Re: When CE doesn't pass
Such is lifeI have seen way too much of this with monitors in particular from outside the US. If you are the manufacturer whose name is one the equipment you are selling and you have a failing component you are on the hook. What I have done under such circumstances is to obtain data for the specific component and send them the data and pictures from an accredited lab. If that doesn't work and you want results notify the agency responsible for the enforcement of the mark. Manufacturers have to be responsible for compliance for their product, not getting by on the coattails of others. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Thursday, Nov 21, 2002, at 11:40 US/Pacific, brian_ku...@leco.com wrote: Has this ever happened to you? We manufacture analysis instrumentation equipment. The part we make is usually part of a complex system made up of other CE marked equipment from many different suppliers. Sometimes when we have a system tested for CE (emissions and immunity), one of the other companies pieces of equipment will cause the system to fail. I have seen some test labs identify the failing piece of equipment, write it up in the report and say it is not our problem because our equipment passes AND it is not contributing to the failure. But, what if we are selling the system including the CE Marked products that failed when we had it tested? It doesn't always do us much good to go to the manufacturer of the failing equipment because they will usually say that it passes when they tests it. If we were a PC manufacturer and had trouble with a printer or a monitor we could just find another one, but the equipment in our systems are more unique. There may only be 1 or 2 manufacturers of such a device and we don't have much of a choice. So here is my question. Can we sell a system that includes a CE marked peripheral that we have no design control over, that fails when WE have it tested? Please advise and Thank you in advance. Brian Kunde LECO Corp. --- 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: Official Languages of Countries
The official language of the country is not the same thing that the applications for approvals can be provided in. The BHS Approval Guidebooks tell you what languages (many in English) that the country will accept. Available from BHS in Texas. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Thursday, Oct 31, 2002, at 14:10 US/Pacific, Jacob Schanker wrote: Stephen: Try www.infoplease.com. Or, go directly to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html which is what you are looking for. Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. 65 Crandon Way Rochester, NY 14618 Tel: 585 442 3909 Fax: 585 442 2182 j.schan...@ieee.org - Original Message - From: Stephen Irving sirv...@lutron.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Official Languages of Countries Hello everyone. My name is Steve Irving, and I am new to this forum. Does anyone know where to find a reliable, up-to-date list of the official languages of each country? This list would be useful to people selling products internationally, as many standards require instructions in the official language of each country of sale. Thanks for your help, Steve Stephen R. Irving Project Electrical Engineer Lutron Electronics, Co. Inc. +1 (610) 282 - 6468 +1 (610) 282 - 7324 [Fax] --- 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: LED's and laser safety?
I think the confusion came from the different types of lasers, which I did not provide any differentiation. I was speaking about non-focused LEDs that are on display panels, not LEDs that are considered Class I lasers. All LEDs were previously subject to approval for a CE Mark, but non-focused display types were not required to be by UL. The Europeans have adopted UL viewpoint on these types of LEDs only. Non-focused display LEDs are being dropped from the program, the others continue to require approval by both the Europeans and UL. Sorry about any confusion. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Monday, Oct 14, 2002, at 04:53 US/Pacific, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: I sure would love to hear that argument. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Warren Birmingham [mailto:war...@comfortjets.com] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:06 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: LED's and laser safety? Gary, I was recently in conversation with UL about LEDs whereas I am now being told that UL has convinced the European counterparts that LEDs are no longer considered Class I Lasers and the requirements for them to be tested as such has been dropped. UL no longer treats them that way in their CB Reports. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Oct 10, 2002, at 08:53 US/Pacific, Gary McInturff wrote: IEC-825 has incorporated LED's into the safety standard but, from what I can tell, left a great deal of confusion. I typically deal with the 5 - 10 mcd devices and haven't been required to provide any IEC-825 conformity proof for the Western European test house. We may be jumping up to about 60 mcd and non-focused devices and I don't know where the standard starts to become concerned. I hate to buy the standard if it doesn't provide any clarity for these types of parts. Could you folks clue me in? Gary --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Ferrites for GND
Hi Dan. Two ferrite manufacturers I use are Stewart and Fair-Rite. Both of them have catalogs containing great detail graphs of performance of their various materials. Some of the 43 and 44 ferrite materials have very good low frequency performance. I would suggest, because I have no further details, that you contact their respective engineers as to what materials, form factors, and other considerations would work best. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Friday, Oct 11, 2002, at 12:01 US/Pacific, Dan Pierce wrote: I have always been reluctant to place ferrite beads in the ground path, but I see them frequently in reference designs for USB and Analog Audio. What kind material should this be and what characteristics would this type of ferrite have. I am assuming this ferrite would not have 600 Ohm impedance @ 100MHz Thanks in advance, Daniel J. Pierce Sr. Design Engineer OpenGlobe, Inc. (An Escient Technologies Affiliate) 6325 Digital Way Indianapolis, IN 46278 mailto:dpie...@openglobe.net P: (317) 616.6587 F: (317) 616.6587 Dan Pierce.vcf --- 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: LED's and laser safety?
Gary, I was recently in conversation with UL about LEDs whereas I am now being told that UL has convinced the European counterparts that LEDs are no longer considered Class I Lasers and the requirements for them to be tested as such has been dropped. UL no longer treats them that way in their CB Reports. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Oct 10, 2002, at 08:53 US/Pacific, Gary McInturff wrote: IEC-825 has incorporated LED's into the safety standard but, from what I can tell, left a great deal of confusion. I typically deal with the 5 - 10 mcd devices and haven't been required to provide any IEC-825 conformity proof for the Western European test house. We may be jumping up to about 60 mcd and non-focused devices and I don't know where the standard starts to become concerned. I hate to buy the standard if it doesn't provide any clarity for these types of parts. Could you folks clue me in? Gary --- 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: Question regarding something slightly unusual ...
The most likely reason I can think of is that some companies demand either a UL or TUV mark specifically hence the dual marking. I knew of one company that would accept a test report only from a specific laboratory. Both UL and TUV are NRTLs. It is also possible that TUV met some specific European credibility in a specific place. I also believe, but am not entirely sure, that products for use in restricted locations is a UL workaround not generally compliant with EN Standards and not generally available for CE Marked products. Other than the differences between listings and R/C status and compliance variations thereto, it is strange. However, a company CAN obtain both a listing and a recognized component on the same product to suit their own purposes. Comments? Warren Birmingham On Wednesday, Oct 9, 2002, at 09:42 US/Pacific, soundsu...@aol.com wrote: From Doug McKean: In 20 years, I've never seen this before but that's not saying much. Why would a mfr get a UL recognition approval for a commercial ITE style single phase 155-230vac computer style product but for that same product get the TUV GS mark? Mfr is a stateside company. Product to be used in restricted areas with trained personnel only. But, one that essentially anyone could buy. What's the advantage of getting such a mixed set of approvals? It's not really a mixed set of approvals. UL must have considered the device to be incomplete in some way (does it have an enclosure?), therefore they Recognized it as a component as opposed to Listing it as a finished product. The GS Mark has no mechanism for delineating between components and finished products - both can receive GS approval. Hence the TUV GS mark. That's my guess, based on the limited information you gave. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.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: MRA with China
Charles, in a recent conversation I had with a local lab that is operated by mainland China nationals, all testing MUST be done in China. Korea has a similar situation except there is one lab in Canada that has authorization to test for Korea. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Tuesday, Oct 1, 2002, at 10:24 US/Pacific, Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi, Does anyine know if there is an MRA betweenChinaand theUS? I'd like to use test data from a CNLA accredited lab for FCC Class B purposes. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: FCC routes to compliance
The information you seek is in Part 15, which delineates which equipment goes what approval route. In addition, Part 2 defines the marketing requirements. It's a tedious process or I'd publish the specifics here. Just takes some research. Call me at (510) 793-4806 if I can help over the phone. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Wednesday, Sep 25, 2002, at 04:29 US/Pacific, Neil Helsby wrote: Having spent some time on the FCC web site I have been unable to find specific details on the Verification, DoC and Certification routes to compliance. I need a definition of the products that fit these routes and where I can find the forms that have to be submitted. Many thanks for your help. Neil Helsby ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports
Jim, as I see it, EFT and Surge are not a whole lot different except for the amount of power in the surge pulses. Surge is pretty much a test of the power supply's ability to handle the power and not pass it to the secondary circuitry. I believe that a good line filter coupled with the use of a power supply that also has a CE mark and has passed surge testing constitutes a pretty good design and hence my comments about reciprocity between low emissions and high immunity resistance. We did have experience with one switching power supply which failed surge testing where the design folks decided to forego the line filter for cost reasons. I hate that, because it usually means we spend more money solving the failure issues over what the savings are in the design. The fix required the power supply manufacturer to put a sleeve over one set of windings which was arcing, the cost of which was passed on to us since it was a special, so to speak. There were no signal integrity issues. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Tuesday, Sep 24, 2002, at 10:32 US/Pacific, Jim Eichner wrote: Thanks to all who have responded so far. One note of clarification: we are already set up for doing ESD testing in-house, and I agree that's where most of our failures will happen. I also agree that much of the immunity suite will take care of itself on a well designed unit that has low emissions, but I don't think that's true with surge. Maybe EFT, but not surge. Note: please refrain from replying both to me and to the forum - you only need to reply to the forum. I suspect some, but by no means all, of our double-posting complaints stem from people sending 2 replies. Having said that, I am getting 3 of everything this morning! Thanks, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No really. 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: Jim Eichner [mailto:jim.eich...@xantrex.com] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:45 PM To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports We are starting to look into the costs and issues around gearing up for some immunity testing, with the intent of determining whether or not it is too hard or too expensive to gear up to do some of it at home. We are not looking for final formal compliance results here, only for pre-compliance peace of mind. In particular, I need to consider the following: 1. EFT (EN61000-4-4) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 2. Surges (EN 61000-4-5) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 3. Surges (SAE J1113/11) on DC power leads 4. Fast transients (SAE J1113/12) on other than power leads The products which we hope to be able to test in-house are power conversion and control products, and have a wide range of input/output voltages and power: - AC inputs up to 120V, 60A, or 230Vac, 30A single-phase, 120/240V, 50A, split-phase, and 120/208V, 30A, 3-phase - AC outputs up to 120Vac, 60A, 230Vac, 30A, 120/240V, 50A split-phase - DC inputs up to 12V, 500A; 24V, 300A; 48V, 200A - DC outputs up to 12kW at 10 - 600Vdc (1200A - 20A) Questions: 1. Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do both Surge and EFT tests on equipment, or are these tests just too different? 2. Surge - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do surges on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 3. EFT - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do EFT on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 4. Do these tests have to be run at full output (which may limit my ability to find 3rd party labs with suitable equipment, let alone gear up in-house) or can they be run with a light load on the equipment and then test full output after each test to confirm return to normal operation? Thanks in advance for your help, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No, really. Confidentiality Notice: This email message
Re: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal port
When you consider the cost of reports I think the cost goes up from $4500. Two of the labs I use, cost runs about $5000 for the immunity testing only plus cost of reports, give or take a few nickels. Warren On Monday, Sep 23, 2002, at 19:30 US/Pacific, lfresea...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 9/23/02 9:05:08 PM Central Daylight Time, war...@comfortjets.com writes: A suite of testing runs about $6000 for immunity for ITE equipment to meet EN 55 024 without even talking about the Radiated Immunity requirements equipment and a chamber. You are going to likely have to do this subset of testing anyway if you want a credible report as evidence of self-declaration. The costs of emissions and immunity testing with reports is around $7000 and is a clean approach both financially and in timeline if you do some chamber tests first for emissions, say a 2-hour scan in a chamber. Emissions and immunity testing are somewhat coupled in that a device that is a low radiator is also likely to have good resistance to susceptibility, but not always. This is most often true of metal shielded enclosures and those with shielded I/O cables. Hi Warren, I think your test costs seem a little high, I won't say what I charge for fear of being accused of commercialism. But a number of labs, good labs, will charge under $4,500 for a full set of tests There is a good deal of new equipment coming out from vendors too, which may mean a flood of used, but still good equipment. E-bay is a source for this. Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research --- 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: Surge and EFT test equipment for AC, DC, and signal ports
Jim, it is just my opinion, but well-designed equipment does not have much risk of failure for the majority of the tests. The one test that is worth some investment is an ESD test device. I believe that this is the most commonly-failed test and often the most difficult to correct without some insight. The remainder of the equipment you will need will cost about $60,000 and given that you may spend test money at a laboratory anyway is likely not worth it unless you are a very big manufacturer that can benefit from ISO 9000:2000 without doing the 3rd party testing. As a minimum, you are likely going to have to deal with calibration and service issues and the delays associated with them. A suite of testing runs about $6000 for immunity for ITE equipment to meet EN 55 024 without even talking about the Radiated Immunity requirements equipment and a chamber. You are going to likely have to do this subset of testing anyway if you want a credible report as evidence of self-declaration. The costs of emissions and immunity testing with reports is around $7000 and is a clean approach both financially and in timeline if you do some chamber tests first for emissions, say a 2-hour scan in a chamber. Emissions and immunity testing are somewhat coupled in that a device that is a low radiator is also likely to have good resistance to susceptibility, but not always. This is most often true of metal shielded enclosures and those with shielded I/O cables. If you want to give me a call I'll share what I know. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Monday, Sep 23, 2002, at 14:44 US/Pacific, Jim Eichner wrote: We are starting to look into the costs and issues around gearing up for some immunity testing, with the intent of determining whether or not it is too hard or too expensive to gear up to do some of it at home. We are not looking for final formal compliance results here, only for pre-compliance peace of mind. In particular, I need to consider the following: 1. EFT (EN61000-4-4) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 2. Surges (EN 61000-4-5) - AC input, output, and ground lines, DC input and output lines, signal/control lines 3. Surges (SAE J1113/11) on DC power leads 4. Fast transients (SAE J1113/12) on other than power leads The products which we hope to be able to test in-house are power conversion and control products, and have a wide range of input/output voltages and power: - AC inputs up to 120V, 60A, or 230Vac, 30A single-phase, 120/240V, 50A, split-phase, and 120/208V, 30A, 3-phase - AC outputs up to 120Vac, 60A, 230Vac, 30A, 120/240V, 50A split-phase - DC inputs up to 12V, 500A; 24V, 300A; 48V, 200A - DC outputs up to 12kW at 10 - 600Vdc (1200A - 20A) Questions: 1. Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do both Surge and EFT tests on equipment, or are these tests just too different? 2. Surge - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do surges on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 3. EFT - Is there any single piece of equipment (with accessories/modules/etc.) available that can do EFT on all these types of ports: AC and DC and signal/control? Any info re mfr, cat. no., price, etc. would be appreciated. 4. Do these tests have to be run at full output (which may limit my ability to find 3rd party labs with suitable equipment, let alone gear up in-house) or can they be run with a light load on the equipment and then test full output after each test to confirm return to normal operation? Thanks in advance for your help, Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No, really. 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. --- 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
Fwd: EMC immunity requirements in Canada?
Reposted due to server failure... Begin forwarded message: From: Warren Birmingham war...@comfortjets.com Date: Fri Sep 20, 2002 18:55:25 US/Pacific To: Marko Radojicic marko.radoji...@mapleoptical.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC immunity requirements in Canada? I was not clear enough in my original message when I said that there ARE requirements but no per se standards. The de-facto immunity requirements the FCC has (and the Canadians) is the responsibility the manufacturer accepts as posted on the label. This is called out in 15.19 (in part) as follows: (3) All other devices shall bear the following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. Thus the FCC does not dictate WHAT the testing levels are, only that the manufacturer must meet generally accepted design guidelines that protect the consumer and is on the hook for meeting them at their expense. If this is splitting hairs to anyone, it is not that vague to me. Warren Birmingham Epsilon Mu consultants On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 16:33 US/Pacific, Marko Radojicic wrote: Warren, Could you reference the section of part 15 (or elsewhere) where the FCC calls out immunity requirements? I have to speculate that you are mixing up other requirements such as GR-1089 NEBS with the FCC. Thanks, Marko -Original Message- From: Warren Birmingham [mailto:war...@comfortjets.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:59 AM To: am...@westin-emission.no Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC immunity requirements in Canada? The Canadians accept FCC data, which DOES include immunity requirements. There are no testing standards for immunity, only that the device must accept any interference for normal operation. See the labeling requirements for verification and certification in Part 15. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 05:22 US/Pacific, am...@westin-emission.no wrote: As far as I remember, US (FCC) do only have emission (radiated / conducted) requirements. What about Canada (IC) do they have immunity requirements in addition ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/ NORWAY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Breaker panel lockout-tagout
I'm not an authority, but I would think that this is against both the fire code and common sense. If an emergency developed such as electric shock or fire and the breaker could not be manually opened, i see it as tantamount to the locking of fire escape doors and many liability concerns. The object of locking out a single breaker is to prevent THAT breaker from being energized accidently. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 10:29 US/Pacific, lcr...@tuvam.com wrote: Group, Is anyone aware of an authoritative position on the acceptability (or not) of applying a lock to a breaker panel cover (and so affecting access to other, unrelated, breakers behind the same cove) to achieve OSHA compliant Lockout/Tagout rather than applying the lock to breaker directly? -Lauren Crane TUV America --- 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: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Many line filters do indeed have a bleeder resistor built in. There are a few which do not, and I am familiar with one Delta filter that does not. We added the bleeder across the terminals of the filter and it was approved by UL. It just has to be done in accordance with accepted construction practices. This particular filter is and IEC plug type so the leads are not saliently exposed unless the cord is left attached. None the less I agree with John that it is not a good idea to ignore because one instance will get you a lot of word-of-mouth bad press and sales are hard-enough to come by so to speak. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 10:11 US/Pacific, John Allen wrote: Hello Folks Tomonori Sato commented However, I think discharge from 0.1uF capacitor charged to the mains peak voltage can be quite uncomfortable. I believe that to be true from personal experience and from having to investigate the results of a number of such incidents, and so would remind member of a point that I made several years ago on this forum: The primary shock almost certainly will NOT hurt a person, but the involuntary reaction TO the shock may well have much more seriousconsequences. This type of shock is often encountered by people who pick up equipment which they have just unplugged from the AC mains in order to carry it elsewhere. If they then touch the pins of the plug there are numerous reported incidences of them involuntarily dropping the unit - and that can possibly be on their own feet - and from a height of about 3ft/1m! If the unit is more than a couple of pounds (about one kilo) then the injury to t! he feet can be substantial. Worse situations could occur in industrial equipment when a service engineer opens a cabinet to perform a service operation - the reaction from the shock could cause him to strike touch other hazardous electrical or mechanical parts (which probably should also not be there, I do agree!) which then cause him serious actual injury. These types of incident do not make the equipment supplier very popular to say the least, and could result in product liability claims. The main basis for the claims would be that the supplier had not adequately assessed the hazards and taken the appropriate simple precautions which are easily and cheaply available - fit a bleeder resistor across the capacitor, or use a filter with a resistor already built in (or with transformer/inductor windings directly across the capacitor - which achieve the same result) ! Again from personal experience I can say that it is a very embarassing and un! comfortable experience to have to write to an injured or anno! yed person, or to his employer, to say sorry, but that is what the safety standard allows. It is just not good business sense. Therefore, regardless of the requirements of the various standards and this argument over capacitor value and/or charging voltage, I firmly believe that the use of bleeder resistors should be considered effectively mandatory, and have always recommended it to engineers I have advised on product safety. Regards John Allen Technical Consultant Electromagnetics, Safety and Reliability Group ERA Technology Ltd Cleeve Rd Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA Tel: +44 (0) 1372-367025 (Direct) +44 (0) 1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44 (0) 1372-367102 (Fax) -- Replies to this message may be posted in the following public forum: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF --- 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
Re: EMC immunity requirements in Canada?
The Canadians accept FCC data, which DOES include immunity requirements. There are no testing standards for immunity, only that the device must accept any interference for normal operation. See the labeling requirements for verification and certification in Part 15. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 05:22 US/Pacific, am...@westin-emission.no wrote: As far as I remember, US (FCC) do only have emission (radiated / conducted) requirements. What about Canada (IC) do they have immunity requirements in addition ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/ NORWAY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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 immunity requirements in Canada?
The Canadians accept FCC data, which DOES include immunity requirements. There are no testing standards for immunity, only that the device must accept any interference for normal operation. See the labeling requirements for verification and certification in Part 15. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Thursday, Sep 19, 2002, at 05:22 US/Pacific, am...@westin-emission.no wrote: As far as I remember, US (FCC) do only have emission (radiated / conducted) requirements. What about Canada (IC) do they have immunity requirements in addition ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo/ NORWAY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@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: Breaker panel lockout-tagout
I'm not an authority, but I would think that this is against both the fire code and common sense. If an emergency developed such as electric shock or fire and the breaker could not be manually opened, i see it as tantamount to the locking of fire escape doors and many liability concerns. The object of locking out a single breaker is to prevent THAT breaker from being energized accidently. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 10:29 US/Pacific, lcr...@tuvam.com wrote: Group, Is anyone aware of an authoritative position on the acceptability (or not) of applying a lock to a breaker panel cover (and so affecting access to other, unrelated, breakers behind the same cove) to achieve OSHA compliant Lockout/Tagout rather than applying the lock to breaker directly? -Lauren Crane TUV America --- 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: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF
Many line filters do indeed have a bleeder resistor built in. There are a few which do not, and I am familiar with one Delta filter that does not. We added the bleeder across the terminals of the filter and it was approved by UL. It just has to be done in accordance with accepted construction practices. This particular filter is and IEC plug type so the leads are not saliently exposed unless the cord is left attached. None the less I agree with John that it is not a good idea to ignore because one instance will get you a lot of word-of-mouth bad press and sales are hard-enough to come by so to speak. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 10:11 US/Pacific, John Allen wrote: Hello Folks Tomonori Sato commented However, I think discharge from 0.1uF capacitor charged to the mains peak voltage can be quite uncomfortable. I believe that to be true from personal experience and from having to investigate the results of a number of such incidents, and so would remind member of a point that I made several years ago on this forum: The primary shock almost certainly will NOT hurt a person, but the involuntary reaction TO the shock may well have much more seriousconsequences. This type of shock is often encountered by people who pick up equipment which they have just unplugged from the AC mains in order to carry it elsewhere. If they then touch the pins of the plug there are numerous reported incidences of them involuntarily dropping the unit - and that can possibly be on their own feet - and from a height of about 3ft/1m! If the unit is more than a couple of pounds (about one kilo) then the injury to t! he feet can be substantial. Worse situations could occur in industrial equipment when a service engineer opens a cabinet to perform a service operation - the reaction from the shock could cause him to strike touch other hazardous electrical or mechanical parts (which probably should also not be there, I do agree!) which then cause him serious actual injury. These types of incident do not make the equipment supplier very popular to say the least, and could result in product liability claims. The main basis for the claims would be that the supplier had not adequately assessed the hazards and taken the appropriate simple precautions which are easily and cheaply available - fit a bleeder resistor across the capacitor, or use a filter with a resistor already built in (or with transformer/inductor windings directly across the capacitor - which achieve the same result) ! Again from personal experience I can say that it is a very embarassing and un! comfortable experience to have to write to an injured or anno! yed person, or to his employer, to say sorry, but that is what the safety standard allows. It is just not good business sense. Therefore, regardless of the requirements of the various standards and this argument over capacitor value and/or charging voltage, I firmly believe that the use of bleeder resistors should be considered effectively mandatory, and have always recommended it to engineers I have advised on product safety. Regards John Allen Technical Consultant Electromagnetics, Safety and Reliability Group ERA Technology Ltd Cleeve Rd Leatherhead Surrey KT22 7SA Tel: +44 (0) 1372-367025 (Direct) +44 (0) 1372-367000 (Switchboard) Fax: +44 (0) 1372-367102 (Fax) -- Replies to this message may be posted in the following public forum: Question: Discharge capacitance 0.1 uF --- 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: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Ken, you may be right but it is like trying to convince the FAA that there is no harm in using car gas in airplanes. There are just too many ways for uncontrolled fuel to become contaminated from unknown sources. With respect to the EMC and immunity issues, it is not the technical issues that are of concern, but rather the liability and publicity of even being accused of causing interference, regardless of how it got there. The potential for it exists, and lives are potentially at stake. Who would argue with this? I am also an aviation consultant as well as an engineering one. Most devices are allowed to be used in flight. Cell Phones and 2-way pagers cause too much GROUND interference when used from the air and THAT is the primary reason they are not permitted. They use more resources than intended when used from the air. By the way, I was consulting to a company that did not even test ANY of their equipment to FCC Part 15, and I discovered that they were out of specification for Class A by several db. We had our attorney negotiate with the FCC, who wanted to know if ANY of the over-limit frequencies fell into the aviation bands. They did not, so we had to fix the problems with no other action required other than submission of new compliant verification reports. There is concern for this even originating outside of the aircraft. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 09:56 US/Pacific, Ken Javor wrote: Most of what you say below meshes with my experience and does not contradict my basic premise, that PEDs can only interfere through aircraft antennas. I am curious what the resolution of the Boeing installation was. Equipment undergoing EMI qualification must be tested with a representative flight harness. Did your company test with screened cables and then try to force Boeing to use the same? Bad form. Did Boeing try to buy an off-the-shelf system qualified with screened cables and then install the system using unscreened cables? Equally bad form. This must be worked out before design and testing for procured equipment, and if the equipment is off-the-shelf, then the qualification configuration harness must be installed, or the equipment must be requalified using the planned/existing configuration wiring. Another question of interest: Was the system you provided Boeing flight critical? There is one place that what you say could be interpreted to imply that PED emissions get into aircraft wiring: It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interference appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Consider the physical parameters. The PED is small and low power and while it may not meet RTCA/DO-160, it does not blanket the entire aircraft with emissions. The intensity falls off rapidly with separation from the source. This is clearly a case where the emitting device is electrically small over almost the entire communications band. Assume the emitted radiation intensity were 100 mV/m, 5-6 orders of magnitude above CISPR limits. The transfer function of coupled current to a cable above ground is 1.5 mA per Volt/meter. I can supply that derivation if you like, but it is inherent in both RTCA/DO-160D and MIL-STD-461D/E. It is different in IEC 61000-4-6, but that is because the ground plane is far away or nonexistent in buildings and the cable-under-test is a more efficient pick-up device in that environment. Anyway, the coupled current would be 150 uA, and that assumes at least one half wavelength of the cable was immersed in a plane wave with precisely the right orientation relative to the wire in order to get that. If the victim circuit contains information represented by low potentials, such as below 0.1 Volt, then I would expect the cable carrying that signal to be shielded, as in a twisted shielded pair. 150 uA riding on a shield should not cause any problems to any flight critical signal, even with a pigtailed shield termination. For instance, if the pigtail termination yielded a transfer impedance as high as 50 Ohms at some frequency, the resultant common mode coupling to the interior pair would still only be 7.5 mV. Again I contend that Boeing and Airbus would not route a flight critical signal with a threshold of susceptibility that low. And if the circuit is totally unshielded, that implies it is a discrete or other relatively high level signal, where information is carried in such a away that it takes Volts of induced potential to cause an upset. Coupling to an unshielded wire above ground occurs at a transfer function of 75 mV per Volt/meter. [ Cf. IEC 61000-4-6, coupling efficiency of 1 Volt per Volt/meter, open circuit
Re: Flexible cable reliability and testing
UL has 2 standards which pertain to power cables. UL 817 and UL 1072 Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 09:32 US/Pacific, rbus...@es.com wrote: I have been tasked with finding a standard and test procedure to validate the reliability of flexible cables over time. I have found a standard, EIA TP-41C (EIS-364-41C), but it focuses primarily on the electrical connectors rather than the cable. Another standard Mil-C-13777G is used by some of the wire and cable manufacturers, but searching the web I found a US Government site that indicated that this standard was inactive for new design. I can find no source for this standard. My application is for signal cables, but I assume other power cables would have some type of standard which they are tested to. Are there other standards applicable to cables in a flex environment? Any help would be appreciated. Rick Busche Evans Sutherland SLC, Utah rbus...@es.com (801) 588-7185 --- 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: Acousic Noise from ITE
I went to the Global Engineering Website and http://www.global.ihs.com and found over 300 standards related to the keyword acoustic You can narrow the search. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 08:43 US/Pacific, richwo...@tycoint.com wrote: Are there any EU or national (e.g. GS) normative requirements to comply with any of the following standards or any other acoustic standards for ITE? EN27779 Acoustic measurement of airborn noise emitted by computer and business equipment. EN29295 Acoustic measurement of high frequency noise emitted by computer and business equipment. ISO 9296 Acoustics declared noise emission values of emitted by computer and business equipment. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Add-On Printed Circuit
You don't say to which standard UL has investigated the Product A device or whether is is a listed product or a Recognized Component. The listed product A must conform to the was it was built by the manufacturer. Changes/options to it must be shown in the Followup Services Books, otherwise the product is not covered and UL may force the shipments to be held for conformance or the listing mark removed. RCs are evaluated for use in the end product according to UL's conditions. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 08:25 US/Pacific, John Juhasz wrote: Colleagues, I am seeking your input. Manufacturer A sells a complete, fully approved (CE, FCC Part 15, UL, etc) product (product A) Manufacturer B makes a device (product B) that will plug into a connector in product A (actually inside product A's enclosure - like a 'daughter' module) as a value added feature. There are no external interfaces on product B, and it is not accessible unless product A is totally dismantled. Product B is intended/sold only for use with product A, and is otherwise useless. The two products are sold independent of each other by the manufacturers to 'dealer/installers'. When the dealer/installer sells/installs product A, he can offer product B as an option. What are the regulatory requirements/manufacturer's responsibilities for product B? (est. 2-3 inches square, UL 94V-0 printed circuit board, tens of mA 12V DC, no external interfaces. On-board clock). Thoughts? John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: New EU regulations - civil aviation
This is not so. Many aircraft now have personal 12v ports under each seat for personal electronic devices. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Sunday, Sep 15, 2002, at 10:28 US/Pacific, Ken Javor wrote: The point is that personal electronics carried on board an aircraft interact with the aircraft ONLY via the radiated emissions route. --- 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
