RE: D of C again
Quite the opposite. Compliance testing can only be done on the final production model. This obviously places compliance testing at the end of the pipeline. It is questionable, to say the least, to issue a DOC prior to final testing, so the DOC is not available till after final compliance testing. There is normally a several month lead time for publication of manuals, so the product introduction will be delayed by the amount of time necessary to get the manuals published. Manufacturers have very agressive (and often optomistic) development cycles. There is no extra time in the cycle to add a few weeks or months for publication and still meet introduction dates. These things have to run in parallel. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: D of C again I read in !emc-pstc that Wagner, John P (John) johnwag...@avaya.com wrote (in 4203D61676D0AE468AA5CEA90A891C130288F018@cof110avexu4.global. avaya.com) about 'D of C again' on Thu, 1 May 2003: I agree with Paul. It is usually very difficult to print the DoC in the users manual. Ordinarily, the manual is approved and goes to print before the final testing of the product and certainly before the DOC is signed. Is that a new law of nature? It seems that the system is running you, rather than the other way round. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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 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
RE: D of C again
I agree with Paul. It is usually very difficult to print the DoC in the users manual. Ordinarily, the manual is approved and goes to print before the final testing of the product and certainly before the DOC is signed. One solution we have used is to print all the compliance information in the manual -- with respect to all jurisdictions, not only the EU. This compliance information contains the same technical info as the DOC and lists a url where the signed DOC can be found. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: Didcott Paul [mailto:pdidc...@sendo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:37 AM To: 'douglas_beckw...@mitel.com'; lfresea...@aol.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: D of C again Doug, et al, This is the position in the EU under the RTTE Directive, as well as LVD/EMC. (The RTTED replaces these directives for equipment within it's scope.) Annex ii paragraph 2 of RTTED states concerning DoC and TCF: Where neither the manufacturer nor his representative is established within the Community (i.e. EU), the obligation to keep the technical documentation available is the responsibility of the person who places the product on the Community Market. It is possible to keep copy of the original DoC on corporate website, and refer in user manual to the website, rather than paste copy within every manual. EC Europa website gives plenty of finite detail on these issues. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/faq.htm Best Regards, Paul G Didcott Regulatory Approval Group SenDô Ltd. Sendo Base Station, Hatchford Way, Birmingham, B26 3RZ, UK. www.sendo.com Direct: +44 (0)121 251 5061 Op: +44 (0)121 251 5000 Fax:+44 (0)121 251 5001 Mob:+44 (0)7764 357385 All information contained within this e-mail, including the information contained in any attachments, is strictly private and belongs to Sendo Limited. It is to be treated as being marked Proprietary and Confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) to whom it has been sent by us. Further dissemination, or forwarding of this e-mail, is prohibited without Sendo's written consent. If you are not the intended recipient, we hereby give you notice that any reproduction or dissemination of its contents in any manner or format whatsoever is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error or without authority, please contact us immediately on g...@sendo.co.uk and delete the message you have received. Thank you. -Original Message- From: douglas_beckw...@mitel.com [mailto:douglas_beckw...@mitel.com] Sent: 29 April 2003 16:19 To: lfresea...@aol.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: D of C again And the answer is The D of C must be signed by the responsible person designated by the manufacturer. The signatory does not have to be located in the EU. The manufacturer must designate a representative in the EU who will hold the certificate and the technical file. This could be an agent, distributor. A copy of the D of C that states the directives complied with must be placed in the user manual. Note, this does not have to be signed, but it must state where the signed original can be obtained. i.e. the EU representative's contact details. Doug Beckwith (OOPO) lfresea...@aol.com Sent by: To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org owner-emc-pstc@majordom cc: o.ieee.org Subject: D of C again 04/29/03 09:13 AM Please respond to Lfresearch Hi folks, I've been asked by a US manufacturer who's signature if any should appear on the D of C, and should they be located on European soil. Is there a clear consensus? Thanks, Derek N. Walton Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility Poplar Grove, Illinois, USA www.lfresearch.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 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
RE: AC outlet max current
You'll find this requirement in NEC Article 210.21 (B) (2) Total cord and plug connected load. Where connected to a branch circuit supplying 2 or more rreceptacles or outlets, a receptacle shall not supply a total cord and plug connected load in excess of the maximum in table 210.21(B)(2). Circuit rating Recepatacle Rating Max Load 15 or 20 15 12 2020 16 3030 24 John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: Gonzalez, Kenneth P (Rocky) [mailto:kpgon...@ingr.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:10 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: AC outlet max current Group It was my understanding that one could only draw 80% of the max current from an AC wall outlet. Is this true? Where does the NEC specify this? Thanks to all, Kenneth Gonzalez Intergraph Solutions Group 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 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
RE: Performance Criterion
Nonsense! Both the basic standard and the CISPR standard have words to the effect that performance degradation is defined by the manufacturer. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:11 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Performance Criterion I read in !emc-pstc that Pettit, Ghery ghery.pet...@intel.com wrote (in d9223eb959a5d511a98f00508b68c20c12516...@orsmsx108.jf.intel.com) about 'Performance Criterion' on Thu, 24 Apr 2003: During the test, degradation of performance is allowed. However, no change of operating state or stored data is allowed to persist after the test. Yes, well, as is unfortunately far too common, a CISPR text has been written and accepted with mind not engaged. A product could be failed under that provision if recovery was delayed by 1 NANOSECOND! In other words, what time period is implied by the word 'persist'? We have to guess. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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 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
RE: CISPR 22 Ed. 4.0 Vote Results
It passed by one vote. CISPR/I/73/RVD is the voting report. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:56 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: CISPR 22 Ed. 4.0 Vote Results Voting on CISPR/I/67/FDIS for CISPR 22 Ed. 4.0 ended 2003-03-21. Does anyone know the results? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: 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
RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports
It is my understanding that such ports ARE included in the scope. Comments from experts on CISPR/I indicate that digital TV tends to have higher emissions than traditional TV signals. The intent of the standard is clearly to limit emissions from cabling structures. Unless test data shows otherwise, I think you're stuck. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:24 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports Unfortunately, EN 55022 is the only available emissions standard for CCTV products used for security applications. Even the standard for professional video equipment, EN55103-1, references EN 55022 as does the generic standard. Perhaps the CISPR ITE committee is not aware that they are affecting a lot of products other than ITE when they make changes to EN55022. Now back to my question about coax connected CCTV equipment. As I read the standard, I am going to have to test these video ports since the coax cables can extend for very large distances. It is just not clear that the authors had this in mind. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:39 AM To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports Richard, Cameras, monitors, etc are not ITE. CISPR 22 does not apply to them. Ghery Pettit Intel From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports OK, so widely dispersed is a key element in determining if a network needs to be tested. That is consistent with the problem of long balanced pairs having common mode emissions. The standard also includes tests for coax and alludes to emissions caused by imperfect shielding. That seems to imply that a network of video products (e.g., cameras, monitors, muxes, VCRs, etc) with base band signals in coax would also be subject to testing. However, it is not clear that is what the authors had in mind. Comments? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: Carpentier Kristiaan [mailto:carpenti...@thmulti.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:54 PM To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports Richard, In addition to Gherys explanation of the note, there is also the definition itself that inherently excludes certain interfaces by means of the wordings widely dispersed and multi-user. But I agree that adding some more definitions of interfaces would help, also myself. Clause 6.3: Telecommunications port Point of connection for voice , data and signalling transfers intended to connect widely dispersed systems via such means as direct connection to multi-user telecom networks (e.g. PSTN, ISDN, xDSL, LAN (token ring, ethernet, etc) and similar networks. Note A port generally intended for connection of components of an ITE system under test (e.g. RS232, IEEE standard 1284 (parallel printer), USB, IEEE Std 1394 (fire wire) etc) and used in accordance with its functional specifications ( e.g. for the max. length of cable to be connected to it), is not considered to be a telecommunications/network port under this definition Regards, Kris 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 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
RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports
Ground loops John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:33 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports I read in !emc-pstc that david_ster...@ademco.com wrote (in 2DF7C54A75B dd311b61700508b64231002c5b...@nyhqex1.ademconet.com) about 'EN55022:1998 and telecom ports' on Fri, 31 Jan 2003: Earthing STP shields at both ends is potential safety hazard, How does a safety hazard arise? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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 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
RE: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports
As the requirements for conducted emissions on telecom ports developed, definitions changed repeatedly -- all intended to describe the same cabling. At one point, extensive networks was used which I think better describes the situation. However, then the question is What is extensive? Also, the use of telecom is confusing, at least in North America. The emphasis here is on tele and hence telecom networks are telephone networks. In CISPR however, telecom networks are communication networks that may involve voice. There are many who will disagree with this, hence the problem in the first place. To me the situation is pretty clear and the standard does an adequate job of defining what it means, by example. You are expected to use common sense and judgment in determining the applicablity to your cabling system. Engineering judgment is still expected from those qapplying the standard. By the way, CISPR/F has nothing whatsoever to do with ITE. It is CISPR/I and formerly CISPR/G John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:55 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN55022:1998 and telecom ports I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A04675BB4@flbocexu05) about 'EN55022:1998 and telecom ports' on Thu, 30 Jan 2003: EN55022:1998 defines telecommunication ports as Ports which are intended to be connected to telecommunications networks (e.g. public switched telecommunication networks, integrated services digital networks), local area networks (e.g. Ethernet, token ring) and similar networks. Since similar networks are included, it would seem that dissimilar networks are excluded. What distinguishes a similar network to a dissimilar network? What are some examples of dissimilar networks that are not included? Yes, well, CISPR/F (responsible for the underlying CISPR 22 standard) should have a *functioning* editing committee with enough experience and insight to weed out such phrases. List of examples are always troublesome in one way or another, and in any case MUST not be 'unterminated', by ending in 'etc.' or 'and similar', etc. (;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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 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
RE: Wee Directive
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. You may be right -- the WEEE deals with how to dispose of waste and who pays for such disposal and reclamation. I think you should be more concerned with the RoHS Directive that bans substances like lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, brominated compounds, etc. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com From: White, Ian [mailto:ianwh...@spiraxsarco.com] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:35 AM To: IEEE Forum (E-mail) Subject: Wee Directive Hi everybody The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive in Annex 1B lists the products covered by the Directive. Most of the products are consumer type products. As a company which produces industrial control equipment we need need to be sure we are covered before we proceed. We do not want to waste time and money. Our reading is we come under the Directive but would like the council of informed legal opinion. Can any one suggest anybody or organisation apart from the Department of Trade and Industry who did not want to be tied down to giving one. Thanks Ian White (Project Engineer - Spirax Sarco Ltd, UK) __ DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the original addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended original recipient(s), any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender by return email or telephone Spirax Sarco Ltd on +44(0)1242 521361. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and you have received it through forwarding or in error you should delete it and make no copies. We have taken all reasonable steps to protect files from viruses, but do not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should take full responsibility for virus checking. Thank you. Company Reg No : 509018 Reg Office : Spirax Sarco Ltd, 130-132 St Georges Rd, Cheltenham, UK __ You may be right -- the WEEE deals with how to dispose of waste and who pays for such disposal and reclamation. I think you should be more concerned with the RoHS Directive that bans substances like lead, cadmium,hexavalent chromium, brominated compounds, etc. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Regulatory Compliance Laboratory 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -Original Message-From: White, Ian [mailto:ianwh...@spiraxsarco.com]Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:35 AMTo: IEEE Forum (E-mail)Subject: Wee Directive Hi everybody The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive in Annex 1B lists the products covered by the Directive. Most of the products are consumer type products. As a company which produces industrial control equipment we need need to be sure we are covered before we proceed. We do not want to waste time and money. Our reading is we come under the Directive but would like the council of informed legal opinion. Can any one suggest anybody or organisation apart from the Department of Trade and Industry who did not want to be tied down to giving one. Thanks Ian White (Project Engineer - Spirax Sarco Ltd, UK) __ DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may belegally privileged. It is intended solely for the original addressee(s).Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not theintended original recipient(s), any disclosure, copying, or distributionof the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it,is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message inerror, please immediately contact the sender by return email or telephoneSpirax Sarco Ltd on +44(0)1242 521361. If you are not the intendedrecipient of this email and you have received it through forwarding or inerror you should delete it and make no copies. We have taken allreasonable steps to protect files from viruses, but do not warrant thatthis e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should take fullresponsibility for virus checking. Thank you. Company Reg No : 509018Reg Office : Spirax Sarco Ltd, 130-132 St Georges Rd, Cheltenham, UK__
RE: Do I need to Test for Harmonics?
I would agree with your argument that you need not comply because you are not connected to the public low voltage supply. Furthermore, the standards you cite are written for 230V, 50Hz distribution, so your voltage is not even within the scope of the standard. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Scott Douglas[SMTP:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Reply To: Scott Douglas Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:02 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Do I need to Test for Harmonics? Fellow Listees: There were some recent threads regarding what testing is required for a product that obtains power from a supply external to the product and maybe not supplied by the manufacturer. I think the questions were related to EFT or surge. I have a similar situation. Our products are network powered; that is, there is a ferroresonant power supply connected to the network and we just tap into that available power. This is CATV land and not Telco. We do not make the supply nor do we sell them. Our products have switching supplies which run on the quasi-square wave provided by the ferroresonant supply. Voltage of the supply is in the 60-90 VAC range. Question is: EN 50083-2 : 2001 (4.1.2 Disturbance Voltages From Equipment...) says that if our products fall within the input current range of EN 61000-3-2, then the tests and limits of that standard apply. Then EN 61000-3-2 : 2000 (1. Scope) says that the standard applies to products intended to be connected to public low-voltage distribution systems. One argument says that we are not connected to the public low-voltage distribution system, instead the ferroresonant supply is. Therefore, since we ARE NOT connected we do not need to do the harmonics test. The flip side argument says that we still have to test harmonics because the supply does nothing but provide power to our product and therefore we ARE connected. Understand that this system consists of power supplies and amplifiers, etc. from one or more than one supplier (read that more than one manufacturer). We cannot guarantee we are the sole provider here, in fact will most likely not be the sole provider. Especially since we do not manufacture or sell power supplies. So all powerful and wise list, what's a mother to do? Do I, or do I not, test? Am I required to test? Have I missed something? Thanks for all of the wisdom you are about to impart. Regards, Scott Douglas Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 phone: 978 589-1869 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.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: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe
IEEE 519 is a Recommended Practice. It suggests voltage distortion limits at the Point of Common Coupling based upon the customer load vs short circuit current capabillity. It has nothing to do with paroduct harmonics. It is not a regulation, but electric utilities may adopt it as a company requirement for customers to meet. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Jim Eichner[SMTP:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Reply To: Jim Eichner Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:39 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe John: Re the US: Is IEEE519 given force in any way? Is there any agency, body, or utility that is requiring IEEE519 compliance? Re Japan: Do you know the name/number of the trial standard and where I can find a list of what types of products it applies to? Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering Services Xantrex Technology Inc. phone: (604) 422-2546 fax: (604) 420-1591 e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:54 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe I read in !emc-pstc that Jim Eichner jim.eich...@xantrex.com wrote (in 67C475A5ECE7D4118AEC0002B325CAB6017681D7@BCMAIL1) about 'PFC or Harmonic Current Limitations outside Europe' on Mon, 26 Aug 2002: Can anyone provide any information on the requirements for (or lack of) PFC or harmonic current limitation now or in the future, in the following areas: 1. Japan Japan has had a 'trial standard' for some years. It is not the same as IEC/EN 61000-3-2, but is based on it. It does not apply to everything, as the EN does. 2. North America (I think I've heard rumours) There is already IEEE 519. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that USA will adopt the present edition of IEC 61000-3-2, particularly since it doesn't claim to apply to 120V 60 Hz systems. 3. Australia / New Zealand I understand that the current edition of IEC 61000-3-2 is being studied, but the level of controversy over it makes adoption unlikely. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: NSA measurement and its uncertainty
CISPR 16-4: Uncertainty in EMC Measurements has just been published. This should give you all the ammunition you need to deal with the issue of how to include NSA in your uncertainty budget. If 16-4 is not yet available from the IEC, CISPR/A/355/FDIS is the draft standard upon which it is based. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: craig.har...@jci.com[SMTP:craig.har...@jci.com] Reply To: craig.har...@jci.com Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:43 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: NSA measurement and its uncertainty KC, You don't mention what organization/standard that you are undergoing an audit with, I'll assume ISO 17025. I think you are correct that it would be very difficult if not impossible to meet the requirements when you add in uncertainty that takes into account the receiver, antennas, pre-amp and such. I think you can go about this two ways. The first would be ANSI C63.4-1992 section 5.4.6.2 it states. The +/- 4 dB tolerance in 5.4.6.1 includes instrumentation calibration errors, measurement technique errors and errors due to site anomalies. The other way is if you are being audited to ISO 17025 section 5.4.6.2 Note 2. This may be a long shot. I am not an expert in ISO 17025 , but would mention it. I think that NSA would qualify as a well-recognized test method. The last thing I would say is that there is currently no requirement by any governing body for uncertainty to be included in the NSA results. Technically the governing body is your customer, they define the method used and how the results are reported. Thanks, Craig kcc...@hkpc.org Sent by: To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org owner-emc-pstc@majordo cc: mo.ieee.orgSubject: NSA measurement and its uncertainty 07/17/2002 03:53 AM Please respond to kcchan Hi all I just got a tough question from our auditor about NSA and uncertainty. He asked if we will include the uncertainty into our Normalized Site Attenuation measurement or not. If we include the uncertainty of NSA measurement, it is impossible for us to ensure it is within the +/- 4dB with 95% CL. I would like to seek comment form the expertise if it is necessary to include the uncertainty when we do the NSA measurement. Thank you KC Chan --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald:
RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights?
Sorry, I mis-spoke. Originally, the intent was to separately recognize CPU boards, power supplies, and enclosures. The requirement for enclosures is not in the rules only CPU boards and power supplies. In answer to the question, there were no specific shielding effectiveness requirements. The enclosure was to be evaluated with one or more fully functional PC enclosed, or alternatively a signal generator. If the device so enclosed met the limit requirments, the enclosure was compliant. Presumably lack of support for the enclosure rules caused the FCC to back off. Now the requirements are on the CPU board whose installation instructions must include any requirements for the use of a metal enclosure, etc. 15.101 and 15.102 describe the conditions for compliance. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Ken Javor[SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:18 PM To: Wagner, John P (John); michael.sundst...@nokia.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; George Stults Subject: Re: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? Importance: High What is an FCC compliant enclosure? What are the shielding effectiveness requirements? :-) on 7/15/02 12:51 PM, Wagner, John P (John) at johnwag...@avaya.com wrote: The current FCC rules are pretty clear. For systems assembled from components, the system considered compliant if assembled from compliant components; namely, enclosures, motherboards, power supplies. The peripheral rules also apply. So, if this case or enclosure has been tested and shown to be compliant when used as a component for a system, then all is ok. To be legal, the case should have an FCC DoC. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: George Stults[SMTP:george.stu...@watchguard.com] Reply To: George Stults Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:56 AM To: 'michael.sundst...@nokia.com'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? The cases are being sold as components, although I am sure that any of the stores I visited would sell me an assembled system with the modified plastic-window-style-cases. There is no understanding of emission requirements at the level of the retail outlet. Surely this situation has come up before, where there were easily assembled systems from commercially available components sold for the purpose, that would nevertheless be non-compliant with a high degree of probability. How was it handled in the past? What reasoning can be applied to justify the proposition that the plastic-window-style-cases cannot be legally sold? George Stults -Original Message- From: michael.sundst...@nokia.com [mailto:michael.sundst...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:58 AM To: jklin...@celectronics.com; George Stults; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? If they are selling these PC's out of a store, how can they be homebuilt? Michael Sundstrom NOKIA TCC Dallas / EMC ofc: (972) 374-1462 cell: (817) 917-5021 amateur call: KB5UKT -Original Message- From: ext Jeff Klinger [mailto:jklin...@celectronics.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:39 PM To: George Stults; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? George, The method for testing motherboards is intended to be combined with the DoC method of declaring compliance based on individual testing of the components that comprise the full computer system, i.e. Assembled from tested components. The final computer system is still required to meet the FCC Class B limit just as if it was tested, even though it was not. I suppose that a small (extremely small) chance exists that the final system could pass if tested. The loophole here may be the Home-Built devices clause, Title 47 part 15.23. Where the device is not marketed or constructed from a kit. This allows for five or less devices built for personal use without the need for compliance testing (FCC only). Jeff Klinger Director EMC Engineering Compatible Electronics, Inc
RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights?
The current FCC rules are pretty clear. For systems assembled from components, the system considered compliant if assembled from compliant components; namely, enclosures, motherboards, power supplies. The peripheral rules also apply. So, if this case or enclosure has been tested and shown to be compliant when used as a component for a system, then all is ok. To be legal, the case should have an FCC DoC. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: George Stults[SMTP:george.stu...@watchguard.com] Reply To: George Stults Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:56 AM To: 'michael.sundst...@nokia.com'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? The cases are being sold as components, although I am sure that any of the stores I visited would sell me an assembled system with the modified plastic-window-style-cases. There is no understanding of emission requirements at the level of the retail outlet. Surely this situation has come up before, where there were easily assembled systems from commercially available components sold for the purpose, that would nevertheless be non-compliant with a high degree of probability. How was it handled in the past? What reasoning can be applied to justify the proposition that the plastic-window-style-cases cannot be legally sold? George Stults -Original Message- From: michael.sundst...@nokia.com [mailto:michael.sundst...@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 5:58 AM To: jklin...@celectronics.com; George Stults; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? If they are selling these PC's out of a store, how can they be homebuilt? Michael Sundstrom NOKIA TCC Dallas / EMC ofc: (972) 374-1462 cell: (817) 917-5021 amateur call: KB5UKT -Original Message- From: ext Jeff Klinger [mailto:jklin...@celectronics.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:39 PM To: George Stults; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? George, The method for testing motherboards is intended to be combined with the DoC method of declaring compliance based on individual testing of the components that comprise the full computer system, i.e. Assembled from tested components. The final computer system is still required to meet the FCC Class B limit just as if it was tested, even though it was not. I suppose that a small (extremely small) chance exists that the final system could pass if tested. The loophole here may be the Home-Built devices clause, Title 47 part 15.23. Where the device is not marketed or constructed from a kit. This allows for five or less devices built for personal use without the need for compliance testing (FCC only). Jeff Klinger Director EMC Engineering Compatible Electronics, Inc. Ph: 714-579-0500 Fx: 714-528-8984 http://www.celectronics.com NARTE Certified ATL-0180-E -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of George Stults Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:11 PM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Open chassis computers for sale - with neon lights? Hi Folks, I just walked into three local computer stores (west coast, USA) and found that desktop computers have become art forms. There are computer cases for sale with large plexiglass windows about (10in x12in), some with a fan in the middle of the plexiglass panel, and inside the case, there is a 12 inch long neon lamp, powered from the ATX power supply just like any installable drive. Through the window, one can see the motherboard, CPU heatsink, etc, all illuminated by the Neon light. Its the latest in computer fashion, I suppose. I asked a few questions at the stores and found at there are least 2 manufacturers, and that one can obtain kits on the internet to do the same modification at home. After looking at the computer cases, I would expect them to radiate about the same as an open chassis though possibly more directional. My question would be, is there any loophole through which this is legal, or is this the blatant violation that it looks like. I've heard that there is a requirement for computer motherboards to fall within some radiated level with an open chassis. Is that correct and could that be the rational here? George Stults --- 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:
RE: EN55022:1998
Not yet. CISPR/I is working the issue and has 3 CD's in circulation at the moment. Nothing yet, however, on non-invasive measurements using current probes and capacitive voltage clamps -- measurment method C.1.3 and C.1.4. Its on the agenda for WG3 and hopefully a CD will be forthcoming by the September meeting. Considering we have not reached the voting stage in any of these documents, it is virtually impossible to have completed amending CISPR 22 by August of 2003. We may be close, however. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: richwo...@tycoint.com[SMTP:richwo...@tycoint.com] Reply To: richwo...@tycoint.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:48 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN55022:1998 Implimentation of EN55022:1998 was delayed to 2003-08-01 due to reported problems with measuring emissions from telecom ports. Has the problem been resolved? If so, what is the resolution? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Input voltage range - EN61000-4, 5 and 6
I support John's comments. I would also add that because the standards do not guarantee error-free or flawless performance, and that immunity is largely a performance issue, a manufacturer with concerns about the immunity performance of his product relative to input voltage may, and should, evaluate that product at various voltage levels to assure the quality of the product. That is the manufacturer's job, not the regulation's. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Westminster, CO 80234-2726 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: John Woodgate[SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Reply To: John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:55 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Input voltage range - EN61000-4, 5 and 6 I read in !emc-pstc that brent.dew...@us.datex-ohmeda.com wrote (in ofcf872f20.b441e386-on87256b9f.006aa...@us.datex-ohmeda.com) about 'Input voltage range - EN61000-4, 5 and 6', on Thu, 18 Apr 2002: In the very specific case of Medical devices, the newest edition of IEC 60601-1-2 specifies -5 testing at the extreme ends the range of continuously adaptive supply and in each range of a switched range supply. That should be reserved for safety testing, for which it is justified. I think it's gilding the lily for EMC. We are measuring with great precision, using exhaustive (and exhausting!) test protocols, quantities that bear only a very approximate relation to the actual EMC performance in any given real-life condition. Thus, these costly measurements have to be accompanied by a disclaimer that they do not guarantee freedom from unacceptable interference and further measures may be required in some cases. AFAIK, apart from the 60601 case, for EMC testing the rated supply voltage (or one of them) is applied. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection
It depends. If your product is to be located adjacent to the PC in actual operation, then it is appropriate to include the PC with the EUT. If your product is more like an Ethernet hub that is not intended to be co-located with the PC, then the PC can be outside the chamber. I would test it both ways to be sure. If the PC is outside the test chamber, it will be much easier to determine the compliance level and any problems originating from your product. As to termination, you do need to terminate the cable and should have the link active with traffic flowing over the connection. CISPR 22 suggests a minimum of 10% traffic when testing conducted emissions on telecom ports (9.5.3). CISPR/I is in the process of better defining what should be the consistency of that 10%. But, the intent of the standard is clear -- the port should be terminated and active durng testing. Also refer to section 8.2. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: jan.mob...@philips.com[SMTP:jan.mob...@philips.com] Reply To: jan.mob...@philips.com Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:36 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EMC test set-up for device with ethernet connection Hello newsgroup readers, Question about the EMC test set-up for Emission + Immunity. We are developing a product which can be connected to the ethernet / LAN/ Internet. Do we need to connect the product to a PC (with ethernet card) in the anechoic room or can we decide to place the PC outside the anechoic room. Or can we test ONLY with an cable with NO termination. What is your opinion Thanks in advance, Jan Mobers --- 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: NEC Question
I think the simple answer is no. The NEC deals primarily with installation wiring and not with equipment plugged into that wiring. A phrase similar to where listed equipment is installed is found in many sections of the code, generally where special installation conditions are acceptable which would not be generally accepted. For instance, Article 645 deals with computer rooms. You are allowed to use the special provisions of the article if, among other things, 645-2(c) Listed information technology equipment is installed. As a general rule, the NEC does require listed equipment within the building wiring such as receptacles, panelboards, etc. But, the code does not require that all equipment have a safety agency listing. It is an article by article issue. A specific listing by UL is never required. If listed equipment is required, the listing must be from a NRTL (Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory). A list of NRTL's may be found on the OSHA website. At least as far back as 1982 some articles in the code required listed equipment. The NEC is issued every three years. It is not a regulation. It only has the force of law when adopted by a legal jurisdiction -- town, city, county, state, etc. And, even though the NEC is updated every three years, local legislation may not be. There are some cities whose electrical code ordnance is the NEC from as far back as 2988 or earlier. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: sbr...@prodigy.net[SMTP:sbr...@prodigy.net] Reply To: sbr...@prodigy.net Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:57 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: NEC Question Colleagues: The question was asked if all products sold in the US, specifically industrial products, that plugged into the mains had to be UL Listed. The answer was that not necessarily UL Listed, but according to the NEC they did have to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc., by a 3rd party. The answer went on to say that this was only applicable if the locality in which the product were to be used, and their AHJ, adhered to the NEC and that not all areas of the country adopted and adhered to the NEC. 1. Do you agree with the above responses? 2. How long has the NEC required products to be listed, labeled, certified, classified, etc.? Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Steve Brody sbr...@prodigy.net --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: which standard have I just tested to?
That's exactly what we do here. Follow the OJ. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Colgan, Chris[SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com] Reply To: Colgan, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:22 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: which standard have I just tested to? British Standards manages to confuse the issue even more by calling the standard BS EN 61000-3-2:1995 Incorporating Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. I've decided I'm going to put EN61000-3-2:1995 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 on the DoC because that's what the OJ seems to want. Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: 16 January 2002 13:54 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: which standard have I just tested to? I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclaren.com wrote (in AE0F4BD08FEAD211895900805FE67B1F01090ECA@CAT) about 'which standard have I just tested to?', on Wed, 16 Jan 2002: I have just tested a product for mains harmonics. I am preparing the Declaration of Conformity. My new copy of EN61000-3-2 declares at the top of the cover page it is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A12:1996 + A13:1997 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 However if I read the reflist of harmonised standards for the EMC Directive on the Europa website correctly it tells me that A13:1997 was superseded by A1:1998. No mention is made of A12:1996 (withdrawn perhaps?) so the reference standard is: EN61000-3-2:1995 + A1:1998 + A2:1998 + A14:2000 Any ideas what I put on my DoC? Are you not using the BS EN? If so, cite what it says on the front cover, which avoids your difficulty. I wouldn't worry about A12, if I were you. (;-) -- 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. ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: 2 Phases in North America
Electric utilities genreate and distribute 3 phase power. At the load, then, some power conversion strategy is employed to derive 2 phase power. For instance, by adding a secondary winging on a 3 phase transformer on phases A and B with 47% of the winding on phase A and 53% on phase B, the resultant is a voltage lagging phase A by 90 degrees. The turns ratio between primary and secondary is adjusted to get the desired secondary voltage on the new phase. This is essentially what capacitor start single phase motors do -- temporarily derive a phase approximately 90 degreees from the single phase, so that there is some rotational torque for starting. Once running, this is no longer necessary and the start winding drops out. On a 2 phase motor, the second phase remains in the circuit. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Hans Mellberg[SMTP:emcconsult...@yahoo.com] Reply To: Hans Mellberg Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 11:00 AM To: Cortland Richmond; bogda...@pacbell.net Cc: Robert Johnson; 'Barry Esmore'; 'EMC-PSTC Forum' Subject: Re: 2 Phases in North America ok folks. This topic needs to be clarified. With respect to each other, by definition, two conductors have a potential difference at 180 degrees. Period. The 90 degree stuff may pertain to current but not to voltage. You would need a four-phase transformer to get 90 degree phasing and simply it does not exist. Voltage, is usually measured: wrt ground, wrt other reference conductor such as neutral or wrt to another voltage (hot) conductor. In some cases, the voltage difference between ground and two other conductors may be 120/240 degrees such as in a three phase system. So, no matter how you measure voltage it will either be at 120, 180 or 240 degrees wrt to some other conductor. In the US there have been many systems of low voltage (staying below 480V)distribution yielding the following voltages: 480/240/120 480/208/120 from three three phase 480/230/115 single split phase 230/115 single split phase motor control voltage 220/110 single split phase older home voltages 208/120 from three phase 480/277 (for fluorescent lighting) 117 (where did this come from? seen in many older HP instruments) Open Delta (3, 4 or 5 wire, when one is grounded into neutral its called a stinger) Split phase (three or four wire) Y (four and five wire) Hope this stirrs the pot = Best Regards Hans Mellberg Regulatory Compliance EMC Design Services Consultant By the Pacific Coast next to Silicon Valley, Santa Cruz, CA, USA 408-507-9694 __ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.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: 2 Phases in North America
Actually, 2 phase systems have a phase rotation of 90 degrees, not 180. Two phase systems have been used for control motors and the like, but are fairly rare these days. 180 degree rotation between phases is a center tapped single phase system. The proper terminology is, I believe, split phase. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Cortland Richmond[SMTP:cortland.richm...@alcatel.com] Reply To: Cortland Richmond Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:38 AM To: Robert Johnson Cc: 'Barry Esmore'; 'EMC-PSTC Forum' Subject: Re: 2 Phases in North America By the definition below, *single phase* AC would require one wire with no return. I want to see THAT one work before I pay for it! Cortland Richmond (the above being my own opinion, not a statement of my employer's) Robert Johnson wrote: This has just reopened the old two phase controversy again. Ed has done a good job of describing the systems in detail, but be careful with the terms. Ask an electrical engineer about a 120/240 volt home service and he will call it a two phase system. Two phases 180 degrees out of phase is technically correct. --- 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 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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
RE: classification for part 18
I don't know about Part 18, but because the modem connects to the telecom network, it would have to comply with Part 68. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Stuart Lopata[SMTP:stu...@timcoengr.com] Reply To: Stuart Lopata Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:38 AM To: emc Subject: classification for part 18 Does a medical device that connects to a blood pressure unit and sends info over the phone lines need to be tested under part 18. I think not, however, it is a medical device. Please comment. Sincerely, Stuart Lopata --- 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: IEC 60950-1 released
Apart from numerous small changes and clarifications, resulting from experience/enquiries over the past couple of years there were the following major items: Requirements added covering the effect of UV on materials and people. Added detail regarding use of lasers and LEDs; Added requirements for equipment to be connected to a Cable Distribution Network (e.g. cable TV) or an antenna; Added requirements for equipment to be supplied by a d.c. mains supply (mainly, but not exclusively, large telecom equipment in a central office at 48-60 V); Deleted most of the flammability tests and refer instead to (mainly) IEC 60695. (Few technical changes involved). The above changed about half the pages in the standard, so it was decided to go for a new edition. Also, with parts 2 coming along, it was timely to change 950 to part 1. The Parts Two will be for all sorts of odd ball things such as line fed equipment and large robotic data storage systems. We will continue to develop the parts two over the next year or so. John P. Wagner Regulatory Compliance Mandatory Standards AVAYA Strategic Standards. 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Andre, Pierre-Marie[SMTP:pierre-marie.an...@intel.com] Reply To: Andre, Pierre-Marie Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:16 AM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject: IEC 60950-1 released Is it possible to get a summary of the changes with the previous version ? should we retest all our products which comply today with the previous version ?... I am just curious Pierre-Marie Andre Intel Sophia Senior Approval Engineer Tel : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 13 Fax : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 01 http://www.intel.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: security and ITE
This type of testing is already defined and required in CISPR 24. Some years ago I tested surge tested many PC and minicomputer supplies using the 1.2/50 (8/20) bi wave 2 ohm source impedance. Most supplies would tolerate a 2000 to 2500 V pulse without damage. Above that, the power supply was disabled -- unless the supply had built in surge protection. Building wiring does attenuate surge energy simply because a transient pulse on an external feeder will have a multitude of paths through the building wiring. And, if a damaging pulse does enter the building, rarely does it affect more than a few (maybe only one) devices which take the brunt of the energy from the pulse and tereby protecting other equipment. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more...[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl] Reply To: CE-test - Ing. Gert Gremmen - ce-marking and more... Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:39 AM To: Emc-Pstc@Ieee. Org Subject: security and ITE File: Gert Gremmen.vcf Group, I would like to start another discussion about ITE equipment and security. Reports and investigations have shown that ITE equipment in almost any office is susceptible to transients applied to the mains network OUTSIDE the building. Using relative small electronic equipment on the market for EMC testing pulses can be injected that could crash or even destroy the supply of a substantial of the IT equipment (read PC) in that same building. Test were done with products of reputable manufacturers. It made almost no difference how the mains network was organized in terms of switchboards and how the IT equipment was supplied. The slow high energy pulses came trough almost unattenuated. At this very moment no immunity requirements exist for IT equipment in many large economic areas in the world. Would this open up a new field of interest for us EMC and Safety Engineers ? Or would the topic be grasped by less scrupulous individuals in the world before we got hands on this ? What do YOU think ! And how could we change that risk in time ? Do we need to protect the mains networks or the IT equipment ? What other vulnerabilities exist in our current IT system world wide ? 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 /-/ ===
RE: Odd CE Marking Question
Let me take a wild stab at this one. First, presumably the value of this dummy device is that it convinces its audience that it indeed is a real security device. Given that, it seems that the more accurately it mimics the real device the better. If the real device is CE marked, you probably should CE mark the dummy. If not, those alert individuals wishing to circumvent security will be able to tell the real from the dummy simply be looking for the presence of a CE Mark. Second, if you do CE mark the dummy, why not apply the same standards as you apply to the real product. After all, even though it is a dummy device, it still is a security device and presumably falls in the same product category as the real device. Because of the dummy device's simlplicity, testing for or declaring compliance should not be aprticularly involved. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Kevin Harris[SMTP:harr...@dscltd.com] Reply To: Kevin Harris Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:03 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: 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 Directive
I would not interpret the RTTE Directive that way. Its intent is for equipment directly or indirectly connected to the public switched network. If ther is no network connection, there is no requirement. Furthermore, it is the interface to the network that applies. For instance, PC's on an Ethernet LAN with connectivity to the Internet via telecommunications lines do not need to meet the RTTE. But, the router or server connected to the network does -- or at least its interface to the network. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Allan, James[SMTP:james_al...@milgo.com] Reply To: Allan, James Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 6:27 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Amund has opened my eyes to the literal meaning of RTTE equipment by pointing me to the equipment list. I thought I had a good idea of what is covered but now I am not sure. Item 4 under terminal equipment states Wired data equipment (X.21, X.25, Ethernet, token ring, token bus, TCP/IP, frame relay) This appears to me that any device with an Ethernet port, no matter what its function, must comply with the RTTE Directive. Just to cite one of many examples, since almost all PC's have Ethernet ports does this now mean that they are no longer ITE but are now RTTE ? What says the rest of the group?? Jim Allan Manager, Engineering Services Milgo Solutions LLC 1619 N Harrison Parkway Sunrise, FL, 33323 E-mail james_al...@milgo.com Phone (954) 846-3720 Fax (954) 846-5693 -Original Message- From: am...@westin.org [SMTP:am...@westin.org] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:16 PM To: ctho...@patton.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: RTTE Directive Thomas, Check the equipment list on http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/listeq.htm Amund, Oslo/Norway On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:52:11 -0500 Courtland Thomas ctho...@patton.com wrote: Hello Group, I would like to know if there is a list of equipment that falls under the RTTE Directive. My area of concern is converters, such as RS-232 to RS-485, V.35 to G.704, etc.. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Courtland Thomas Patton Electronics --- 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, -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on Virtual Conference Hall, --- 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: PFC filter
There is a manufacturer in the US who makes filters to eliminate low order harmonic current, particularly the 3rd. The product is made to mitigate real or imagined harmonic problems, not to meet some harmonic standard. The product is called 3rd Out I think. It is available as a plug-in device for individual products and also available for installation at a distribution panel board. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: John Woodgate[SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Reply To: John Woodgate Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:19 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: PFC filter ad.82daed6.27e25...@aol.com, peterh...@aol.com inimitably wrote: I have been told by a customer that there are PFC filter available commercially off the shelf just like the EMI filter that I can buy and put it in front of my power supply and the PFC filter will cure most of the harmonic problems. Is this ture? If so can anyone let me have some manufacturer name or web address for these filters please? It is substantially not true, in that no such device will, for example, eliminate even the low-order harmonic currents of an SMPS. If you had something that produced only, or mainly, one specific harmonic, then a filter would be practicable. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. --- 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: TTE and TNE
Both types of equipment fall under the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. The RTTE Directive (Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment) applies only to Termnial equipment. Network equipment has its own EMC Standards EN 300-386 series) and presumably safety as well. As to network requirements, they are found in ETSI standards, but may not be codified in the OJEC. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: rehel...@mmm.com[SMTP:rehel...@mmm.com] Reply To: rehel...@mmm.com Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 2:09 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: TTE and TNE Does Telephone Terminal Equipment and Telephone Network Equipment fall under the RTTE Directive? If not, what Directive do they belong to? EMC? Low Voltage? What set of standards apply (or is this question too vague)? Thanks, Bob Heller 3M Company --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- 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: Surge to 4Kv
You're right, Gary. ITU K.20 (I believe) specifies testing of telecom ports connected to the network. The test levels are 1.5kV if primary protection is present, 4.0 kV if not. The waveform is 10 x 700. CISPR 24 actually references these test levels in Table 2.. One of the European common modifications replaced these test levels with 500V of the 1.2 x 50 waveform. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Ave, Room B3-D16 Phone/Fax: (303) 538-4241 johnwag...@avaya.com -- From: Gary McInturff[SMTP:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Reply To: Gary McInturff Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:29 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Surge to 4Kv The last information I have is that EN55024:1998, which becomes effective very soon still only identifies surge test of 2Kv line to ground, but I have a persistant buzzing in my ear from a single source that is claiming it actually requires 4Kv for the surge test. Has anyone else heard of a change to 4 Kv, - maybe ETSI? Except for the Generic heavy industrial 50081-2 - which doesn't apply to ITE equipment very often, I have not seen this 4 Kv level. I would appreciate a sanity check. 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
RE: Surge (immunity) requirement for equipment in telecommunicati on c enters
The genesis of this requirement may go back to some of the discussions regarding 1000-4-5 and later CISPR 24. As I recall, there were some interests who felt it appropriate to surge test all communication lines. 10 meter length was added to exclude such things as interconnecting RS232 cables to printers and other local peripherals. There were further discussions which protested surging indoor cables at all. As a result, in CISPR 24, the requirment is to surge test only cables that MAY be connected to outdoor facilities. Telecom intersts have always been particularly paranoid regarding requirements, and through ETSI, they restored the questionable requirement to surge test all comm cables over 10 meters in length. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 1300 W. 120th Avenue, Room B3 D16 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Zohar Zosmanovich[SMTP:zohar_zosmanov...@radwin.com] Reply To: Zohar Zosmanovich Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 4:47 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Surge (immunity) requirement for equipment in telecommunication c enters Hi, The EN 300 386 (EMC requirements for telecommunication network equipment) require to perform a surge of 1.2/50 Tr/Th us, 0,5 kV to ports for indoor signal lines (in telecommunication centers), when cables longer than 10 m are connected ! Can some one explain my the rational of divided up to 10 m and more than 10 m, anyway all cable is in the building (indoors) ? Zohar (Jana) Zosmanovich Compliance Engineer, RADWIN ltd. 34 Habarzel St., Tel Aviv 69710, Israel Tel.: 972-3-7666735 ; Fax: 972-3-7657535 Email: mailto:zohar_zosmanov...@radwin.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: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC.
Yes. A DOC without EN61000-3-3 may be interpreted as incomplete. We are in the same sitiuation as you -- our products don't cause fluctuations or fllicker. Nevertheless, we write a test report for EN61000-3-3 (just a paragraph or so) citing section 6.1 -- and we list EN61000-3-3 on the DOC. Be aware that the paranoid promulgators of the standard have seen section 6.1 to be a horrible loophole. TC77A issued 77A/303/CDV in December 1999, modified by 77A/303A/CDV in February 2000 containing the following text. Voting on these two documents closed in May 2000 and I understand they passed. An FDIS has not yet been issued. Here's the salient text from 303A/CDV : 5. Limits Replace the whole of the existing clause by the following text: The limits shall be applicable to voltage fluctuations and flicker at the supply terminals of the equipment under test, measured or calculated according to clause 4 under test conditions described in clause 6 and annex A. Tests made to prove the compliance with the limits are considered to be type tests. The following limits apply: - the value of P st shall not be greater than 1.0; - the value of P lt shall not be greater than 0.65; - the value of d(t) during a voltage change shall not exceed 3,3% for more than 500 ms; - the relative steady-state voltage change, d c , shall not exceed 3,3%; - the maximum relative voltage change d max , shall not exceed: a) 4% without additional conditions. b) 6% for equipment with : - manual switching or - automatic switching more frequently than twice per day and has a delayed restart (the delay being not less than a few tens of seconds) or manual restart after a power supply interruption. NOTE The cycling frequency will be further limited by the Pst and Plt limit. For example: a dmax of 6% producing a rectangular voltage change characteristic twice per hour will give a Plt of about 0,65. c) 7% for equipment which - is attended whilst in use (For example: hair dryers, vacuum cleaners, kitchen equipment such as mixers, garden equipment such as lawn mowers, portable tools such as electric drills.) or - is switched on automatically or is intended to be switched on manually no more than twice per day and has a delayed restart (the delay being not less than a few tens of seconds) or manual restart after a power supply interruption. In the case of equipment incorporating multiple loads, limits b) and c) shall only apply if there is delayed or manual restart after a power supply interruption; for all equipment with automatic switching which is energised immediately on restoration of supply after a power supply interruption, limits a) shall apply ; for all equipment with manual switching, limits b) or c) shall apply, depending on the rate of switching. 6 Test conditions 6.1 General - Replace « shall » by « need » in the first paragraph. - To add after the first paragraph the following paragraphs: It may be necessary to determine, by examination of the circuit diagram and specification of the equipment and by a short functional test, whether significant voltage fluctuations are likely to be produced. For voltage changes caused by manual switching, equipment is deemed to comply without further testing if the maximum r.m.s. input current (including inrush current) evaluated over each 10 ms half-period between zero-crossings does not exceed 20 A, and the supply current after inrush is within a variation band of 1.5 A. The maximum relative voltage change dmax caused by manual switching shall be measured in accordance with Annex B. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Chris Allen[SMTP:chris_al...@eur.3com.com] Reply To: Chris Allen Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:31 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-3-3 listing on a DoC. I have a question regarding EN 61000-3-3. The standard states under section 6.1 that Tests shall not be made on equipment which is unlikely to produce significant voltage flicker and fluctuations. This is true for the equipment in question. I have been asked by a customer to included the standard on the DoC for the unit. My question is: Is it valid to list a standard on a DoC in the above situation i.e. when the product has not been tested against it? Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Chris. PLANET PROJECT will connect millions of people worldwide through the combined technology of 3Com and the Internet. Find out more and register now at http://www.planetproject.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:
RE: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests
Lame argument! Many of us make products designed exclusively for the Commercial/industrial market. Our products do not connect directly to the publlic low voltage distribution systems yet we meet the requirements because the intent is to protect the low voltage distribution system. In the case of flicker, this is mainly an ergonomic standard designed to limit flicker on the same or related branch circuit. It really has nothing to do with the publlic low voltage distribution system at this point. If the customer does not want to modify his system, there are plug-in filters (chokes) designed to limit flicker. If sold and specified with the product, this should satisfy any regulator. Might have to use the TCF route to compliance. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: bfag...@us.tuv.com[SMTP:bfag...@us.tuv.com] Reply To: bfag...@us.tuv.com Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:03 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EN 61000-3-3 Flicker Tests Hello group! I've got a customer in our EMC lab that makes a laboratory instrument incorporating heaters with a typical 3-4 amp input current at 230vac. He is failing the flicker test due to the design of the heater control. They are undertaking a redesign but would like to keep selling product in the interim. They have come up with an interesting interpretation of the scope of EN 61000-3-3: the standard specifies that the tests are applicable to products connected to the public low voltage distribution systems but if you take a typical industrial location or even a typical commercial location, isn't it true that these locations are fed by a dedicated transformer at the building that isolates them from the public network? I guess the question becomes - what is considered the public network? What if the marketing of the product was restricted to industrial locations? My initial reaction to the question was that anyplace you can plug or wire into at typical 230vac is considered the public network, especially considering the mixed residential / commercial buildings common in Europe. Anyone care to comment? Bruce Fagley Sr. Specialist, EMC Industrial Products TUV Rheinland 12 Commerce Rd. Newtown CT. 06470 203-426-0888 ext 119 203-426-4009 fax --- 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: Standards hierarchy
I'd like to throw my two cents worth in here. First, compliance with a national/international standard or regulatory regime does not guarantee adequate product performance or safety. That is the responsibility of the manufacturer. The standard(s) gives guidance to achieve that acceptable level of performance and compliance with it acceptable to a regulatory regime or authority provides a legal basis to market the product. Don't look to regulatory authorities to manage your compliance or EMC/Safety design goals. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Jim Eichner[SMTP:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Reply To: Jim Eichner Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:45 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Standards hierarchy To summarize and conclude this thread: 1. If you ignore all consideration except the rules for CE Marking and the EMC Directive, and if you have a product family standard that does not call out any other standards (for example EN61000-3-2), and if that product family standard has been published in the OJ, then it would seem that you are in compliance with the EMC Directive if you apply only that standard (since it provides a presumption of conformity). 2. Doing the above would be a bad idea because... a) The EC has not got it's act together. With one hand they publish a standard in the OJ and with the other hand they say the standard isn't sufficient. According to what Gert said, it sounds like the EC will be working with CENELEC to correct this situation, so it is short sighted to take the easy road now if you'll just have to take the longer road later anyway. b) There may be real world problems (and in the worst case a product safety hazard) associated with an EMC phenomenon addressed by other standards but omitted by your product family standard. In such a situation, liability may be increased by not having applied the other standards, even though technically you didn't have to. c) You are flying in the face of standard practice (pun intended). Diligent compliance people are doing the right thing and applying all the standards that apply, rather than putting on the blinkers and just using their product family standard (however technically correct or incorrect that may be). I'd add a statement to Gert's closing comment that the concept of essential requirements has not been fully understood yet. I'd echo say the concept of product family standards has not been fully understood yet. The Europa web site list of harmonized standards is full of wording that implies that single standards give presumption of conformity with the EMC Directive's essential requirements. There is nothing to indicate that in many (most?) situations it will take a group of standards to fully cover all the essential requirements. If anyone from the EC or CENELEC has been following this thread, it would be very helpful to get some clarification as to the current and future right way to deal with this issue. Regards, Jim Eichner Sr. Regulatory Compliance Engineer Mobile Markets Xantrex Technology Inc. Email: jim.eich...@xantrex.com Website: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists but is not, by himself, sufficient to give presumption of...oh never mind. -Original Message- From: CE-test - Gert Gremmen Ing. - CE-mark more ... [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 5:20 AM To: Jim Eichner; 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: RE: Standards hierarchy Hello Jim, group You are fully right. A standard not covering a certain EMC subject, or whitening it out due to whatever reason but physical/technical (such as a filament lamp not being susceptible) still owes the presumption of compliance but the presumption will not hold in court. After all , presumption is not proof !! BTW it happens all the time that we are needing more then one emc standard . For ITE we need 4: EN 55022 / EN 55024 / EN 61000-3-2 / EN 61000-3-4. We automatically add the other 3 as we conclude that the first one did not cover certain phenomena. What's new here is that the EC does not recognize the right of OJEC published standards to white out certain test requirements because some lobby decided that it was not in their interest to cover this. In fact the EC is targeting the CENELEC for creating insufficient quality standards (in this case) and not you as a manufacturer presuming compliance. Therefore, you will get away with such a standard - for the time being. I think the principal of essential requirements has still not been fully understood !! Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing === Web presence
RE: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides?
I take some exception to the response below. Single phase connections between phases either on a delta or wye system do not have a neutral connection. There are two grounded delta systems -- corner ground where one phase is grounded, or center tapped ground on one of the phases (commonly called high leg). There are also variations of the grounding scheme to allow for impedance grounded systems where appropriate. A standard two pole breaker os not designed, nor can it be used to interrupt neutral. For that, a special shunt trip braker is needed. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Russell, Ray[SMTP:ray_russ...@gastmfg.com] Reply To: Russell, Ray Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 5:15 AM To: 'brian_kunde'; emc-pstc Subject: RE: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides? Hi Brian, I see most of the return postings have focused on the UK, which has a terminated neutral system. There are several installations especially in the US, where the power could be derived from a delta, or unterminated neutral system. I believe in this case, overcurrent protection is required on both lines. In addition, the 2 pole circuit breaker method provides a suitable 2 pole disconnect. Good Luck, Ray Russell ray_russ...@gastmfg.com -Original Message- From: brian_kunde [mailto:brian_ku...@leco.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 12:32 PM To: emc-pstc Subject: Overcurrent Protection: One or Both Sides? The issue of designing in Overcurrent Protection on one side or both sides of the AC mains keeps coming up. We deal in Laboratory Equipment so the EN 61010-1 is the standard we use. I'm not sure what EN60950 would say on the subject. The only area I have found that deals with this question is a NOTE in section 9.6 of EN61010-1 which says, Overcurrent protection devices (e.g. fuses) should preferably be fitted in all supply conductors. This seems GRAY to me and I get beat up on it all the time. I feel that overcurrent protection should be on all current carrying conductors. With a 230V~ product you never know where in the world the product will be shipped, if the AC Main has a grounded neutral, or if the receptacle is polarized. So, I feel you never know for sure which line or if both lines will be HOT in reference to Earth ground. If my thinking is correct, shouldn't ALL 230V~ products have overcurrent protection on both sides of the line? I would think so, but I see products everyday that only have ONE side of the line fused. My superiors feel that if others can get away with it, why can't we. Why add the extra cost of double pole breakers or double fuse holders if it is not necessary? Am I being too cautious or do I have a point? Thank you for your support and advice. Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Power Line Voltages
Try the US Dept of Commerce. They have a pamphlet titled Electric Current Abroad which should give you all the information you need. It can be ordered from their website for $5.00 in hardcopy. I believe it is also available electronically from the same site. John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Flinders, Randall[SMTP:randall.flind...@emulex.com] Reply To: Flinders, Randall Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:00 PM To: emc-pstc Subject: Power Line Voltages File: Randall.Flinders.vcf Greetings group! I am looking for a resource, preferrably but not neccessarily on the web, were I can get all of the power line voltages and frequencies for every country. This includes Europe, The Pac Rim, Autralia, Africa, Middle East, etc Can anyone direct me to this information? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Regards, Randy Flinders EMC Engineer Emulex Corp. r.flind...@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: Harmonics and the 600W limit
CENELEC prA14 passed amending EN61000-3-2 Class D to include only PC's, monitors, and TV's. So, if your product is not in any of those categories, you need not comply with Class D after the doa of the amendment. Nevertheless, if your product is Class D, the Class D limits are the same as those for Class A for the 5th harmonic and very close for most of the other harmonics which are likely to be close to the limit. Class D allows you to test at rated power which is the same as max power expected to be drawn from the unit. This allows you to test at one power level, unless your product has fluctuating harmonics. Fluctuating harmonics are usually present in products which have electronic power supplies plus intermittent motor or heater loads which turn off and on during normal operation. In such a case, you must test in both operating conditions John P. Wagner AVAYA Communication 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@avaya.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br[SMTP:gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br] Reply To: gunter_j_ma...@embraco.com.br Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 7:20 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics and the 600W limit Correcting my English: A question about the famous 61000-3-2. What should I consider if my equipment works with an input power less than, and sometimes above 600W in normal conditions ? Will my equipment need to mutate to comply with class A and D !? :-) Thanks. Günter J. Maass Eletronic Researcher EMBRACO S.A. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC vs. Exi equipment
I believe the surge test is applicable. The zener avalanche diode barriers provide protection to sensitive circuit components, but are the zeners robust enough to withstand the surge? If the signal line in question is one which, according to the standard, is to be surge tested, the presence or absence of circuit protective elements is immaterial. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Westin, Amund[SMTP:amund.wes...@dnv.com] Reply To: Westin, Amund Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:15 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: EMC vs. Exi equipment Hello members, One question, what's common practise regarding surge test (EN61000-4-5 on signal lines) on lines which contains zener barriers ? Have a feeling that the surge test is not applicable. Comments ? Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com ** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- 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: harmonic standards above 16 Amps
There is an IEC Technical Report IEC61000-3-4 dealing with harmonics of products drawing over 16 Amps/phase. It does not have the stature of a standard, but is the preferred evaluation method. IEC TC77 is developing a standard from this report. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com[SMTP:jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com] Reply To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:29 AM To: Mike Stone; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Fwd:harmonic standards above 16 Amps forwarded for Mike. Reply Separator Subject:harmonic standards above 16 Amps Author: Mike Stone mst...@lsr.com Date: 5/9/00 7:43 AM Good Morning- Are there AC harmonic standards for larger (Amps) products? At this time I am testing a 50 Amp generator, and am having difficulty locating anything. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mike Stone L.S. Compliance W66 N220 Commerce Court Cedarburg, WI 53012 262-375-4400 --- 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: Where is 8.2.1 in EN55022 ?
I think you should contact Global Engineering Documents to see if they sent you a defective standard. If not, and the UK has not included that paragraph, the standard seems inclomplete. Nevertheless, it is the EN which is the basis of compliance, not a national standard. So, you may site EN55022 with the paragraph as the basis of compliance and ignore the BSI standard. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Benoit Nadeau[SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 12:40 PM To: Wagner, John P (John); emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Where is 8.2.1 in EN55022 ? Hello John, Thank you for your comment. The only problem is that the BS EN55022:1998 that I order through Global Engineering Documents Service in Denver Colorado does not have this paragraph, only a blank space line a vertical line at the left end side. Regards, At 12:55 PM 5/9/2000 -0600, Wagner, John P (John) wrote: When EN55022 was adopted, there were several common technical modifications to CISPR 22. One of those changes was to delete subclauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. In the EN, the following paragraph was added to 8.2 The operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined by the manufacturer according to the typical use of the EUT wilth respect to the expected highest level of emission. The determined operational moed and the rationale for the conditions shall be stated in the test report. In other words, the Europeans did not buy the rationale of C63.4, possibly for good reasons. There are many terminals which are exclusively graphic and their host units simply cannot produce the conditions called for in CISPR 22. I think the EN makes sense. However, for worldwide products, we are now stuck with two methods. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Benoit Nadeau[SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Reply To: Benoit Nadeau Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:06 AM To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ? Bonjour de Montreal, In CISPR22:1997 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. 8.2.1 Operation of visual display units If the EUT includes a visual or monitor, The following operating rules shall be used. - Set the contrast control to maximum. - Set the brightness control to maximum or at raster extinction if raster extinction occurs at less than maximum brightness. - For colour monitors, used white letters on a black background to represent all colours. - Select the worse case of positive or negative video if both alternatives are available. - Set the character size and number of characters per line so that typically the greatest number of characters per screen is displayed. - For monitors with graphics capabilities, a pattern consisting of all scrolling Hs should be displayed. For monitors with text capability, a pattern consisting of random text shall be displayed. If neither of the above apply, use typical display. The EUT shall be operated in the operating mode that generates the greatest level of emission while satisfying the above operating rules. In BS EN 55022:1998 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. | | | | | | ??? There is no section 8.2.1, although it is referenced in the text. What happen to 8.2.1? obviously it has been deleted, without editorial review, when CENELEC adopted CISPR22:1997. What is the rational behind this? Should visual display unit be configured as in CISPR22:1997 or is this field wide open? The CISPR22:1997 is quite similar to ANSI C63.4 requirements. Is this deletion some sort of denial of the ANSI method? What should visual display units (or graphic cards as in my particular case) do? Any comment will be helpful. Regards, -- Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.) Conformity Group Manager Matrox Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475) Fax: (514) 822-6275 Chairman 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001 -- --- 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
RE: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ?
When EN55022 was adopted, there were several common technical modifications to CISPR 22. One of those changes was to delete subclauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. In the EN, the following paragraph was added to 8.2 The operational conditions of the EUT shall be determined by the manufacturer according to the typical use of the EUT wilth respect to the expected highest level of emission. The determined operational moed and the rationale for the conditions shall be stated in the test report. In other words, the Europeans did not buy the rationale of C63.4, possibly for good reasons. There are many terminals which are exclusively graphic and their host units simply cannot produce the conditions called for in CISPR 22. I think the EN makes sense. However, for worldwide products, we are now stuck with two methods. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Benoit Nadeau[SMTP:bnad...@matrox.com] Reply To: Benoit Nadeau Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:06 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Where is 8.2.1 is EN55022 ? Bonjour de Montreal, In CISPR22:1997 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. 8.2.1 Operation of visual display units If the EUT includes a visual or monitor, The following operating rules shall be used. - Set the contrast control to maximum. - Set the brightness control to maximum or at raster extinction if raster extinction occurs at less than maximum brightness. - For colour monitors, used white letters on a black background to represent all colours. - Select the worse case of positive or negative video if both alternatives are available. - Set the character size and number of characters per line so that typically the greatest number of characters per screen is displayed. - For monitors with graphics capabilities, a pattern consisting of all scrolling Hs should be displayed. For monitors with text capability, a pattern consisting of random text shall be displayed. If neither of the above apply, use typical display. The EUT shall be operated in the operating mode that generates the greatest level of emission while satisfying the above operating rules. In BS EN 55022:1998 one can read in section 8.2: ... Any mechanical activities should be performed and visual display units should be operated as in 8.2.1. | | | | | | ??? There is no section 8.2.1, although it is referenced in the text. What happen to 8.2.1? obviously it has been deleted, without editorial review, when CENELEC adopted CISPR22:1997. What is the rational behind this? Should visual display unit be configured as in CISPR22:1997 or is this field wide open? The CISPR22:1997 is quite similar to ANSI C63.4 requirements. Is this deletion some sort of denial of the ANSI method? What should visual display units (or graphic cards as in my particular case) do? Any comment will be helpful. Regards, -- Benoît Nadeau, ing. M.ing (P.eng., M.eng.) Conformity Group Manager Matrox Tel: (514) 822-6000 (x2475) Fax: (514) 822-6275 Chairman 2001 IEEE EMC International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility Montreal August 13 to 17, 2001 -- --- 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: Telecom Regulatory Generator
Try BHS International. Their website is http://www.bhsintl.com. Their email address is: bo...@bhsintl.com John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: pmerguer...@itl.co.il[SMTP:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Reply To: pmerguer...@itl.co.il Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:01 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Telecom Regulatory Generator Dear All, Anyone knows of a telecom regulatory generator where one can easily find the regulatory requirements in a particular country, including but not limited to: regulating authorities and contacts; test labs and contacts; applicable safety/emc/telecom standards and mutual recognitions (acceptance of international test reports). Thanks Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- 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: EN61326-1 Harmonics
At the final stages of development of IEC 61000-3-2, TC77 WG1 responsible for the document made an editorial change without review by voting bodies. That change was to add the statement This section is a Product family standard. With the exception of a few questionable characters leading WG1, no one thought of this as a product standard. We have been at odds over this standard ever since. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Reply To: Barry Ma Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:55 PM To: chr...@gnlp.com Cc: bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Chris, I am impressed by your gentleman discussion manner. We all agree that the committee of EN 61326-1 has very solid reason to exclude 3-2 3-3 for Class A equipment. If we had had the vote right we might have done the same thing. Unfortunately 3-2 3-3 became Product Standards with very broad definition. The rumor I heard is that these two standards were originally drafted as Basic Standards. ... (There must be some esteemed members in the EMC-PSTC group able to tell us what really happened.) If I have a piece of Class A lab equipment (referenced to EN 61326-1) with current 16A, I would rather test it for 3-2 3-3. Because I want to be prudent and conservative for the best interest of my company, the same attitude as you said: I don't want cause my company to be seduced by the dark side of non-compliance. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com --- On Tue, 28 March 2000, Maxwell, Chris wrote: Barry, You have a great point. It doesn't just apply to Information Technology Equipment. I apologize for using the term ITE loosely. I feel (don't know) that the lowering of the current limit from 16A per phase (one of the main differences between IEC 555-2, 3 and IEC 1000-3-2,3) was aimed at the proliferation of ITE and consumer products. Someone at IEC realized that there could be a cumulative effect of harmonic currents. However, the scope of the standards is very broad. It can be interpreted to include anything that uses an electron :-) I felt that the commitee that wrote EN 61326-1 actually looked at the difference between Class A and Class B equipment within EN 61326-1 and consciously left the harmonics and flicker limits out of the Class A requirements. This was confirmed by Norm Provost's reply to the thread. He participated in the writing and development of the standard. I think that you have a valid point in that EN 61326-1 treated EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 as Basic Standards as opposed to Product Standards. I never considered that point of view before your email. But I want to know more. Now that I have conceded that I used ITE incorrectly, could I get an explanation of what makes IEC 1000-3-2 and IEC 1000-3-3 a Product Standard as opposed to a Basic Standard? Thanks, Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 109 N. Genesee St. Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: chr...@gnlp.com -Original Message- From:Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:40 PM To:chr...@gnlp.com Cc:bkundew...@qtm.net; nprov...@foxboro.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Chris, Would you please prove that two product family standards 3-2 and 3-3 are only applicable to ITE? Thanks. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.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,
RE: Questions about EN61000-4-6
CISPR 24 allows the transition from conducted to radiated immunity anywhere from 30MHz to 80MHz.. The European implementation, EN55024 does not. The 4-6, 4-3 boundary is at 80MHz. The Japanese did extensive testing for equivalence of RF field exposure to current injection. They found that above about 10MHz, the coupling falls as the log of the frequency. In other words, 3V/m does not equal 3V. This has been taken care of in CISPR 24. The test value of 3V was not changed but the limits were. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Barry Ma[SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Reply To: Barry Ma Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Questions about EN61000-4-6 Hi Group, Here are some of my questions and thoughts about EN61000-4-6. Any corrections and comments are greatly appreciated. In discussion of Wisdom behind all these standards, Richard Nute summarized three points raised by Martin Rowe. One of them is reasonableness or appropriateness of the standard. Please allow me to have better understanding of reasonableness or appropriateness of the EN61000-4-6. Both EN61000-4-3 (4-3 in short below) and EN61000-4-6 (4-6) verify the immunity of EUT against induced disturbances caused by incident electromagnetic fields from 150 KHz to 1 GHz. The chamber test approach used in 4-3 is not suitable at lower frequencies (150 KHz to 80 MHz), - not in principle only technically. That's why we need to perform 4-6 differently from 4-3. The methodology of 4-6 is to inject conducted disturbance to cables connected to the EUT by using direct injection or clamp coupling. The injected cable currents are supposed to be the same as induced by incident electromagnetic fields in real world. The methodology of 4-6 also implies that at low frequencies the possible disturbance directly coupled into the EUT from incident electromagnetic fields can be ignored in comparison with the disturbance indirectly coupled to the EUT via attached cables. For many well-shielded EUT that assumption works because it is difficult for low frequency electromagnetic fields to directly get into the EUT through apertures (such as slots, seams, and holes), whose dimensions are small compared to wavelength. But what if the EUT has larger openings or only plastic enclosure? Let's see an extreme example. A component cannot work properly under the illumination of 2.5 V/m incident field at 50 MHz The component would feel 2.5 V/m field when installed if the EUT is illuminated by 3 V/m incident field. But the component could work OK if injecting cable current of 3V into the EUT. The boundary 80 MHz between 4-3 (80 to 1000 MHz) and 4-6 (0.15 to 80 MHz) is not always fixed. It may be adjusted depending on different scenario. That principle is mentioned only in principle. I would like to see a real example to adjust the boundary between 4-3 and 4-6. Does it make more sense to setup a transition region, say 50 to 100 MHz, for both 4-3 and 4-6 to overlap? For the same EUT the test level of 4-3 is 3V/m, and the test level of 4-6 is 3V (80% AM @ 1KHz). Is there any explanation or verification available to show the equivalence (even roughly) between these two levels in interferences with the EUT at boundary frequency? In real world all attached cables would have induced currents at the same time if an incident field illuminates upon the EUT. In 4-6 test procedure, however, all cables are injected one by one in turn. On the other hand, in Radiated Emission test we have to manipulate the placement of all attached cable to maximize the resultant emission from all cables. Is it fair? I mean there seems to be a double standard for Radiated Emission and Conducted Immunity. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.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,
