicate a failure. This seems to be a result of the modulated test signal coupling into the unshielded twisted pair connected to the analog voiceband channels of the EUT. Adding ferrites to the analog voiceband twisted pair leads improves the situation. I have thought of using a shielded cable, but there isn't a good way to terminate the shield at either end. Has anyone seen a similar problem? In summary it seems that in some cases, we are testing the measuring instrument, not the EUT. The TIMS seems to be sensitive to the modulated test signal. If this is the case, are some TIMS better than others? If so, what specification would indicate a TIMS immunity to the modulated test signal? Is there a more reliable instrument than a TIMS? Please feel free to call me if this would be easier. Thanks in advance. -Original Message- From: David Gelfand [mailto:gelf...@memotec.com] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: 90 V gas-filled arrestors source? Hello group, Does anyone know who makes gas-filled arrestors called for in IEC 1000-4-5 coupling networks? Would a MOV be ok? Thanks, David. David Gelfand Regulatory Approvals Memotec Communications Inc. Montreal Canada
