Re: GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
It's been a number of years since I've done any GR stuff, but with a CBN, the
grounding would/should be so good that the shielding is really redundant, and
ethernet is isolated to at least 1500 volts? The CBN ties everything together
to a common potential, where the IBN ensures that there is a possible
potential difference between the various pieces, thus the 'need' for a test.
The CBN is(should) be the same potential and so a test would be
superfluous(sp?), expensive?? and not needed?
ps. anecdotal evidence is the easiest fixes for EMI related field problems has
been CBN.
Make it all common and everything bounces together, no one part sees any
difference from the other, no problems anymore - CBN. ie shielded cables
grounded at each end are at the same potential in a CBN - surge is silly, not
needed, cost and time,
- Bill
Indecision may or may not be the problem.
--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Joe Randolph wrote:
From: Joe Randolph
Subject: Re: GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
To: "Gelfand, David" , emc-p...@ieee.org
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 9:32 PM
On 6/1/2009, Gelfand, David wrote:
GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an
exemption for
shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by
Verizon
document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause
7.2.12.1.
Does this reflect current practice?
Hi David:
So far I have always managed to avoid using this exemption, since my
gut feel
is that it might create more problems than it solves. However, as the
requirements state, this is an allowable option for an installation with a CBN
grounding scheme.
These days most central offices use a CBN grounding scheme, but there
may be
cases where an IBN system is still in place. Technically, the exemption can
only be used in a CBN system, although this may be hard to control in practice.
I don't know what sort of intrabuilding cable you are addressing, but
if it
is something as simple as an Ethernet cable, it should not be necessary to
invoke this exemption.
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/>
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to
that URL.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher
David Heald
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to
that URL.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher
David Heald
RE: [PSES] GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
>From http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf
7.2.12.1.
"Verizon has revised its long-standing installation practices and now allows
shielded cables to be grounded at both ends when in the common bonding
network. Therefore, the GR-1089 Intra-building Lightning Surge Tests
(Telecommunications Port) statement that "these tests do not apply if
intrabuilding wiring (cabling) is shielded and the manufacturer's
documentation states that both ends of the shield must be grounded" is now
applicable for equipment that will be installed in the CBN."
David
De : emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] De la part de Dan
Roman
Envoyé : Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:42 AM
À : Joe Randolph; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Objet : RE: [PSES] GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
Even with shielded cables a test is still required in GR-1089. It is
essentially a test of how well the shielding works. The test is designed such
that if the shielding is not great at least part of the surge ends up on the
cable conductors.
I have found very few Ethernet ports on standard servers survive the
surge
with unshielded cables. Most Ethernet transceivers need to have some "above
and beyond" surge protection added in order to guarantee their survival.
Some customers I have dealt with do not allow the use of shielded
cables on
Ethernet ports. As with most things in NEBS it all comes down to the
customer's requirements.
Dan
From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
On 6/1/2009, Gelfand, David wrote:
GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an exemption for
shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by Verizon
document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause
7.2.12.1.
Does this reflect current practice?
Hi David:
So far I have always managed to avoid using this exemption, since my
gut feel
is that it might create more problems than it solves. However, as the
requirements state, this is an allowable option for an installation with a CBN
grounding scheme.
These days most central offices use a CBN grounding scheme, but there
may be
cases where an IBN system is still in place. Technically, the exemption can
only be used in a CBN system, although this may be hard to control in practice.
I don't know what sort of intrabuilding cable you are addressing, but
if it
is something as simple as an Ethernet cable, it should not be necessary to
invoke this exemption.
Joe Randolph
Telecom Design Consultant
Randolph Telecom, Inc.
781-721-2848 (USA)
j...@randolph-telecom.com
http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/>
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to
that URL.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher
David Heald
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to
that URL.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas
Mike Cantwell
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher
David Heald
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the
RE: [PSES] GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
Even with shielded cables a test is still required in GR-1089. It is essentially a test of how well the shielding works. The test is designed such that if the shielding is not great at least part of the surge ends up on the cable conductors. I have found very few Ethernet ports on standard servers survive the surge with unshielded cables. Most Ethernet transceivers need to have some “above and beyond” surge protection added in order to guarantee their survival. Some customers I have dealt with do not allow the use of shielded cables on Ethernet ports. As with most things in NEBS it all comes down to the customer’s requirements. Dan From: Joe Randolph [mailto:j...@randolph-telecom.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question On 6/1/2009, Gelfand, David wrote: GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an exemption for shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by Verizon document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause 7.2.12.1. Does this reflect current practice? Hi David: So far I have always managed to avoid using this exemption, since my gut feel is that it might create more problems than it solves. However, as the requirements state, this is an allowable option for an installation with a CBN grounding scheme. These days most central offices use a CBN grounding scheme, but there may be cases where an IBN system is still in place. Technically, the exemption can only be used in a CBN system, although this may be hard to control in practice. I don't know what sort of intrabuilding cable you are addressing, but if it is something as simple as an Ethernet cable, it should not be necessary to invoke this exemption. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald
RE: GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
David, I wonder if the Verizon document still refers to Issue 3 of GR-1089, which has been replaced by Issue 4 almost three years ago. Issue 4 does no longer provide the possibility of an exemption, but asks for another test. See O4-15 in GR-1089 Issue 4. The objective has become a requirement in January 2008. Best regards, Michael Nagel Michael Nagel Senior Staff EMC Test Engineer Embedded Computing Emerson Network Power T +49-89-9608-0 F +49-89-9608-2376 michael.na...@emerson.com www.emersonnetworkpower.com/embeddedcomputing Emerson Network Power - Embedded Computing GmbH, Lilienthalstr. 15, D-85579 Neubiberg/Landkreis München, Deutschland / Germany. Geschäftsführer Josef Wenzl, Amtsgericht München HRB 171431, VAT/USt.-ID: DE 127472241 From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gelfand, David Sent: Montag, 1. Juni 2009 19:16 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an exemption for shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by Verizon document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause 7.2.12.1. Does this reflect current practice? Thanks in advace, David David Gelfand | Conformity Specialist | Kontron Canada | T 450 437 4661 x2449 |F 450 437 8053 | E david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald: - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
Re: GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
On 6/1/2009, Gelfand, David wrote: GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an exemption for shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by Verizon document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause 7.2.12.1. Does this reflect current practice? Hi David: So far I have always managed to avoid using this exemption, since my gut feel is that it might create more problems than it solves. However, as the requirements state, this is an allowable option for an installation with a CBN grounding scheme. These days most central offices use a CBN grounding scheme, but there may be cases where an IBN system is still in place. Technically, the exemption can only be used in a CBN system, although this may be hard to control in practice. I don't know what sort of intrabuilding cable you are addressing, but if it is something as simple as an Ethernet cable, it should not be necessary to invoke this exemption. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com <http://www.randolph-telecom.com/> - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher David Heald
GR-1089 intrabuilding surges question
GR-1089 clause 4.6.9.2 intrabuilding surge test has an exemption for shielded cables grounded at each end. This is supported by Verizon document http://www.verizonnebs.com/TPRs/VZ-TPR-9305.pdf clause 7.2.12.1. Does this reflect current practice? Thanks in advace, David David Gelfand | Conformity Specialist | Kontron Canada | T 450 437 4661 x2449 |F 450 437 8053 | E david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas Mike Cantwell For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: David Heald:
RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4
If you go back to issue 2 for individual equipment the distances are 1500 mm above the floor and 600 mm from the face of each equipment. For major systems the height is the same but the horizontal measurements are are at the midpoint of each on third sections within all within all equipment aisles and cross aisles. That puts you at the center of the aisles from the meter to equipment. But this is issue 2 not 4 – and it’s sound pressure level not sound power being measured there. I believe the ETSI equipvalent documents had sound power measurements but I’ve forgotten the reference number Gary _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Finlayson Joe-G3162C Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:20 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 Richard, The acoustic noise requirements are called in GR-63 Issue 3 as opposed to GR-1089 Issue 4. The test methods, as specified in GR-63 Issue 3, are contained in ANSI S12.10 as well as other ANSI S12.12 and S12.54. Have you reviewed these documents for the information you are seeking? Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: <mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com> joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stone, Richard Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 Group, In reading this for Sound Power in DB for Acoustic Noise, It doesn’t state the distance for the measurement device from the EUT in the 1089 document above, is it 1 meter? Also it states different DB levels based on location with or without operator present. Is there a consensus for location testing? Thanks Rich, Richard Stone Cantata Technology 75 Perseverance Way Hyannis, MA 02601 Ph. 508 862 3311 Fax 508 862 3020 www.cantata.com __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4
ETSI ETS 300 753 (downloaded for free at http://pda.etsi.org/pda/queryform.asp) Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: <mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com> joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA _ From: McInturff Gary [mailto:gmcintu...@spraycool.com] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:23 AM To: Finlayson Joe-G3162C; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 If you go back to issue 2 for individual equipment the distances are 1500 mm above the floor and 600 mm from the face of each equipment. For major systems the height is the same but the horizontal measurements are are at the midpoint of each on third sections within all within all equipment aisles and cross aisles. That puts you at the center of the aisles from the meter to equipment. But this is issue 2 not 4 – and it’s sound pressure level not sound power being measured there. I believe the ETSI equipvalent documents had sound power measurements but I’ve forgotten the reference number Gary _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Finlayson Joe-G3162C Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 6:20 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 Richard, The acoustic noise requirements are called in GR-63 Issue 3 as opposed to GR-1089 Issue 4. The test methods, as specified in GR-63 Issue 3, are contained in ANSI S12.10 as well as other ANSI S12.12 and S12.54. Have you reviewed these documents for the information you are seeking? Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: <mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com> joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stone, Richard Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 Group, In reading this for Sound Power in DB for Acoustic Noise, It doesn’t state the distance for the measurement device from the EUT in the 1089 document above, is it 1 meter? Also it states different DB levels based on location with or without operator present. Is there a consensus for location testing? Thanks Rich, Richard Stone Cantata Technology 75 Perseverance Way Hyannis, MA 02601 Ph. 508 862 3311 Fax 508 862 3020 www.cantata.com __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecom
Re: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4
In message <9b9d334219387043a6cbef09a7104f43026fa...@ma01exch01.cantata.com>, dated Fri, 13 Apr 2007, "Stone, Richard" writes: >It doesn?t state the distance for the measurement device from the EUT >in the 1089 document above, is it 1 meter? If it's about measuring sound power in a reverberation chamber, the distance is theoretically irrelevant, because the power should measure the same everywhere. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4
Richard, The acoustic noise requirements are called in GR-63 Issue 3 as opposed to GR-1089 Issue 4. The test methods, as specified in GR-63 Issue 3, are contained in ANSI S12.10 as well as other ANSI S12.12 and S12.54. Have you reviewed these documents for the information you are seeking? Thx, Joe Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: <mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com> joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stone, Richard Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:04 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4 Group, In reading this for Sound Power in DB for Acoustic Noise, It doesn’t state the distance for the measurement device from the EUT in the 1089 document above, is it 1 meter? Also it states different DB levels based on location with or without operator present. Is there a consensus for location testing? Thanks Rich, Richard Stone Cantata Technology 75 Perseverance Way Hyannis, MA 02601 Ph. 508 862 3311 Fax 508 862 3020 www.cantata.com __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
NEBS GR 1089 Issue 4
Group, In reading this for Sound Power in DB for Acoustic Noise, It doesn’t state the distance for the measurement device from the EUT in the 1089 document above, is it 1 meter? Also it states different DB levels based on location with or without operator present. Is there a consensus for location testing? Thanks Rich, Richard Stone Cantata Technology 75 Perseverance Way Hyannis, MA 02601 Ph. 508 862 3311 Fax 508 862 3020 www.cantata.com __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge applicable?
Hello Jim,
Thanks for your insightful comments.
The reason why I was referring to cable length is that in other
standards you may find a minimum length which is needed for a line to
qualify for a surge test (ETSI EN 300386 has 10m as minimum length).
Thanks again and best regards,
Michael
From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 25. Januar 2007 15:32
To: Nagel Michael-amn029; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge
applicable?
Hello Michael,
When we added these exemptions from the intra-building lightning testing
as part of the GR-1089 revision, our concern was really not the cable
length itself, but the distance between equipment. This correlated with
the potential distance a cable could exposed in the overhead cabling.
If you look closely there is no cable length requirement. The cable
could be any length.
What you need to determine is whether the equipment at each end of the
cable is located within 6m. 6m just happens to be approximately the
length of a standard C.O. bay (i.e. 20 feet) as specified in GR-63-CORE.
What we were attempting to say was that if the cable is simply an
interconnect cable that stays within a C.O. bay, the likelihood of the
transient being induced would be very small and thus the test doesn't
need to be performed.
So if the equipment you are testing has intra-building ports that are
constrained by the design and the intended installation such that the
other equipment is always within 6m, you can use the exemption. If the
remote equipment could be more than 6m away, this exemption is not going
to help.
Note that Ethernet also has an exemption from the metallic tests as well
in R4-12. The longitudinal should not be a problem. In addition, if
shielded cables that are grounded at both ends are used, all you have to
do is the shielded cable test in 4.6.9.2 which should be no problem if
the shields are properly grounded and are of a low impedance. Also note
that Type 4 ports still require the 120V 25A power fault, regardless of
any exemptions discussed above.
I hope this helps,
Jim
Jim Wiese
NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc.
901 Explorer Blvd.
Huntsville, AL 35806
256-963-8431
256-714-5882 (cell)
256-963-6218 (fax)
jim.wi...@adtran.com
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nagel
Michael-amn029
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge
applicable?
Dear All,
The 10GBASE-CX4 interface permits a maximum cable length of 15m
(49feet).
As the transmission speed per lane is 3.125Gbit/s, the use of protection
devices is prohibited. GR-1089 Issue 4 section 4.6.9 contains the
following
clause(s):
{quote}
Intra-building tests are not required if any of the following conditions
are met:
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) directly connects equipment within
the same
frame, cabinet or line-up and where equipment is separated by a
distance of 6 m
or less. (Ports connected to wiring leaving the line-up shall be
tested).
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) connects to equipment that is not
grounded, does
not have any other connection toground, and has no power ports.
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) is used only for maintenance purposes
and is not
connected during normal operation.
{end quote}
My impression is the condition described at the first bullet would be
applicable, but there might be cases where the 6m distance could be
exceeded, as the cable length is defined up to 15m. In order to play
safe, the cable length could be limited for installations covered by
GR-1089.
Am I right with this interpretation?
Thanks for your comments.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael Nagel
Senior EMC Engineer
Motorola GmbH
ECC Embedded Communications Computing
Lilienthalstrasse 15
85579 Neubiberg/Muenchen - Germany
Ph: +49-89-9608-0
Fax: +49-89-9608-2376
e-mail: michael.na...@motorola.com
info: http://www.motorola.com/computers
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions:
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge applicable?
Hello Michael,
When we added these exemptions from the intra-building lightning testing
as part of the GR-1089 revision, our concern was really not the cable
length itself, but the distance between equipment. This correlated with
the potential distance a cable could exposed in the overhead cabling.
If you look closely there is no cable length requirement. The cable
could be any length.
What you need to determine is whether the equipment at each end of the
cable is located within 6m. 6m just happens to be approximately the
length of a standard C.O. bay (i.e. 20 feet) as specified in GR-63-CORE.
What we were attempting to say was that if the cable is simply an
interconnect cable that stays within a C.O. bay, the likelihood of the
transient being induced would be very small and thus the test doesn't
need to be performed.
So if the equipment you are testing has intra-building ports that are
constrained by the design and the intended installation such that the
other equipment is always within 6m, you can use the exemption. If the
remote equipment could be more than 6m away, this exemption is not going
to help.
Note that Ethernet also has an exemption from the metallic tests as well
in R4-12. The longitudinal should not be a problem. In addition, if
shielded cables that are grounded at both ends are used, all you have to
do is the shielded cable test in 4.6.9.2 which should be no problem if
the shields are properly grounded and are of a low impedance. Also note
that Type 4 ports still require the 120V 25A power fault, regardless of
any exemptions discussed above.
I hope this helps,
Jim
Jim Wiese
NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer
ADTRAN, Inc.
901 Explorer Blvd.
Huntsville, AL 35806
256-963-8431
256-714-5882 (cell)
256-963-6218 (fax)
jim.wi...@adtran.com
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Nagel
Michael-amn029
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:52 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge
applicable?
Dear All,
The 10GBASE-CX4 interface permits a maximum cable length of 15m
(49feet).
As the transmission speed per lane is 3.125Gbit/s, the use of protection
devices is prohibited. GR-1089 Issue 4 section 4.6.9 contains the
following
clause(s):
{quote}
Intra-building tests are not required if any of the following conditions
are met:
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) directly connects equipment within
the same
frame, cabinet or line-up and where equipment is separated by a
distance of 6 m
or less. (Ports connected to wiring leaving the line-up shall be
tested).
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) connects to equipment that is not
grounded, does
not have any other connection toground, and has no power ports.
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) is used only for maintenance purposes
and is not
connected during normal operation.
{end quote}
My impression is the condition described at the first bullet would be
applicable,
but there might be cases where the 6m distance could be exceeded, as the
cable length
is defined up to 15m. In order to play safe, the cable length could be
limited for
installations covered by GR-1089.
Am I right with this interpretation?
Thanks for your comments.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael Nagel
Senior EMC Engineer
Motorola GmbH
ECC Embedded Communications Computing
Lilienthalstrasse 15
85579 Neubiberg/Muenchen - Germany
Ph: +49-89-9608-0
Fax: +49-89-9608-2376
e-mail: michael.na...@motorola.com
info: http://www.motorola.com/computers
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc
GR-1089 Issue 4 and 10GBASE-CX4: Intra-building Surge applicable?
Dear All,
The 10GBASE-CX4 interface permits a maximum cable length of 15m
(49feet).
As the transmission speed per lane is 3.125Gbit/s, the use of protection
devices is prohibited. GR-1089 Issue 4 section 4.6.9 contains the
following
clause(s):
{quote}
Intra-building tests are not required if any of the following conditions
are met:
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) directly connects equipment within
the same
frame, cabinet or line-up and where equipment is separated by a
distance of 6 m
or less. (Ports connected to wiring leaving the line-up shall be
tested).
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) connects to equipment that is not
grounded, does
not have any other connection toground, and has no power ports.
* Intra-building wiring (cabling) is used only for maintenance purposes
and is not
connected during normal operation.
{end quote}
My impression is the condition described at the first bullet would be
applicable,
but there might be cases where the 6m distance could be exceeded, as the
cable length
is defined up to 15m. In order to play safe, the cable length could be
limited for
installations covered by GR-1089.
Am I right with this interpretation?
Thanks for your comments.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael Nagel
Senior EMC Engineer
Motorola GmbH
ECC Embedded Communications Computing
Lilienthalstrasse 15
85579 Neubiberg/Muenchen - Germany
Ph: +49-89-9608-0
Fax: +49-89-9608-2376
e-mail: michael.na...@motorola.com
info: http://www.motorola.com/computers
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
__
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Hello! Thanks to all who helped to clarify this, this includes all replies which did not use the mailing list. Best regards, Michael Michael Nagel Senior EMC Engineer Motorola GmbH ECC Embedded Communications Computing Lilienthalstrasse 15 85579 Neubiberg/Muenchen - Germany Ph: +49-89-9608-0 Fax: +49-89-9608-2376 e-mail: michael.na...@motorola.com info: http://www.motorola.com/computers - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Jim, Your explanation below has clarified the intent of the requirement and is also in line with my interpretation. Your efforts are appreciated. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 9:58 AM To: Finlayson Joe-G3162C; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Joe, Obviously the best way to have a clear understanding is to participate in the development process so you have access to all the meetings, discussions and contributions. GR-1089-CORE is periodically opened up to industry by Telcordia, and similar work is being done under project 78 at ATIS in committee NEP (formerly T1E1.7). Maybe what I have put together below will make things clearer and more logical. For simplicity, lets call the surged side of an interface "side A", and the circuitry that is isolated (i.e. the chip side of a transformer) "Side B". Now lets assume that the interface only requires intra-building lightning (Type 2 and Type 4). It is extremely important to look closely at Appendix B as clarifications were added that allow interfaces that are physically outside to still be classified as Type 2 and Type 4 (see the notes in Appendix B.1 and the end of the second paragraph of B.1). The definitions also were clarified to try to eliminate loopholes. But for the sake of this discussion, lets assume we have determined Type 2 or Type 4 testing is appropriate. 1.) The first thing to look at is the 3 bullet items in 4.6.9. If any of these conditions are met, none of the intra-building lightning testing in 4.6.9.1 or 4.6.9.2 is required, you are done. 2.) The next thing is to determine if a shielded cable is required or used, and the documentation specifies both ends must be grounded, and the equipment under test has a provision for grounding the shield. The service providers pointed out that many companies were trying to use the shielding exemption, but the equipment has no way to legitimately connect a shield. Or the interface was one they would never use shielded cable on. They wanted that stopped. If you meet the shield exemption, you do the testing as specified in 4.6.9.2. Section 4.6.9.1 can be completely ignored. In hind sight, 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.2 should have been reversed to follow logical order. 3.) If you still have to do 4.6.9.1 because you don't meet the first two "outs". The next thing is to determine whether the interface is an Ethernet interface that meets the two bullet item criteria in R4-12. As discussed, the secondary TVS protection to ground refers to "side A". Protection on "Side B" is ignored. If the exemption is met (which can include differential only or no secondary protection at all on "side A"), no intra-building "metallic" surges are required in sections 4.6.9.1 or 4.6.9.1.1!However, the longitudinal surges of 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.1.1 are required. If there is no secondary protection on "side A" at all, then 4.6.9.1.1 is un-necessary. If the Ethernet interface has a TVS device on "side A" that is grounded, both metallic and longitudinal surges in 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.1.1 are required. 4.) If the interface is not Ethernet, is not shielded, and does not conform to the bullet items of 4.6.9, then the metallic and longitudinal tests of 4.6.9.1 apply. If side "A" has secondary protection, then 4.6.9.1.1 must also be performed regardless of whether it is grounded. This is one of those cases where a flow chart would clarify the intent. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Finlayson Joe-G3162C [mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:09 PM To: JIM WIESE; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Jim, Thank you for the clarification. You answered my question when you stated, "For example interfaces with 65, 140, 200 or 270V sidactors / thyristors or Semtech LC-03 devices that are grounded that are on the surged side of the transformer need to be tested per 4.6.9.1.1". This section does not clearly distinguish between surge protectors that are grounded or ungrounded and that was the nature of my question. From your response, this section only applies to secondary protectors that are *grounded*. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Commu
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Joe, Obviously the best way to have a clear understanding is to participate in the development process so you have access to all the meetings, discussions and contributions. GR-1089-CORE is periodically opened up to industry by Telcordia, and similar work is being done under project 78 at ATIS in committee NEP (formerly T1E1.7). Maybe what I have put together below will make things clearer and more logical. For simplicity, lets call the surged side of an interface "side A", and the circuitry that is isolated (i.e. the chip side of a transformer) "Side B". Now lets assume that the interface only requires intra-building lightning (Type 2 and Type 4). It is extremely important to look closely at Appendix B as clarifications were added that allow interfaces that are physically outside to still be classified as Type 2 and Type 4 (see the notes in Appendix B.1 and the end of the second paragraph of B.1). The definitions also were clarified to try to eliminate loopholes. But for the sake of this discussion, lets assume we have determined Type 2 or Type 4 testing is appropriate. 1.) The first thing to look at is the 3 bullet items in 4.6.9. If any of these conditions are met, none of the intra-building lightning testing in 4.6.9.1 or 4.6.9.2 is required, you are done. 2.) The next thing is to determine if a shielded cable is required or used, and the documentation specifies both ends must be grounded, and the equipment under test has a provision for grounding the shield. The service providers pointed out that many companies were trying to use the shielding exemption, but the equipment has no way to legitimately connect a shield. Or the interface was one they would never use shielded cable on. They wanted that stopped. If you meet the shield exemption, you do the testing as specified in 4.6.9.2. Section 4.6.9.1 can be completely ignored. In hind sight, 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.2 should have been reversed to follow logical order. 3.) If you still have to do 4.6.9.1 because you don't meet the first two "outs". The next thing is to determine whether the interface is an Ethernet interface that meets the two bullet item criteria in R4-12. As discussed, the secondary TVS protection to ground refers to "side A". Protection on "Side B" is ignored. If the exemption is met (which can include differential only or no secondary protection at all on "side A"), no intra-building "metallic" surges are required in sections 4.6.9.1 or 4.6.9.1.1!However, the longitudinal surges of 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.1.1 are required. If there is no secondary protection on "side A" at all, then 4.6.9.1.1 is un-necessary. If the Ethernet interface has a TVS device on "side A" that is grounded, both metallic and longitudinal surges in 4.6.9.1 and 4.6.9.1.1 are required. 4.) If the interface is not Ethernet, is not shielded, and does not conform to the bullet items of 4.6.9, then the metallic and longitudinal tests of 4.6.9.1 apply. If side "A" has secondary protection, then 4.6.9.1.1 must also be performed regardless of whether it is grounded. This is one of those cases where a flow chart would clarify the intent. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Finlayson Joe-G3162C [mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:09 PM To: JIM WIESE; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Jim, Thank you for the clarification. You answered my question when you stated, "For example interfaces with 65, 140, 200 or 270V sidactors / thyristors or Semtech LC-03 devices that are grounded that are on the surged side of the transformer need to be tested per 4.6.9.1.1". This section does not clearly distinguish between surge protectors that are grounded or ungrounded and that was the nature of my question. From your response, this section only applies to secondary protectors that are *grounded*. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:35 PM To: Finlayson Joe-G3162C; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Joe, The reason we (GR-1089 TTF) added the caveat regarding secondary protection to ground had to do with the possibility of longitudinal to metallic conversions as a result of asymmetric firing that would be synonymous with the firing of a primary protector. Protectors on the chip side of an isolation transformer will not do
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Jim, Thank you for the clarification. You answered my question when you stated, "For example interfaces with 65, 140, 200 or 270V sidactors / thyristors or Semtech LC-03 devices that are grounded that are on the surged side of the transformer need to be tested per 4.6.9.1.1". This section does not clearly distinguish between surge protectors that are grounded or ungrounded and that was the nature of my question. From your response, this section only applies to secondary protectors that are *grounded*. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:35 PM To: Finlayson Joe-G3162C; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Joe, The reason we (GR-1089 TTF) added the caveat regarding secondary protection to ground had to do with the possibility of longitudinal to metallic conversions as a result of asymmetric firing that would be synonymous with the firing of a primary protector. Protectors on the chip side of an isolation transformer will not do this conversion, thus performing a metallic surge on an Ethernet port would result in current flow paths that would not exist in the real world. In the real world if a transient is induced into the cable, the voltage would be the same on all conductors and there would be no current flow through the windings of the Ethernet isolation transformer regardless of what paths to ground exist on the chip side. So basically the exemption was a practical way to eliminate a test that added no value. It also reduces cost to the industry by eliminating the need for an expensive and un-necessary component to protect an 10/100 baseT Ethernet port. There were also concerns with GigE interfaces and the ability to protect them >from metallic surges with commercially available devices and still meet performance criteria. So we felt the exemption was a positive and reasonable way of addressing the issue. As far as 4.6.9.1.1, I received the exact same question from a test lab yesterday. Here is essentially the same text I sent the lab. Dear XYZ LAB, The two conditions you mention below only apply to Ethernet interfaces with regard to metallic surges. Longitudinal surges on Ethernet ports always apply, unless exempted by one of the 3 bullets at the beginning of 4.6.9. As far as protection to ground, components on the IC side of the transformer that connect to ground do not cause the metallic exemption to be lost as the transformer provides isolation from a longitudinal to metallic conversion. If the TVS components that are grounded are on the surged side of the transformer, the metallic surges are not exempt. 4.6.9.1.1 applies to all products with any kind of secondary voltage protection. However, as with the rest of section 4, the intent of secondary protection relates to those components on the exposed side of an isolation transformer, not the chip side. For example interfaces with 65, 140, 200 or 270V sidactors/thyristors or Semtech LC-03 devices that are grounded that are on the surged side of the transformer need to be tested per 4.6.9.1.1. Generally protection on the IC side is about 5V and even with ADSLx is usually less than 20V and they are clamping devices. As a result there isn't really much if any value in trying to remove these and doing a surge on the exposed side at 5-20V, the energy is simply too low and is a waste of time. The IC's get as much or more energy from the full surge. Hopefully this answers your question. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Finlayson Joe-G3162C [mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:16 PM To: JIM WIESE; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Jim, I am not sure I understand your explanation of the location of the surge protection device with respect to the primary or secondary side of the transformer. The way I look at this requirement, the key is to *not* provide a path, direct or through a protection device, back to Ground (C.O. Ground, Shelf Ground, Frame Ground, Earth Ground, etc.). If there is surge protection on either side of the transformer and it is either not referenced to Ground at all or referenced to Logic Ground only, the exemption can be taken. While referencing Logic Ground on the line (surge) side of the transformer or Shelf Ground on the PHY side of the transformer makes no practical sense, it can still be done. Therefore, physical location of the surge pr
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Joe, The reason we (GR-1089 TTF) added the caveat regarding secondary protection to ground had to do with the possibility of longitudinal to metallic conversions as a result of asymmetric firing that would be synonymous with the firing of a primary protector. Protectors on the chip side of an isolation transformer will not do this conversion, thus performing a metallic surge on an Ethernet port would result in current flow paths that would not exist in the real world. In the real world if a transient is induced into the cable, the voltage would be the same on all conductors and there would be no current flow through the windings of the Ethernet isolation transformer regardless of what paths to ground exist on the chip side. So basically the exemption was a practical way to eliminate a test that added no value. It also reduces cost to the industry by eliminating the need for an expensive and un-necessary component to protect an 10/100 baseT Ethernet port. There were also concerns with GigE interfaces and the ability to protect them >from metallic surges with commercially available devices and still meet performance criteria. So we felt the exemption was a positive and reasonable way of addressing the issue. As far as 4.6.9.1.1, I received the exact same question from a test lab yesterday. Here is essentially the same text I sent the lab. Dear XYZ LAB, The two conditions you mention below only apply to Ethernet interfaces with regard to metallic surges. Longitudinal surges on Ethernet ports always apply, unless exempted by one of the 3 bullets at the beginning of 4.6.9. As far as protection to ground, components on the IC side of the transformer that connect to ground do not cause the metallic exemption to be lost as the transformer provides isolation from a longitudinal to metallic conversion. If the TVS components that are grounded are on the surged side of the transformer, the metallic surges are not exempt. 4.6.9.1.1 applies to all products with any kind of secondary voltage protection. However, as with the rest of section 4, the intent of secondary protection relates to those components on the exposed side of an isolation transformer, not the chip side. For example interfaces with 65, 140, 200 or 270V sidactors/thyristors or Semtech LC-03 devices that are grounded that are on the surged side of the transformer need to be tested per 4.6.9.1.1. Generally protection on the IC side is about 5V and even with ADSLx is usually less than 20V and they are clamping devices. As a result there isn't really much if any value in trying to remove these and doing a surge on the exposed side at 5-20V, the energy is simply too low and is a waste of time. The IC's get as much or more energy from the full surge. Hopefully this answers your question. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Finlayson Joe-G3162C [mailto:joefinlay...@motorola.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:16 PM To: JIM WIESE; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Jim, I am not sure I understand your explanation of the location of the surge protection device with respect to the primary or secondary side of the transformer. The way I look at this requirement, the key is to *not* provide a path, direct or through a protection device, back to Ground (C.O. Ground, Shelf Ground, Frame Ground, Earth Ground, etc.). If there is surge protection on either side of the transformer and it is either not referenced to Ground at all or referenced to Logic Ground only, the exemption can be taken. While referencing Logic Ground on the line (surge) side of the transformer or Shelf Ground on the PHY side of the transformer makes no practical sense, it can still be done. Therefore, physical location of the surge protection device may not necessarily dictate the ability to take this exemption. Would you agree with that? Also, can you please clarify on the intent of Section 4.6.9.1.1? Referencing Section 4.6.9.1.1, Equipment Ports With Secondary Protection, was the intent to label this section, "Equipment Ports With Secondary Protection Not Referenced to Ground" and only apply that to the longitudinal surges if the following conditions are met? 1.) The port does not have any secondary voltage-limiting protection to ground 2.) The unused pins of the port are not grounded solidly. ...or does this section apply to the metallic surges as well? Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Wednesday, No
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Jim, I am not sure I understand your explanation of the location of the surge protection device with respect to the primary or secondary side of the transformer. The way I look at this requirement, the key is to *not* provide a path, direct or through a protection device, back to Ground (C.O. Ground, Shelf Ground, Frame Ground, Earth Ground, etc.). If there is surge protection on either side of the transformer and it is either not referenced to Ground at all or referenced to Logic Ground only, the exemption can be taken. While referencing Logic Ground on the line (surge) side of the transformer or Shelf Ground on the PHY side of the transformer makes no practical sense, it can still be done. Therefore, physical location of the surge protection device may not necessarily dictate the ability to take this exemption. Would you agree with that? Also, can you please clarify on the intent of Section 4.6.9.1.1? Referencing Section 4.6.9.1.1, Equipment Ports With Secondary Protection, was the intent to label this section, "Equipment Ports With Secondary Protection Not Referenced to Ground" and only apply that to the longitudinal surges if the following conditions are met? 1.) The port does not have any secondary voltage-limiting protection to ground 2.) The unused pins of the port are not grounded solidly. ...or does this section apply to the metallic surges as well? Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:16 PM To: Finlayson Joe-G3162C; Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet David is correct, it is secondary protection. However, it does not cause you to loose the exemption from the metallic test in your case. To loose the exemption, the secondary protection component to ground would have to be on the opposite side of the transformer than the IC (surged side). That is the only way the longitudinal surge could be converted into a metallic surge. In your case, the isolation transformer prevents the conversion from a longitudinal to metallic surge, and you maintain the test exemption. Also as a clarification, C.O. ground is only partially correct. It depends upon where the equipment is deployed. Many locations such as EEC's (OSP cabinets), OSP equipment, and customer premises do not have C.O. grounds. GR-1089 covers the entire network. What is really meant by "ground" is "earth ground". In a C.O. this is the same as frame ground, or C.O. ground. In the OSP or the customer premises, it is the protective earthing connection on the equipment which is supposed to be connected to earth ground. One thing to remember is that virtually all network equipment has the return side of the battery voltage connected to ground, and thus secondary protection components tied to -48VR for instance are considered grounded. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Finlayson Joe-G3162C Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:00 PM To: Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet David, As that represents a path to Ground, then I would say that the answer is *Yes*. Keep in mind that the term "Ground" means "C.O. Ground" when referencing this topic. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gelfand, David Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Is a diode to ground on lines between the IC and the transformer considered secondary protection? Thanks, David David Gelfand Conformity Specialist / Specialiste de conformité 616 Curé-Boivin Boisbriand, Qc, Canada J7G 2A7 tel: (450)437-4661x2449 Fax: (450)437-8053 david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Nagel Michael-amn029 Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Dear All, The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). Am I right with this interpretation? Is there any mo
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
David is correct, it is secondary protection. However, it does not cause you to loose the exemption from the metallic test in your case. To loose the exemption, the secondary protection component to ground would have to be on the opposite side of the transformer than the IC (surged side). That is the only way the longitudinal surge could be converted into a metallic surge. In your case, the isolation transformer prevents the conversion from a longitudinal to metallic surge, and you maintain the test exemption. Also as a clarification, C.O. ground is only partially correct. It depends upon where the equipment is deployed. Many locations such as EEC's (OSP cabinets), OSP equipment, and customer premises do not have C.O. grounds. GR-1089 covers the entire network. What is really meant by "ground" is "earth ground". In a C.O. this is the same as frame ground, or C.O. ground. In the OSP or the customer premises, it is the protective earthing connection on the equipment which is supposed to be connected to earth ground. One thing to remember is that virtually all network equipment has the return side of the battery voltage connected to ground, and thus secondary protection components tied to -48VR for instance are considered grounded. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, Inc. 901 Explorer Blvd. Huntsville, AL 35806 256-963-8431 256-714-5882 (cell) 256-963-6218 (fax) jim.wi...@adtran.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Finlayson Joe-G3162C Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:00 PM To: Gelfand, David; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet David, As that represents a path to Ground, then I would say that the answer is *Yes*. Keep in mind that the term "Ground" means "C.O. Ground" when referencing this topic. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gelfand, David Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Is a diode to ground on lines between the IC and the transformer considered secondary protection? Thanks, David David Gelfand Conformity Specialist / Specialiste de conformité 616 Curé-Boivin Boisbriand, Qc, Canada J7G 2A7 tel: (450)437-4661x2449 Fax: (450)437-8053 david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Nagel Michael-amn029 Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Dear All, The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). Am I right with this interpretation? Is there any more information available on the history of the metallic surge test than the bit I contained in the Nebs Digest July 2006? Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Michael - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/li
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
David, As that represents a path to Ground, then I would say that the answer is *Yes*. Keep in mind that the term "Ground" means "C.O. Ground" when referencing this topic. Thx, Joe ~~ Joe Finlayson Tel: (508) 357-8273 Fax: (508) 357-8289 Email: joefinlay...@motorola.com Motorola, Inc. Embedded Communications Computing 46 Lizotte Drive Marlborough, MA 01752 USA ~~ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Gelfand, David Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Is a diode to ground on lines between the IC and the transformer considered secondary protection? Thanks, David David Gelfand Conformity Specialist / Specialiste de conformité 616 Curé-Boivin Boisbriand, Qc, Canada J7G 2A7 tel: (450)437-4661x2449 Fax: (450)437-8053 david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Nagel Michael-amn029 Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Dear All, The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). Am I right with this interpretation? Is there any more information available on the history of the metallic surge test than the bit I contained in the Nebs Digest July 2006? Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Michael - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Is a diode to ground on lines between the IC and the transformer considered secondary protection? Thanks, David David Gelfand Conformity Specialist / Specialiste de conformité 616 Curé-Boivin Boisbriand, Qc, Canada J7G 2A7 tel: (450)437-4661x2449 Fax: (450)437-8053 david.gelf...@ca.kontron.com From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Nagel Michael-amn029 Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet Dear All, The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). Am I right with this interpretation? Is there any more information available on the history of the metallic surge test than the bit I contained in the Nebs Digest July 2006? Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Michael - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
It has been a long time since I worked with lighting design and simulation of circuits back at Bell Labs, but I remember that lightning surges are for the most part common mode. The common mode surges can be converted to metallic when only one of two (tip or ring) protectors on a phone line fire. This can be common as when one fires, mutual inductance between the pairs can prevent the other one from firing. I believe there were also special surges applied to Ethernet (not sure if that is the test you refer to) since they usually do not have protectors and are very limited in length compared to phone lines. Doug Nagel Michael-amn029 wrote: > Dear All, > > The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption > > for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). > > Am I right with this interpretation? > > Is there any more information available on the history of the metallic > surge test than the bit I contained in the Nebs Digest July 2006? > > Thanks for your comments. > > Best regards, > Michael > > - > > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net > Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org > David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > > -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
GR-1089 Issue 4 and Surge on Ethernet
Dear All, The Issue 4 of GR-1089 contains now (from my understanding) an exemption for Ethernet from the surge test 1 in Table 4-5 or 4-6 (metallic surge). Am I right with this interpretation? Is there any more information available on the history of the metallic surge test than the bit I contained in the Nebs Digest July 2006? Thanks for your comments. Best regards, Michael - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Greetings All,
Thank-you to all who have responded to my question on GR-1089. This group has
always shown its value.
Richard.
-Original Message-
From: Georgerian, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:34 AM
To: 'IEEE emc-pstc'
Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Greetings All,
Hopefully someone has some insight to the following-
In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC
Class A
and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to
1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I
understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It
references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table
3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers
are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers
that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or
repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I
can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10]
mainly for central office areas and not residential?
Thanks.
Richard
=
Richard Georgerian
Compliance Engineer
Carrier Access Corporation
5395 Pearl Parkway
Boulder, CO 80301
USA
Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503
mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Bill, You are correct, Telcordia will be opening parts or much of GR-1089 to a revision next year, but I would not hold my breath waiting for a revision. The main reason they need to open it is to fulfill a promise to the last working group that Condition A4 of Table 4-1 (that is discussed in the GR-1089-ILR) gets resolved. Condition A4 is bogus and cannot be supported technically, but it crept in under the radar screen and now we are stuck with it. IT resulted from a misunderstanding regarding a contribution I had made with regard to Table 4-1. By the time it was discovered, Telcordia stated all they could do was delay the implementation date (January 1, 2006), but promised to open GR-1089 in time that hopefully a technical committee can discuss and remove it. Per the Telecom act of 1996 and Telcordia's GR process, GR-1089 or any GR, cannot simply be fixed or changed. A project must be opened and published in the Telcordia Digest. Then participating companies pay Telcordia a fee. Last time when we participated in Issue 3, it was $65,000 per company. So assuming they get enough participation, the project would go forward. Last time it took well over a year of work once everybody was signed up. So Assuming a project gets posted early next year, it may be an additional 12 to 18 months before a revision gets finished. Of course then you need to get the various service providers to accept it. It took many months for Qwest, SBC, and Bellsouth to officially be on board and require issue 3 (eventhough they participated), and Verizon a year later still is not accepting the Issue 3 revision. For Questions on the GR process, I suggest contacting Rich Kluge, Chrys Chrysanthou, or Dennis Henry at Telcordia. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Bill Rea [mailto:bill@pt.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:57 AM To: JIM WIESE; marko.radoji...@nokia.com; rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Jim, Regarding your comment "And we thought GR-1089 was confusing with regard to doors open or closed requirements!" I've been working the GR 1089 authors on clarifying the open/closed door definitions. The authors informed me a revision to the GR is coming. Bill Rea Product Regulations Engineer Performance Technologies, Inc. Computing Products Division 1050 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 783-6137 Tel (805) 541-5088 Fax e-mail: bill@pt.com Web Address : www.pt.com From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:39 PM To: marko.radoji...@nokia.com; rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria One other quick note when doing your EMC testing: All Service Providers (except Verizon) accept GR-1089-CORE issue 3. Verizon ONLY accepts GR-1089-CORE Issue 2. Some Service Providers will accept either Issue. SBC, Qwest, and Bellsouth require Issue 3. Verizon has additional requirements and deviations from both Issue 2 and Issue 3 (see www.verizonnebs.com NEBS Checklist) Verizon only permits testing at a Verizon approved lab as of January 1, 2003. SBC will only accept reports from NACLA labs (such as A2LA or NVLAP accredited labs) after January 1, 2004 (see SBC's TP 76200 at https://ebiznet.sbc.com/sbcnebs/) Based on information provided by Verizon at their NEBS seminar last month, they may adopt Issue 3 or some variant of it in the future. Or they may not. So beware that you and your test lab know who the customer is and what criteria you need to meet and which version of GR-1089 applies. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com [mailto:marko.radoji...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:59 AM To: rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Richard, The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements as "OR" rather than "AND". GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2. Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section 3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are still responsible for fixing any EMI-relate
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Jim, Regarding your comment “And we thought GR-1089 was confusing with regard to doors open or closed requirements!” I’ve been working the GR 1089 authors on clarifying the open/closed door definitions. The authors informed me a revision to the GR is coming. Bill Rea Product Regulations Engineer Performance Technologies, Inc. Computing Products Division 1050 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 783-6137 Tel (805) 541-5088 Fax e-mail: bill@pt.com Web Address : www.pt.com From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:39 PM To: marko.radoji...@nokia.com; rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria One other quick note when doing your EMC testing: All Service Providers (except Verizon) accept GR-1089-CORE issue 3. Verizon ONLY accepts GR-1089-CORE Issue 2. Some Service Providers will accept either Issue. SBC, Qwest, and Bellsouth require Issue 3. Verizon has additional requirements and deviations from both Issue 2 and Issue 3 (see www.verizonnebs.com NEBS Checklist) Verizon only permits testing at a Verizon approved lab as of January 1, 2003. SBC will only accept reports from NACLA labs (such as A2LA or NVLAP accredited labs) after January 1, 2004 (see SBC's TP 76200 at https://ebiznet.sbc.com/sbcnebs/) Based on information provided by Verizon at their NEBS seminar last month, they may adopt Issue 3 or some variant of it in the future. Or they may not. So beware that you and your test lab know who the customer is and what criteria you need to meet and which version of GR-1089 applies. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com [mailto:marko.radoji...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:59 AM To: rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Richard, The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements as "OR" rather than "AND". GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2. Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section 3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are still responsible for fixing any EMI-related issues. As an editorial comment, these GR-1089 requirements seem to me to be strongly favouring all new system designs to not use covers, doors, etc. as a form of EMI containment. That is certainly the easiest way to comply with these requirements. Cheers, Marko From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
One other quick note when doing your EMC testing: All Service Providers (except Verizon) accept GR-1089-CORE issue 3. Verizon ONLY accepts GR-1089-CORE Issue 2. Some Service Providers will accept either Issue. SBC, Qwest, and Bellsouth require Issue 3. Verizon has additional requirements and deviations from both Issue 2 and Issue 3 (see www.verizonnebs.com NEBS Checklist) Verizon only permits testing at a Verizon approved lab as of January 1, 2003. SBC will only accept reports from NACLA labs (such as A2LA or NVLAP accredited labs) after January 1, 2004 (see SBC's TP 76200 at https://ebiznet.sbc.com/sbcnebs/) Based on information provided by Verizon at their NEBS seminar last month, they may adopt Issue 3 or some variant of it in the future. Or they may not. So beware that you and your test lab know who the customer is and what criteria you need to meet and which version of GR-1089 applies. And we thought GR-1089 was confusing with regard to doors open or closed requirements! Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: marko.radoji...@nokia.com [mailto:marko.radoji...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:59 AM To: rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Richard, The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements as "OR" rather than "AND". GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2. Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section 3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are still responsible for fixing any EMI-related issues. As an editorial comment, these GR-1089 requirements seem to me to be strongly favouring all new system designs to not use covers, doors, etc. as a form of EMI containment. That is certainly the easiest way to comply with these requirements. Cheers, Marko From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Your right GR-1089 is not a legal requirement. But if you want to sell your product to companies like Verizon you MUST meet NEBS requirements which includes GR-1089. It is not legally required, but they will tell you they are not required to buy products, or allow co-location of products that are not compliant with their standards. From: andy.wh...@nokia.com [mailto:andy.wh...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:17 PM To: rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Hi Richard, I used to deal with GR1089 testing with my previous employer. The way I used to specify the test plans were to complete the emissions tests with 'doors open' and 'doors closed'. This would allow the GR1089 criteria to be met and also the FCC criteria to be met. I know that it means repeating certain test frequency ranges but the FCC tests must be met for almost all carriers. GR1089 is not a legal requirement, it is good to meet it (especially with Verizon or to co-locate with Verizon) but the FCC is a regulatory requirement and is good to have to sell in other market areas. An example of what I mean is shown below. [1] E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 10k to 30M Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) FCC part 15, EN55022, GR1089-CORE R3-1[8] 30M to 1G Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) FCC part 15, GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 1G to 10G Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-3[10] 10k to 30M Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-3[10] 30M to 10G Class A H-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-4[11] 60hz to 30M Class A [1] H-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 60Hz to 30M Class A [1] perform doors closed only if doors open criteria is not met. Andy ___ Andy White EMC Engineer Nokia San Diego ___ From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
The FCC does have a residential public utilities exemption that allows the operation of Class A equipment (FCC class A) in the residential environment (normally a FCC class B case), provided the equipment is in a large room which is owned by the utility. This allows for equipment going into telco equipment rooms etc. As far as I can tell, this does not apply to those boxes that show up on the side of single family dwellings such as the fiber to the home (ftth) terminus equipment. For reasons you might quess I asked the question of the FCC - twice same answer both times. Gary >From: >Reply-To: >To: , >Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:58:45 -0800 > >Richard, > >The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements >as "OR" rather than "AND". GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2. > >Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section >3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. >http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist > >As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US >ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These >locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other >reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are >still responsible for fixing any EMI-related issues. > >As an editorial comment, these GR-1089 requirements seem to me to be >strongly favouring all new system designs to not use covers, doors, etc. as >a form of EMI containment. That is certainly the easiest way to comply >with these requirements. > >Cheers, >Marko > > > > >-Original Message- >From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, >Richard >Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM >To: IEEE emc-pstc >Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria > > > >Greetings All, > >Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- > >In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class >A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz >to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I >understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It >references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. >Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or >covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and >covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, >maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those >higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B >equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not >residential? > >Thanks. >Richard >= >Richard Georgerian >Compliance Engineer >Carrier Access Corporation >5395 Pearl Parkway >Boulder, CO 80301 >USA > >Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 >mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com > > > _ Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Hi Richard, I used to deal with GR1089 testing with my previous employer. The way I used to specify the test plans were to complete the emissions tests with 'doors open' and 'doors closed'. This would allow the GR1089 criteria to be met and also the FCC criteria to be met. I know that it means repeating certain test frequency ranges but the FCC tests must be met for almost all carriers. GR1089 is not a legal requirement, it is good to meet it (especially with Verizon or to co-locate with Verizon) but the FCC is a regulatory requirement and is good to have to sell in other market areas. An example of what I mean is shown below. [1] E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 10k to 30M Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) FCC part 15, EN55022, GR1089-CORE R3-1[8] 30M to 1G Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) FCC part 15, GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 1G to 10G Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-3[10] 10k to 30M Class A E-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-3[10] 30M to 10G Class A H-Field - Enc. (Doors Open) GR-1089-CORE R3-4[11] 60hz to 30M Class A [1] H-Field - Enc. (Doors Closed) GR-1089-CORE R3-1[8] 60Hz to 30M Class A [1] perform doors closed only if doors open criteria is not met. Andy ___ Andy White EMC Engineer Nokia San Diego ___ From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Richard, The root of the problem may be that you are interpreting the requirements as "OR" rather than "AND". GR-1089 requires you to meet R3-1 *AND* R3-2. Verizon also specifically calls out all these requirements in section 3.2.10.1 of their NEBS checklist. http://www.verizonnebs.com/index.html#chklist As well to answer your last question, GR-1089 is really only required by US ILEC customers for deployment in their COs/CEVs/Remotes/etc. These locations fall under the FCC Public Utilities exemption but, due to other reasons, this exemption is rarely used for new equipment. The utilities are still responsible for fixing any EMI-related issues. As an editorial comment, these GR-1089 requirements seem to me to be strongly favouring all new system designs to not use covers, doors, etc. as a form of EMI containment. That is certainly the easiest way to comply with these requirements. Cheers, Marko From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of ext Georgerian, Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:31 AM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
GR-1089 Issue 3: 3.2.1 Radiated Emission Criteria
Greetings All, Hopefully someone has some insight to the following- In GR-1089 Issue 3, Section 3.2.1, requirement R3-1 [8] uses the FCC Class A and B limits for equipment with no doors or covers for the range of 30MHz to 1GHz. It also has limits for below 30MHz and above 1GHz. This section I understand. What I don't understand clearly is requirement R3-3 [10]. It references emissions from Class A and B unit's not exceeding Table 3-2. Table 3-2 limits are higher than the FCC Class A and B limits. The doors or covers are to be opened during emission testing. However, if the doors and covers that are not intended to be opened during EUT operation, maintenance, and/or repair need not be opened, I can still test to those higher limits. If so, I can no longer can be considered FCC A or B equipment. Is requirement R3-3 [10] mainly for central office areas and not residential? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Table B-1, missing radiated requirement?
Thanks, Jim. It now makes more sense. Also, thanks for pointing out the ESD, radiated immunity, electrical safety and bonding/grounding, eventually I would have seen it. Reading Issue 3 carefully is an understatement. Thanks. Richard From: JIM WIESE [mailto:jim.wi...@adtran.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:52 PM To: Georgerian, Richard; IEEE emc-pstc Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Table B-1, missing radiated requirement? Richard, It was not an oversight. Appendix B now relates to Ports, rather than equipment in general. The first paragraph of Appendix B in issue 3 tries to explain this. Since conducted emissions are measured on ports, it is addressed in the table. Radiated emissions always apply whether the equipment has ports or not (i.e. an microwave radio, or non-twisted pair or non coax ports). Thus this test is not addressed in the table as it always applies. This is true for ESD, Radiated Immunity, electrical safety and bonding/grounding as well (they do not appear in the table either). As a side note, when we re-wrote GR-1089-CORE issue 3, there are a lot of clarifications and conceptual changes that are buried in the text. As the caution in section 1.6 states, "This re-issue of GR contains new criteria, extensive structural revisions, and clarifications in test procedures. Readers are urged to review this GR carefully". This is due to the tremendous number of subtle or minor changes which may have a significant impact on the testing process. It is not perfect, but it is a substantial improvement over issue 2. Hopefully this addresses your concerns, Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Table B-1, missing radiated requirement?
Richard, It was not an oversight. Appendix B now relates to Ports, rather than equipment in general. The first paragraph of Appendix B in issue 3 tries to explain this. Since conducted emissions are measured on ports, it is addressed in the table. Radiated emissions always apply whether the equipment has ports or not (i.e. an microwave radio, or non-twisted pair or non coax ports). Thus this test is not addressed in the table as it always applies. This is true for ESD, Radiated Immunity, electrical safety and bonding/grounding as well (they do not appear in the table either). As a side note, when we re-wrote GR-1089-CORE issue 3, there are a lot of clarifications and conceptual changes that are buried in the text. As the caution in section 1.6 states, "This re-issue of GR contains new criteria, extensive structural revisions, and clarifications in test procedures. Readers are urged to review this GR carefully". This is due to the tremendous number of subtle or minor changes which may have a significant impact on the testing process. It is not perfect, but it is a substantial improvement over issue 2. Hopefully this addresses your concerns, Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: Georgerian, Richard [mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 5:30 PM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: Table B-1, missing radiated requirement? Greetings All, Looking through the GR-1089 Issue 3, Table B-1, the radiated emission tests appear not apply to any type of equipment. However, the conducted emissions are checked off for all four types of equipment. The radiated emission sections are checked off in Issue 2 of GR-1089 as a requirement to all four types of equipment. Does any one know if this is an oversight and the radiated emissions should be checked off? I did not read any where in Issue 3 to find a statement or paragraph, that would have taken the place of what would be in Table B-1 for radiated emissions requirements. Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
GR-1089 Issue 3: Table B-1, missing radiated requirement?
Greetings All, Looking through the GR-1089 Issue 3, Table B-1, the radiated emission tests appear not apply to any type of equipment. However, the conducted emissions are checked off for all four types of equipment. The radiated emission sections are checked off in Issue 2 of GR-1089 as a requirement to all four types of equipment. Does any one know if this is an oversight and the radiated emissions should be checked off? I did not read any where in Issue 3 to find a statement or paragraph, that would have taken the place of what would be in Table B-1 for radiated emissions requirements. Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
Re: Bellcore SR-3580: Update to reflect the new GR-63 Issue 2 and GR- 1089 Is...
Each of the RBOC's has its own requirements for NEBS levels - Verizon -naturally being the most different. You may want to go out to the WEB sites for each and pull down their documentation to calculate your strategy on this. Unfortunately, I'm not where I can access my web links and URL's for them. Gary
Bellcore SR-3580: Update to reflect the new GR-63 Issue 2 and GR- 1089 Issue 3?
Greetings All, Does anyone know if the document, SR-3580 (NEBS Criteria Levels), Issue 1 November 1995, will reflect the added changes to GR-63 Issue 2 and GR-1089 Issue 3? Presently, SR-3580 is referencing GR-63 Issue 1 and GR-1089 Issue 1. For example: The NEBS Level 1 Criteria in SR-3580, has called out in Section 4 of GR-1089 the following requirements, denoted in brackets, [ ]. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [125], [41] In Issue 3 of GR-1089, additional requirements have been added along with the above requirements. Those added requirements are: [36], [37], [38], [39], [137], [138], [139], [140], [40], [125], [41] The questions are: 1) Are the requirements, [137], [138], [139], [140] now part of the criteria for NEBS Level 1? 2) And would this question hold true for other sections that have added new requirements? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Missing sections?
Greetings All, Thanks to Naftali Shani, of Catena Networks, the missing sections are no longer missing. Richard From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:41 AM To: 'Georgerian, Richard'; 'Chrysanthou, Chrysanthos @ Telcordia' Cc: 'IEEE emc-pstc' Subject: RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Missing sections? Richard, it looks like a typo in the table: 1. 4.8.3 is really 4.8.2 in the text 2. 4.8.4.1 is really 4.8.3.1 in the text, and so on (the numbers in the table are shifted by 1) Chrys, can you please circulate an addendum to correct this? TIA Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
RE: GR-1089 Issue 3: Missing sections?
Richard, it looks like a typo in the table: 1. 4.8.3 is really 4.8.2 in the text 2. 4.8.4.1 is really 4.8.3.1 in the text, and so on (the numbers in the table are shifted by 1) Chrys, can you please circulate an addendum to correct this? TIA Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com From: Georgerian, Richard [mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:34 PM To: IEEE emc-pstc Subject: GR-1089 Issue 3: Missing sections? Greetings All, We finally received our GR-1089 Issue 3 standard. While going through the standard I noticed that sections 4.8.5.1 and 4.8.5.2 are called out in Appendix B, Table B-1, but are not in the body of the standard. Does anyone have an idea regarding the missing sections? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
GR-1089 Issue 3: Missing sections?
Greetings All, We finally received our GR-1089 Issue 3 standard. While going through the standard I noticed that sections 4.8.5.1 and 4.8.5.2 are called out in Appendix B, Table B-1, but are not in the body of the standard. Does anyone have an idea regarding the missing sections? Thanks. Richard = Richard Georgerian Compliance Engineer Carrier Access Corporation 5395 Pearl Parkway Boulder, CO 80301 USA Tele: 303-218-5748 Fax: 303-218-5503 mailto:rgeorger...@carrieraccess.com * This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. *
RE: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
Marko, ITU-T K.20, K.21, K.45, etc... are (international !) protection standards. European Telco's as well as many outside Europe are requesting compliance to these requirements. Most countries, like Europe, do not work with Telcordia standards. Regards, Kris -Original Message- From: Marko Radojicic [ mailto:mar...@turnstone.com] Sent: maandag 21 april 2003 23:48 To: 'j...@aol.com'; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089 Joe, I don't have much technical to add but was wondering why you are looking into this standard. Have you customers that are asking for this requirement to be met or is it simply a planning exercise? If it's customer-driven, could you share what type of customer (ILEC, PTT, North America, European, Asian, etc.)? I haven't seen this standard being used at all but I'm presently focussed on North America Service Provider requirements. BTW I agree with the comments that GR-1089 compliant products have proven to be extremely robust in the real-world. Cheers, Marko -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [ mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:54 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089 Hello All: I have been studying the new 2000 edition of K.20, "Resistibility of Telecommunication Equipment Installed in a Telecommunication Centre to Overvoltages and Overcurrents." There appears to be an important change >from the previous edition that will have a big impact on line interface design. I would like to get some feedback on whether I am understanding this properly. The change that concerns me is that for test 2.1.2 (4000 volt surge on twisted pair phone lines), K.20 now requires that the primary protector *must* operate. If there is any kind of secondary overvoltage protection internal to the equipment under test (EUT), requirement 2.1.2 pretty much forces the EUT to contain series resistors in front of the internal protection. Otherwise, the internal protection will prevent the external primary protector from operating. The requirement for the primary protector to operate can be waived if the protection internal to the EUT itself meets the requirements for a primary protector. However, this includes passing the test of 2.1.5 with vaguely specified surges of 1000 amps per wire and (presumably) open circuit voltages of 4000 volts. I note that in Telcordia GR-1089, the requirement to coordinate with the primary protector can be waived if the EUT can survive a 10x1000 uS, 100 amp surge (clause 4.6.7.1 of the 2002 edition). This requirement is fairly easy to meet without using series resistors. I find it interesting that series resistors have never been required for compliance with GR-1089, which itself is a pretty rigorous standard, nor were they required for previous editions of K.20. Now, it appears that manufacturers must decide at the outset whether their GR-1089 compliant products might ever go into a market where K.20 compliance is required. If so, the resistors have to go in the design. The series resistors needed to pass the new K.20 requirement are not ordinary resistors. Typically, they are large, wirewound, surge tolerant, flameproof resistors with steady state ratings of several watts. Two of these per port on a high density, multiport board is a big hit on board area. Furthermore, the added resistance is very detrimental to some types of DSL transmission. In other words, this change in K.20 looks like it will have a big impact on line interface design. My questions are as follows: 1) Is my understanding of the new coordination requirement in K.20 correct? 2) Is there a simpler way to comply with the requirement other than using series resistors? 3) Has there been any industry feedback to the ITU complaining about the coordination requirement as presently written? 4) Is there evidence that the 10x1000 uS, 100 amp waiver in GR-1089 is inadequate, justifying the much more stringent waiver requirement in K.20? Any and all comments on the above would be most welcome. I'm just trying to make sense out of the new requirements. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.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: dav
RE: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
Joe, You are correct on all accounts. Unfortunately there has been a lot of work by a manufacturer of PTC's that is trying to drive interface design on telecom products such that these parts must be utilized. The problem is that current PTC technology is not really adequate for reliable telecom circuits (in my opinion). In analog circuits, the longitudinal balance can be significantly affected and in DSL circuits, the impedance is too great, especially for extended periods of time after a lightning strike. For instance we have seen PTC's that increase impedance from 5 to 70 ohms or more for 15 minutes and sometimes longer as a result of GR-1089 surges. This could take down a DSL circuits for long periods of time on long loops and drive crafts persons crazy trying to troubleshoot these circuits. There is not a requirement in GR-1089 or ITU that requires the product to work within a given period of time after the surges, yet in the real world this can be a significant issue. In my opinion the intent is that immediately after the surge the product should return to its original functional condition (not 15 minutes, 2 hours, or maybe never). The new GR-1089 issue 3 does now require that performance be checked at near the maximum rated loop length after surges and as such requires the circuit to return to normal performance at some point(although it technically could be minutes, hours, days). There are also other tests such as first level power faults 7, 8, 9 they may impact the ability to utilize PTC's in carrier class equipment. PTC's also tend to explode like roman candles if hit by a 600V power fault on multiple occasions or due to contact bounce. A close look at the data sheets will uncover a small note that states they are not intended for greater than a 3 amp surge current. ITU, UL, and GR-1089 call out power faults much greater than that, but only require a single surge. So during the lab testing process, the manufacturer can replace the PTC and do the next test. In the real world the PTC resets, the same PTC could be hit multiple times. The thought with the GR-1089-CORE revision was that the product should not need to functionally survive a surge level greater than a primary protector is required to survive. The Telcordia primary protector spec is GR-974-CORE and only requires a primary protector to function after 10x1000uS, 1000V, 100 amp, lightning strikes. Therefore, if the product does not force the primary protector to fire yet can handle the 1000V or 100 amps at 10x1000 uS, it is as robust as the primary protector and coordination is not necessary. If larger surges occur, then either the primary protector or the product is probably going to fail anyway and a truck would need to be rolled. Since for all practical purposes, the product will have overcurrent protection such as fuses, a large strike would blow the fuses, and then the primary protector would fire and handle all the energy from the larger strike. At least that was our thought process. The reality is that until an impedance product can be developed that can truly meet GR-1089-CORE (especially the new issue 3)and also the real world demands of telecom circuits, I believe it is unwise to write spec's that require certain performance like that in ITU K.20 and K.21 2000. What is sad is that in order to meet the 2000 K.20 and K.21 criteria, the options are very limited, with PTC's being one of the few options. As a result, manufacturers will generally need to make the product work at shorter distances, reduce the reliability, and increase trouble call rates in order to simply meet the test requirements. As an FYI, we see very few instances of damage on our carrier class products due to lightning events. As such I doubt the coordination issue is really that significant. What seems to be the root cause in many or most instances of lightning damage is improper grounding of the telecom equipment. This is becoming a much bigger issue as the installers are tending to use more and more sub-contractors with limited interest or knowledge in proper installation and bonding/grounding practices. Please note that these are only my opinions and not necessarily that of my employer! Good Luck, Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 2:54 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089 Hello All: I have been studying the new 2000 edition of K.20, "Resistibility of Telecommunication Equipment Installed in a Telecommunication Centre to Overvoltages and Overcurrents." There appears to be an important change from the previous edition that will have a big impact on line interface des
Re: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
In a message dated 4/21/2003 Marko writes: I don't have much technical to add but was wondering why you are looking into this standard. Have you customers that are asking for this requirement to be met or is it simply a planning exercise? If it's customer-driven, could you share what type of customer (ILEC, PTT, North America, European, Asian, etc.)? Hi Marko: This issue was first brought to my attention by a client that makes DSL equipment for a PTT customer in Asia. However, it is likely to eventually become a problem for compliance in Europe and South America, where the regulatory requirements typically refer to K.20. I think there may be a transition period, because many of the applicable regulations refer specifically to earlier editions of K.20. However, whenever a regulation that references K.20 is updated, it typically calls out the latest edition. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
Joe, I don't have much technical to add but was wondering why you are looking into this standard. Have you customers that are asking for this requirement to be met or is it simply a planning exercise? If it's customer-driven, could you share what type of customer (ILEC, PTT, North America, European, Asian, etc.)? I haven't seen this standard being used at all but I'm presently focussed on North America Service Provider requirements. BTW I agree with the comments that GR-1089 compliant products have proven to be extremely robust in the real-world. Cheers, Marko From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:54 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089 Hello All: I have been studying the new 2000 edition of K.20, "Resistibility of Telecommunication Equipment Installed in a Telecommunication Centre to Overvoltages and Overcurrents." There appears to be an important change >from the previous edition that will have a big impact on line interface design. I would like to get some feedback on whether I am understanding this properly. The change that concerns me is that for test 2.1.2 (4000 volt surge on twisted pair phone lines), K.20 now requires that the primary protector *must* operate. If there is any kind of secondary overvoltage protection internal to the equipment under test (EUT), requirement 2.1.2 pretty much forces the EUT to contain series resistors in front of the internal protection. Otherwise, the internal protection will prevent the external primary protector from operating. The requirement for the primary protector to operate can be waived if the protection internal to the EUT itself meets the requirements for a primary protector. However, this includes passing the test of 2.1.5 with vaguely specified surges of 1000 amps per wire and (presumably) open circuit voltages of 4000 volts. I note that in Telcordia GR-1089, the requirement to coordinate with the primary protector can be waived if the EUT can survive a 10x1000 uS, 100 amp surge (clause 4.6.7.1 of the 2002 edition). This requirement is fairly easy to meet without using series resistors. I find it interesting that series resistors have never been required for compliance with GR-1089, which itself is a pretty rigorous standard, nor were they required for previous editions of K.20. Now, it appears that manufacturers must decide at the outset whether their GR-1089 compliant products might ever go into a market where K.20 compliance is required. If so, the resistors have to go in the design. The series resistors needed to pass the new K.20 requirement are not ordinary resistors. Typically, they are large, wirewound, surge tolerant, flameproof resistors with steady state ratings of several watts. Two of these per port on a high density, multiport board is a big hit on board area. Furthermore, the added resistance is very detrimental to some types of DSL transmission. In other words, this change in K.20 looks like it will have a big impact on line interface design. My questions are as follows: 1) Is my understanding of the new coordination requirement in K.20 correct? 2) Is there a simpler way to comply with the requirement other than using series resistors? 3) Has there been any industry feedback to the ITU complaining about the coordination requirement as presently written? 4) Is there evidence that the 10x1000 uS, 100 amp waiver in GR-1089 is inadequate, justifying the much more stringent waiver requirement in K.20? Any and all comments on the above would be most welcome. I'm just trying to make sense out of the new requirements. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.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
Re: Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
In a message dated 4/17/2003, you write: As an FYI, we see very few instances of damage on our carrier class products due to lightning events. As such I doubt the coordination issue is really that significant. Hi Jim: Thanks for your detailed discussion of the coordination problem. I share the concerns you expressed, particularly your general discomfort with the surge tolerance of PTC devices. I should also mention that my own experience is that GR-1089 compliant products rarely have lightning failures in the field. I have seen some cases where the *voltage* of real world longitudinal lightning surges exceeded what GR-1089 tests for, due to nonfunctional primary protectors. GR-1089 makes no attempt to treat this field condition as a Level 1 test, but experience has taught me that it must be considered. On the other hand, I have not seen any significant incidence of cases where the short circuit *current* was enough to damage a GR-1089 compliant design. Fuses that can handle a 10x1000 uS, 100 amp surge almost never fail in the field. This suggests to me that the coordination requirement in the new K.20 is excessive, and that the coordination requirement in GR-1089 is probably more closely aligned with actual field conditions. GR-1089 does not require the primary protector to operate if the secondary protector can handle 10x1000 uS 100 amp surges. I wonder whether there is any room for the authors of K.20 to consider lowering the amount of short circuit current that the secondary protection must be able to survive in order to waive the requirement that the primary protector must operate. The present K.20 level of 1000 amps is extraordinary. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com
Lightning coordination in K.20 (2000) versus GR-1089
Hello All: I have been studying the new 2000 edition of K.20, "Resistibility of Telecommunication Equipment Installed in a Telecommunication Centre to Overvoltages and Overcurrents." There appears to be an important change from the previous edition that will have a big impact on line interface design. I would like to get some feedback on whether I am understanding this properly. The change that concerns me is that for test 2.1.2 (4000 volt surge on twisted pair phone lines), K.20 now requires that the primary protector *must* operate. If there is any kind of secondary overvoltage protection internal to the equipment under test (EUT), requirement 2.1.2 pretty much forces the EUT to contain series resistors in front of the internal protection. Otherwise, the internal protection will prevent the external primary protector from operating. The requirement for the primary protector to operate can be waived if the protection internal to the EUT itself meets the requirements for a primary protector. However, this includes passing the test of 2.1.5 with vaguely specified surges of 1000 amps per wire and (presumably) open circuit voltages of 4000 volts. I note that in Telcordia GR-1089, the requirement to coordinate with the primary protector can be waived if the EUT can survive a 10x1000 uS, 100 amp surge (clause 4.6.7.1 of the 2002 edition). This requirement is fairly easy to meet without using series resistors. I find it interesting that series resistors have never been required for compliance with GR-1089, which itself is a pretty rigorous standard, nor were they required for previous editions of K.20. Now, it appears that manufacturers must decide at the outset whether their GR-1089 compliant products might ever go into a market where K.20 compliance is required. If so, the resistors have to go in the design. The series resistors needed to pass the new K.20 requirement are not ordinary resistors. Typically, they are large, wirewound, surge tolerant, flameproof resistors with steady state ratings of several watts. Two of these per port on a high density, multiport board is a big hit on board area. Furthermore, the added resistance is very detrimental to some types of DSL transmission. In other words, this change in K.20 looks like it will have a big impact on line interface design. My questions are as follows: 1) Is my understanding of the new coordination requirement in K.20 correct? 2) Is there a simpler way to comply with the requirement other than using series resistors? 3) Has there been any industry feedback to the ITU complaining about the coordination requirement as presently written? 4) Is there evidence that the 10x1000 uS, 100 amp waiver in GR-1089 is inadequate, justifying the much more stringent waiver requirement in K.20? Any and all comments on the above would be most welcome. I'm just trying to make sense out of the new requirements. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.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
Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Hello All: Just a quick followup on our discussion about the short circuit tests: I just received my copy of Issue 3 of GR-1089, and when I went to replace Issue 2 I found a 1-page bulletin from Telcordia, dated December 1999, tucked in the front of my Issue 2 binder. The bulletin specifically addresses the "permissible response" of equipment to the short circuit test. Following is the text from that bulletin: "It is the Telcordia Technologies interpretation that when the short-circuit is applied to a circuit pack the operation of a fuse, circuit breaker, semiconductor fuse (e.g., diode, transistor, FET), and/or other current-limiting means (e.g., fold-back) without a fire, electrical safety, or fragmentation hazard is permissible. Further, it is the Telcordia interpretation that a sacrificial element such as a fuse, diode(s), transistor(s), semiconductor, or polymer over-current device(s) may fail as part of this test. The circuit pack is not required to be operational following this test. However, compliance shall be demonstrated by application of cheesecloth as specified in GR-1089-CORE, Section 4.5.2." I think the above statement clears up most, but not all, of the uncertainty regarding permissible failure modes under Issue 2. Of course, now we have Issue 3 with language that is not identical to this earlier statement. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
All, I agree with the concept that the short circuit is not always worst case. I have seen many ITE power supplies shut down with a sc, but an output overload lets the smoke out. One problem with a trace opening is the reliability of that opening in a safe manner. When a certified fuse blows, we can generally trust it will blow in the same manner under a sc or overload in the field, due to the tight manufacturing constraints and agency testing on certified fuses. When a trace burns out, do we know how reliable it is? Repeated tests to verify the reliability may be in order. Whether the standard requires it (I haven't researched it), I would consider it due diligence. Sam Davis Regulatory Engineer Professional Testing Inc. (512)244-3371 x112 www.ptitest.com -Original Message- All - In consideration of the proliferation of SMPS in electronic equipment, it is not unrealistic to expect a simple short-circuit might not meet the intent of GR-1089. While many linear supplies will run indefinitely under sc, most SMPS will go into hysteresis or shut down completely under a solid sc. A reasonable test condition is just below the current limit of the SMPS output. While I also dislike a PWB trace opening, we are considering a fault condition and the compliance criteria are related to failing in a safe manner. As well, once a trace opens, it is most likely the assembly/subassembly will be discarded, rather than reused, since it will not function correctly and not be considerable repairable. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com Richard Hughes wrote: Perhaps some will take issue with me in applying a partial short in addition to a dead short. In my defence I will say that I work for a manufacturer and not a test lab and the reality is that failed capacitors are unlikely to have a zero ohm impedance when they fail in real life. The question then becomes one of how far should one go to minimise product liability? Richard Hughes In a message dated 11/27/2002, Joe Randolph writes: The only remaining gray area is whether the failure of a component or circuit trace is acceptable *provided* that it is located on the same circuit card where the short was induced, *and* that no safety hazard resulted. My interpretation is that this would be acceptable. --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Remember that Telcordia documents are private and copywrited. I was advised by persons at Telcordia that as of October 2002 GR-63-CORE 1995 would no longer be available as the grandfathering period would be expired. Also since GR-1089 issue 3 has no grandfathering period, I was advised by Telcordia that issue 2 should now be out of print. Verizon accepted the 2002 version of GR-63 at the NEBS seminar in Vegas last month after Telcordia agreed to a couple changes in the fire section and airborne contaminants section. Telcordia has sent out change notices to folks on thier subscription list. As far as GR-1089, if issue 2 is not available anymore, new copies could only be obtained by breaking copyright laws. I do not know Verizons position on issue 3, but since it is generally more stringent than issue 2 or provides clarification, and does not conflict with thier new checklist, I would assume they would be favorable, but that will be thier decision. The other 3 RBOC's participated in the development of issue 3, so they should be OK with it. However it will be tough for manufacturers to get things tested to the old version if it is out of publication. In which case Verizon may need to write thier own version of GR-1089 so that it is available to the public or accept the new issue 3. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer. Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:05 PM To: j...@aol.com; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Last I heard, and please correct me if not, was that Verizon had rejected the new standards much to the chagrin of the rest of the industry. Gary -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:07 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Hello All: Many thanks to all who responded to my question about this requirement. Many of the responses were quite interesting and persuasive, even though some of them were directly opposed. I think that the expanded description in the new third edition of GR-1089 helps resolve most of the uncertainty I had with regard to this requirement. I was not aware that the new edition of GR-1089 had been issued, so this discussion was doubly useful. Telcordia has now received some of my $$ for a copy of the new edition. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.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" --- 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
RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
All - In consideration of the proliferation of SMPS in electronic equipment, it is not unrealistic to expect a simple short-circuit might not meet the intent of GR-1089. While many linear supplies will run indefinitely under sc, most SMPS will go into hysteresis or shut down completely under a solid sc. A reasonable test condition is just below the current limit of the SMPS output. While I also dislike a PWB trace opening, we are considering a fault condition and the compliance criteria are related to failing in a safe manner. As well, once a trace opens, it is most likely the assembly/subassembly will be discarded, rather than reused, since it will not function correctly and not be considerable repairable. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com Richard Hughes wrote: Perhaps some will take issue with me in applying a partial short in addition to a dead short. In my defence I will say that I work for a manufacturer and not a test lab and the reality is that failed capacitors are unlikely to have a zero ohm impedance when they fail in real life. The question then becomes one of how far should one go to minimise product liability? Richard Hughes In a message dated 11/27/2002, Joe Randolph writes: The only remaining gray area is whether the failure of a component or circuit trace is acceptable *provided* that it is located on the same circuit card where the short was induced, *and* that no safety hazard resulted. My interpretation is that this would be acceptable. --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Hello Dave, Actually this is incorrect. "Damage to any component in the fault current path" refers to items like inductors or resistors which may be in the -48V return or frame ground path. If they were to open, an exposed metallic surface may become ungrounded and become a safety hazard. The new GR-1089 attempts to clear up the intent although the definition of "fault current path" is somewhat ambiguous and could be mis-interpreted. It is my interpretation as well as several test labs that the fault current path is the one that protects the equipment from unsafe conditions or physical exposure as the result of a fault such as a short circuit within the equipment. It is not necessarily the current path of the short circuit itself. Thus opening a fuse or other sacrificial component in the DC supply path is fine as long as there is not an electrical safety hazard generated, a fire hazard occurring, or a ground trace/wire (example of fault path) that opens (even by the old GR-1089). Telcordia has explained this at NEBS seminars dating back as far as 1996 and in an industry letter a few years ago. Regards, Jim Jim Wiese NEBS Project Manager/Senior Compliance Engineer ADTRAN, INC. 901 Explorer Blvd. P.O. Box 14 Huntsville, AL 35814-4000 256-963-8431 256-963-8250 fax jim.wi...@adtran.com -Original Message- From: Dave Spencer [mailto:dspen...@dsl-only.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:24 PM To: '<' Subject: RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Hi All, My $.02 worth... I strongly disagree with what has been said regarding operation of output fuses. You may have a case for input fuses/circuit breakers. It is my belief that the purpose of this test, which is a cross referenced follow through to the design requirements now contained in GR-78, is to ensure that the circuit board has been designed to handle fault currents and is reliable. As has come up here before, a dead short is not the maximum fault current that a given power supply will see. It is more likely to be an ohm or two (silicon short) that fails to activate the crowbar circuit and the short should be applied using an adjustable power resistor tweaked to a maximum current reading. You are expected to discover if your PCB surface traces, via plating, and thermal relief (if used) are sized correctly for the maximum current produced by a fault condition. If you have a fuse in-line with the output of your supply, you FAIL the test! The requirement is quite plain: "R9-20[92] For both grounded and ungrounded power supplies, conformance to this requirement shall be demonstrated by the absence of damage to equipment, conductors and conductor insulation, and of the fault current path." One will note that it does not say "any component except fuses or circuit breakers". To meet this requirement, you will have designed a supply that will not be subjected to failure from incidental short circuits. One may argue that this is not fair, but let us not forget that NEBS is all about reliability. It not only must be safe, but it needs to work in foreseeable misuse environments so we can continue to enjoy that dial tone each and every time we pick up the handset. If one wishes to design, build, and test telecommunications equipment to the standard of excellence defined by NEBS, one must digest the whole family of documents defined as FR-2063, not just the requirements of GR63/GR1089. Have a Great Day, Dave Spencer Two Peppers -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Lou Aiken Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:38 PM To: Ted Rook; j...@aol.com; < Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 I'd like to add that the product need not operate correctly after a fault condition causes a fuse to open, it must only remain safe - within the meaning of the standard. Regards, Lou Aiken, LaMer LLC 27109 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 USA tel ++ 1 251 981 6786 fax ++ 1 251 981 3054 - Original Message - From: Ted Rook To: ; < Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 I'm not an expert on GR1089 but I think that your interpretation should include careful consideration of what constitutes damage. The operation of a fuse or a circuit breaker is not damage. That is normal operation. What the specification is seeking to eliminate is overheating, explosion, loss of insulating properties, improper sizing of conductors and improper sizing of connections, all of which may give rise to damage under short circuit conditions. If the fuse blows and the fuseholder bursts into flames then that is a problem. If the fuse blows and everything fails safe, and normal operation can be restored by replacement of a fuse then no hazardous condition has been created. Does this help? Best Regards Ted Rook, Console
RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Joe, It is quite common for local filtering consisting of an inductor followed by a capacitor to be added in the logic-level supply rail following an on-board DC:DC converter when powering sensitive ICs. Often there are many such filters on each card and it is not feasible to fuse each of them individually. If you short, or partially short (low resistance) the output capacitor then you can reach a condition where the DC:DC converter keeps pumping power into the fault and either the inductor fails or the output tracks burn up. [Of course, this is just one example of many where components are placed in series with the supply line.] I must say that my approach has been to consider that provided that the inductor open circuits cleanly (perhaps some smoke, but no fire and no charring of the pcb on which the inductor is mounted) then that is OK safety-wise. Personally, I would not be happy if an inner-layer trace were to burn up for both safety reasons and board re-use reasons. I'm none too keen on surface layers burning up either. A possible safety problem with inner traces opening is that this failure could damage the safety insulation (e.g. by charring or de-lamination) between other traces on that pcb. This of course would vary from board to board and may not have been an issue for Joe's board. Of course, I am also open to flaming but to an extent that's how we all learn. Perhaps some will take issue with me in applying a partial short in addition to a dead short. In my defence I will say that I work for a manufacturer and not a test lab and the reality is that failed capacitors are unlikely to have a zero ohm impedance when they fail in real life. The question then becomes one of how far should one go to minimise product liability? So, having put on my Nomex clothing I await a reply! Richard Hughes -Original Message- In a message dated 11/27/2002, Joe Randolph writes: The only remaining gray area is whether the failure of a component or circuit trace is acceptable *provided* that it is located on the same circuit card where the short was induced, *and* that no safety hazard resulted. My interpretation is that this would be acceptable.
RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Last I heard, and please correct me if not, was that Verizon had rejected the new standards much to the chagrin of the rest of the industry. Gary -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:07 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Hello All: Many thanks to all who responded to my question about this requirement. Many of the responses were quite interesting and persuasive, even though some of them were directly opposed. I think that the expanded description in the new third edition of GR-1089 helps resolve most of the uncertainty I had with regard to this requirement. I was not aware that the new edition of GR-1089 had been issued, so this discussion was doubly useful. Telcordia has now received some of my $$ for a copy of the new edition. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
In a message dated 11/27/2002, Marko writes: > So what did you decide? Is a fuse blowing acceptable? > I'm sure others would be interested as well. > Hi Marko: So you want me to go on the record so I can get flamed? OK, here goes: The revised text in Issue 3 of GR-1089 (kindly posted to the group by Alain Servais) explicitly states that fuses are acceptable. The text is not 100% clear on whether the fuse has to be located on the module where the short was induced or whether it can be anywhere in the system, but it appears that the fuse could be anywhere. The only remaining gray area is whether the failure of a component or circuit trace is acceptable *provided* that it is located on the same circuit card where the short was induced, *and* that no safety hazard resulted. My interpretation is that this would be acceptable. This conclusion is based on the following considerations: 1) Issue 3 makes it very clear that failure of something other than a fuse is NOT permitted if it located on a module other than the one where the short was applied. 2) Issue 3 also says that the module where the short was applied does not have to work after the test is over. 3) It seems unreasonable to require a circuit card or module to continue to function after a short was applied on that module. The short itself simulates a fault condition that would require replacement of the module. If so, what's the point of requiring that nothing else on the module is damaged? It doesn't serve any of the reliability goals that are part of the implied intent of the requirement. For the module itself, it would seem that a sufficient criterion would be that no safety hazard occurs. I suspect that others may disagree with this interpretation, and I am open to discussion about it. The fact is that I would be inclined to use fuses at that module level on any new design unless I was VERY sure that the failure mechanism would not create a "fire, fragmentation, or electrical safety hazard" as stated in GR-1089. In the case that prompted me to post this question in the first place, the failure mode was an open circuit trace, on an inner layer of the circuit card where the short was applied, in an existing product. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to insist on redesign of that product to retrofit a fuse. However, I would recommend the inclusion of a fuse in any similar product designed in the future. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Hello All: Many thanks to all who responded to my question about this requirement. Many of the responses were quite interesting and persuasive, even though some of them were directly opposed. I think that the expanded description in the new third edition of GR-1089 helps resolve most of the uncertainty I had with regard to this requirement. I was not aware that the new edition of GR-1089 had been issued, so this discussion was doubly useful. Telcordia has now received some of my $$ for a copy of the new edition. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Hi All, My $.02 worth... I strongly disagree with what has been said regarding operation of output fuses. You may have a case for input fuses/circuit breakers. It is my belief that the purpose of this test, which is a cross referenced follow through to the design requirements now contained in GR-78, is to ensure that the circuit board has been designed to handle fault currents and is reliable. As has come up here before, a dead short is not the maximum fault current that a given power supply will see. It is more likely to be an ohm or two (silicon short) that fails to activate the crowbar circuit and the short should be applied using an adjustable power resistor tweaked to a maximum current reading. You are expected to discover if your PCB surface traces, via plating, and thermal relief (if used) are sized correctly for the maximum current produced by a fault condition. If you have a fuse in-line with the output of your supply, you FAIL the test! The requirement is quite plain: "R9-20[92] For both grounded and ungrounded power supplies, conformance to this requirement shall be demonstrated by the absence of damage to equipment, conductors and conductor insulation, and of the fault current path." One will note that it does not say "any component except fuses or circuit breakers". To meet this requirement, you will have designed a supply that will not be subjected to failure from incidental short circuits. One may argue that this is not fair, but let us not forget that NEBS is all about reliability. It not only must be safe, but it needs to work in foreseeable misuse environments so we can continue to enjoy that dial tone each and every time we pick up the handset. If one wishes to design, build, and test telecommunications equipment to the standard of excellence defined by NEBS, one must digest the whole family of documents defined as FR-2063, not just the requirements of GR63/GR1089. Have a Great Day, Dave Spencer Two Peppers -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Lou Aiken Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:38 PM To: Ted Rook; j...@aol.com; < Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 I'd like to add that the product need not operate correctly after a fault condition causes a fuse to open, it must only remain safe - within the meaning of the standard. Regards, Lou Aiken, LaMer LLC 27109 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 USA tel ++ 1 251 981 6786 fax ++ 1 251 981 3054 - Original Message - From: Ted Rook To: ; < Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 I'm not an expert on GR1089 but I think that your interpretation should include careful consideration of what constitutes damage. The operation of a fuse or a circuit breaker is not damage. That is normal operation. What the specification is seeking to eliminate is overheating, explosion, loss of insulating properties, improper sizing of conductors and improper sizing of connections, all of which may give rise to damage under short circuit conditions. If the fuse blows and the fuseholder bursts into flames then that is a problem. If the fuse blows and everything fails safe, and normal operation can be restored by replacement of a fuse then no hazardous condition has been created. Does this help? Best Regards Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659 Please note our new location and phone numbers: Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA 201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST. 201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs. 201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs. --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
I'd like to add that the product need not operate correctly after a fault condition causes a fuse to open, it must only remain safe - within the meaning of the standard. Regards, Lou Aiken, LaMer LLC 27109 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 USA tel ++ 1 251 981 6786 fax ++ 1 251 981 3054 - Original Message - From: Ted Rook To: ; < Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 I'm not an expert on GR1089 but I think that your interpretation should include careful consideration of what constitutes damage. The operation of a fuse or a circuit breaker is not damage. That is normal operation. What the specification is seeking to eliminate is overheating, explosion, loss of insulating properties, improper sizing of conductors and improper sizing of connections, all of which may give rise to damage under short circuit conditions. If the fuse blows and the fuseholder bursts into flames then that is a problem. If the fuse blows and everything fails safe, and normal operation can be restored by replacement of a fuse then no hazardous condition has been created. Does this help? Best Regards Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659 Please note our new location and phone numbers: Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA 201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST. 201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs. 201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs. --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
I'm not an expert on GR1089 but I think that your interpretation should include careful consideration of what constitutes damage. The operation of a fuse or a circuit breaker is not damage. That is normal operation. What the specification is seeking to eliminate is overheating, explosion, loss of insulating properties, improper sizing of conductors and improper sizing of connections, all of which may give rise to damage under short circuit conditions. If the fuse blows and the fuseholder bursts into flames then that is a problem. If the fuse blows and everything fails safe, and normal operation can be restored by replacement of a fuse then no hazardous condition has been created. Does this help? Best Regards Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659 Please note our new location and phone numbers: Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA 201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST. 201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs. 201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs. --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Joe, I was going to suggest that you look into Issue 3 of GR-1089, but you have been given the basics. I would suggest anyone who has to live with this standard, get the new issue and spend a day or so to really look it over in detail. There was a great deal of work put into clarifying intent of these requirements, as well as many others. It should be available from Telcordia now. Jeff Whitmire usual disclaimers - comments are mine but may not be my employers --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
This was resolved a couple of NEBS conferences ago. All the main RBOCs were present and they agreed that a fuse was a special case. The fuse is designed to open, therefore operation of the fuse is normal and allowed. This may be a semantic strech, but that's where the current NEBS interpretation lies. All other parts of the board must remain "undamaged". The "no fire hazard" is a significant weakening of the general interpretation and probably represents aggressive engineering judgement. Jon. j...@aol.com wrote: Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 in Telcordia GR-1089. Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply is shorted at the load. This could even be interpreted to preclude the use of a fuse that has to be replaced. One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this test, it is considered to have been passed. Needless to say, this differs a bit from the literal interpretation. I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the short circuit testing. Any insight on this would be most appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
onents as necessary. Compiled from Issue 3 GR-1089 Alain Servais Compliance Engineer -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 1:25 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject:Short circuit tests in GR-1089 << File: Short circuit tests in GR-1089.TXT >> Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 in Telcordia GR-1089. Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply is shorted at the load. This could even be interpreted to preclude the use of a fuse that has to be replaced. One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this test, it is considered to have been passed. Needless to say, this differs a bit from the literal interpretation. I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the short circuit testing. Any insight on this would be most appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs --- 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: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Oops - wrong short circuit test - just realized. Sorry about that. My mind is occupied by that one currently... The on-board short-circuit test is to simulate a short occurring for whatever reason (manufacturing defect, design defect, operational fault). Since something bad happened, in my opinion the card is allowed to fail as long as it fails safe. Opening a fuse is certainly an acceptable method to remove the electrical safety hazard. ...Marko -Original Message- From: Marko Radojicic Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:14 AM To: 'j...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: RE: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Joe, The short-circuit test is to simulate the most prevalent source of telecom disruption: the back-hoe. When a buried cable is inadvertently cut, the pairs could short together or to the cable sheath. I really can't see how a test lab can misinterpret the requirement (R4-6 for telecom ports). It clearly states that replacing fuses is not an allowable situation. "The EUT shall not be damaged, shall not require manual intervention (such as to reset circuit breaker or replace fuses) to restore service, and shall not become a fire, fragmentation, or electrical safety hazard as a result of the application of a short circuit ..." I'm quite sure that whomever you spoke with at the test lab is in error and will probably reconsider their position if they read the standard a little more carefully. Cheers, Marko Marko Radojicic Manager, Compliance and Reliability Turnstone Networks, inc. 2220 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 mar...@turnstone.com 408/907-1739 -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:25 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Short circuit tests in GR-1089 Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 in Telcordia GR-1089. Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply is shorted at the load. This could even be interpreted to preclude the use of a fuse that has to be replaced. One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this test, it is considered to have been passed. Needless to say, this differs a bit from the literal interpretation. I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the short circuit testing. Any insight on this would be most appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
Short circuit tests in GR-1089
Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 in Telcordia GR-1089. Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply is shorted at the load. This could even be interpreted to preclude the use of a fuse that has to be replaced. One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this test, it is considered to have been passed. Needless to say, this differs a bit from the literal interpretation. I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the short circuit testing. Any insight on this would be most appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.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: GR 1089
Sam, The key phrase is "free-space wave impedance". At the source, the wave impedance matches the impedance of the driving circuit. The electric fields and magnetic fields interact (near-field conditions), working toward the free-space wave impedance of about 377 ohms. The impedance actually overshoots 377 ohms a little bit (see Figure H-1 in my book, Electronic System Design: Interference and Noise Control Techniques), but past about lambda/(2*pi) has stabilized at a nominal 377 ohms (far-field conditions). Since the wave impedance also affects the antenna factor, and thus the V/m or A/m that the antenna "thinks" it sees, you have to measure both ways. John Barnes dBi Corporation http://www.dbicorporation.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: GR 1089
I am not familiar with GR 1089, but assuming there are electric field emission limits from 60 Hz to 30 MHz, the magnetic field limit would then be the electric field limit minus the free space conversion factor. The magnetic limit would be independent of the electric field emissions, it depends only on the electric field limit. And it is not a correct assumption to say that the magnetic field emissions will be 377 Ohms down from the electric field emissions. Especially in this frequency range, where you are in the very near field, the field impedance will track closely with the impedance of the source circuit, which in general will vary widely from 377 Ohms. Your electric field measurement device (not an antenna in the strict sense of the word but rather an electric field probe) senses only the electric field. Likewise a magnetic field probe does not respond well to the electric field. Incidentally if your electric field limits are low (on the order of 1 mV/m or less), you will need a device with wide dynamic range to make the measurement, since the electric field at the power line frequency can be on the order of 1 Volt/meter. This means both a good amplifier on the electrically short dipole or monopole, and a receiver with a narrowly tunable bandwidth near the power frequency. Electrometrics makes an electric field dipole. There used to be wave analyzers with 1 Hz measurement bandwidths in the audio frequency range. There still may be, but I haven't purchased anything like this new in awhile. -- From: "Sam Wismer" To: "EMC Forum" Subject: GR 1089 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2002, 5:11 PM To all; Section 3.2.2(Radiated Emissions Magnetic Fields) says: Radiated emissions from the EUT shall not exceed the levels of field strength obtained from the following equation in the frequency range of 60 Hz through 30 MHz: H = E-51.5dB In this equation, E is the electric-field intensity in dBmV/m as obtained from Table 3-1; H is the magnetic-field intensity limit in dBmA/m; and the constant, 51.5, is the decibel equivalent of the free-space wave impedance of a plane wave. Extrapolation of magneticfield intensity limits is based on the electric-field intensity obtained from using the equations of Table 3-1 for the particular distance greater than 3 meters. What is the procedure here? 1) Calculate your E-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 2) Measure the E-Field and compare to the E-field limits. 3) Calculate your H-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 4) Measure the H-field and compare to your limits. Im sure this isnt right since the H-field limits are the E-Field limits minus 51.5 dB, so there would be no reason to re-measure the field strength. What am I missing here? Questions: Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com
GR 1089
To all; Section 3.2.2(Radiated Emissions - Magnetic Fields) says: "Radiated emissions from the EUT shall not exceed the levels of field strength obtained from the following equation in the frequency range of 60 Hz through 30 MHz: H = E-51.5dB In this equation, E is the electric-field intensity in dBmV/m as obtained from Table 3-1; H is the magnetic-field intensity limit in dBmA/m; and the constant, 51.5, is the decibel equivalent of the free-space wave impedance of a plane wave. Extrapolation of magneticfield intensity limits is based on the electric-field intensity obtained from using the equations of Table 3-1 for the particular distance greater than 3 meters. " What is the procedure here? 1) Calculate your E-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 2) Measure the E-Field and compare to the E-field limits. 3) Calculate your H-field limits depending on your measurement distance. 4) Measure the H-field and compare to your limits. I'm sure this isn't right since the H-field limits are the E-Field limits minus 51.5 dB, so there would be no reason to re-measure the field strength. What am I missing here? Questions: Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com
Re: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2)
In addition to the various mechanisms for intra-building lightning that have been postulated on this thread, there is one other that I have heard reference to. If lightning strikes the top of a building, the path to ground is often through the steel frame of the building. When this happens, cables routed with long runs inside the building can pick up significant energy via induction. The coupling factor is small, but the magnitude of the surge current can be quite large, so the net energy coupled into the cable can be a problem. Whether it is for this reason or the others cited previously, there are some valid mechanisms that can (theoretically) induce lightning surges on intrabuilding wiring. Even though the folks at Bellcore/Telcordia tend to be a bit too conservative sometimes, my guess is that their requirements for immunity to intrabuilding lightning surges are based at least in part on past experience and/or field studies. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2)
It has to do with the limited protection of the carbon blocks at the point of entry. I'm not sure without looking through the docs, but I believe the carbon blocks clamp voltages above 600V or something. -Original Message- From: Martin Lindquist [mailto:mlind...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:07 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) All, This sorta brings up a question that's been stumbling around in the back of my mind, and that is: How do you get lightning _Inside_ a building? What is the justification for Intrabuilding Lightning? Ok, two questions. Martin -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Paolo Roncone Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:23 AM To: david_ster...@ademco.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) David, thanks for your reply. In the meantime I checked IEEE 802.3 and found out about the 10Mb/s spec (I'll get back to the guy who gave me the 2 Mb/s info and try to understand..) As for the application, we are NOT connecting this Ethernet line outside the building. Our line would connect two racks in the same room or a rack and a PC in the same or another room but NOT in another building. Paragraph 4.5.9 of GR1089 says: "These tests apply only to network equipment that will neither interface with the telecommunications outside plant nor serve off-premises equipment." That's why we applied these surges (not the First-Level and Second-Level as specified in previous paragraphs). Regards, Paolo At 10.03 27/03/2001 -0500, david_ster...@ademco.com wrote: >Per 8802-3 Ethernet specifications (ANSI/IEEE 802.3), 10base2 Ethernet is 10 >Mb/s. This applies to all off-the-shelf Ethernet; very little non-standard >equipment was produced. You may only have 2 Mb of bandwidth but the signals >move at 10 Mb/s when they move. > >The 8802.3 specification allows earthing the shield at a single point >between two nodes. Loading the 10base2 with capacitors interferes with the >impedence. It will fail 8803-2 because maximum link distance is reduced. > >Most people use fiber between buildings. It is cheaper than conduit. > >David > >-Original Message- >From: Paolo Roncone [mailto:paolo...@tin.it] >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:37 AM >To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: GR 1089 Intrabuilding Surges (2) > > > >Ooops,... I mentioned the wrong data rate of the coax 10b2 Ethernet. >I re-checked with the design guy. It's 2 Mb/s not 100 Mb/s. That may allow >for some more pF's for surge protection between signal and return.. > > >Regards, > >Paolo > From - Sun Mar 11 06:57:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: from fac204.m0.net ([209.10.46.156]) by mtiwgwc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010311054926.isgn5452.mtiwgwc23.worldnet.att@fac204.m0.net> for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:49:26 + Message-ID: <3263706896.984289765...@m0.net> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Travelocity.com" Reply-to: feedb...@travelocity.m0.net To: matt.campane...@worldnet.att.net Subject: The Insider from Travelocity.com Errors-to: feedb...@travelocity.m0.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="---=_NEXT_e52c3de83b" X-cid: 3263706896 X-Mozilla-Status: X-Mozilla-Status2: X-UIDL: <3263706896.984289765...@m0.net> -=_NEXT_e52c3de83b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Super Savings Abroad Dear Matthew, Spring is nearly here, and that means it's time to think seriously=20 about planning your next trip, whether it's for spring break, summer=20 vacation, or just because you're tired of being cooped up in the=20 house. Whatever your reason for traveling, consider going a little=20 further afield this time. International travel isn't as expensive or=20 as complicated as you might think. And, as always, we're here to=20 help. Travelocity.com has loads of online information to help you=20 decide where to go--and great deals to help put your trip within the=20 reach of your budget. It's a big world out there--it's time to=20 discover it!=20 In this issue: Featured This Month - Win a Trip to Scotland - Barcelona - Mexico - Copenhagen - Dublin - Brazil - Rome - Travelocity's Been There - Today's Real Deals Site Features - FREE Issue of Travelocity Magazine! Travelers Network - Traveler Reviews - Tips & Advice=20 - Travel Tips=20 Special Offers - Spring Skiing Specials! - Le M=E9ridien Exclusive Offer - Exclusive Offer from LimoCenter!
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Thank you, Penny. I appreciate being updated. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Penny D. Robbins [mailto:probb...@telcordia.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 4:56 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Tania- That is not true- Telcordia can do all of the tests in house including the airborne contaminants that you speak of and has been doing them for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but I beleive the original question here was whether there were any labs in Europe or Asia that could do the tests, not who in the US can do them. Penny "Grant, Tania (Tania)" on 01/18/2001 03:53:53 PM Please respond to "Grant, Tania (Tania)" To: 'Naftali Shani' , 'Chris Collin' cc: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, Just be careful. Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting the various tests to other labs. Depending upon the nature of your equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests, earthquake, vibration, etc.. Thus, you may find out that your equipment still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done. I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the U.S. In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois (U.S.) have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out the rest. The key word here, is "reliably". Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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, 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 wi
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Tania- That is not true- Telcordia can do all of the tests in house including the airborne contaminants that you speak of and has been doing them for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but I beleive the original question here was whether there were any labs in Europe or Asia that could do the tests, not who in the US can do them. Penny "Grant, Tania (Tania)" on 01/18/2001 03:53:53 PM Please respond to "Grant, Tania (Tania)" To: 'Naftali Shani' , 'Chris Collin' cc: "'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'" (bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, Just be careful. Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting the various tests to other labs. Depending upon the nature of your equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests, earthquake, vibration, etc.. Thus, you may find out that your equipment still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done. I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the U.S. In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois (U.S.) have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out the rest. The key word here, is "reliably". Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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, 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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Hello Chris, Naftali and All, Do not get traped! There are no test labs in Israel who can perform full compliance to GR-1089 Core! Some labs can do partial testing but not full testing. Regards -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:56 PM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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, 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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Chris, Just be careful. Many labs say they will do it, but end up sub-contracting the various tests to other labs. Depending upon the nature of your equipment, not all labs will have the facilities to perform the fire tests, earthquake, vibration, etc.. Thus, you may find out that your equipment still will be shipped to various places to have these tests done. I don't know if things have changed, but very recently, for example, the air contaminants tests could only be performed at the Battelle Institute in the U.S. In my estimation, Underwriters Laboratories in Norhbrook, Illinois (U.S.) have the best facilities for fire tests.My position would be, if I have to ship product somewhere, I would like to ship to a lab that could perform most of the tests at their premises and reliably sub-contract out the rest. The key word here, is "reliably". Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:56 AM To: 'Chris Collin' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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, 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: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Hi Chris, The correct response to this question is: Check with your prospective customers. Each RBOC and CLEC has a different bent on who's tests they will accept and there are always exceptions to the hard and fast operating procedures proclaimed at the annual conferences. There are many labs that are not OSHA certified that perform NEBS tests and write reports accepted by all the principle players. A very good "for instance" is the Telcordia (Belcore) lab itself, which is not an NRTL lab. The most important part of the whole experience is to make sure the lab you use has previous experience writing NEBS test reports or is in very close communications with your customers SME's in the various NEBS areas BEFORE testing begins. Rule of thumb, from my perspective: Meeting the requirements of Verizon and SBC will take care of 95% of your prospective customers. AT&T has a couple more hoops, accounting for the last 5%. One last thing, you should be aware that there is a separate list serv for NEBS questions. You can sign up on the RCIC web site. Although many members of the EMC-PSTC list are members of both lists, it is always a good idea to avoid leaching bandwidth from those who have little interest in US telephony compliance. Let me know if you need contact information and have a Great Day! Best Regards, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:54 AM To: 'John Juhasz'; 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core As I posted earlier, in theory any OSHA certified lab should qualify as a NRTL. I find it interesting that they don't even have to have NEBS items listed in their accreditation standards just be a OSHA NRTL. I don't have the exact web address but you can check this who has what on the WEB. The last time I did it I believe it was pretty straight forward with a search reference to OSHA rather than some horrible governmental acryonym. There is another method you can consider, if you have a NRTL oversee the test the environmental lab itself doesn't necessarily have to be an OSHA NRTL. Choose with care and shop around. At the last symposium there was some generally reluctant acceptance of non-NRTL's because of a recent crunch in available time at the labs, but this would be my personnal last resort. There are more labs out there than one might first suspect, but if you're doing this for the first time you want somebody with experience giving you a solid hand. Gary [Gary McInturff] -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM To: 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core If I may add to that . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) taught me that you can't just use any lab in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that advertise that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [ mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com <mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, >From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held in Baltimore at the beginning of October. The only report acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located in the United States. Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily reflects that of my employer. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4077 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com <mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com> Web: http://www.marconi.com <http://www.marconi.com> --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
As I posted earlier, in theory any OSHA certified lab should qualify as a NRTL. I find it interesting that they don't even have to have NEBS items listed in their accreditation standards just be a OSHA NRTL. I don't have the exact web address but you can check this who has what on the WEB. The last time I did it I believe it was pretty straight forward with a search reference to OSHA rather than some horrible governmental acryonym. There is another method you can consider, if you have a NRTL oversee the test the environmental lab itself doesn't necessarily have to be an OSHA NRTL. Choose with care and shop around. At the last symposium there was some generally reluctant acceptance of non-NRTL's because of a recent crunch in available time at the labs, but this would be my personnal last resort. There are more labs out there than one might first suspect, but if you're doing this for the first time you want somebody with experience giving you a solid hand. Gary [Gary McInturff] -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:15 AM To: 'daniel.sic...@marconi.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core If I may add to that . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) taught me that you can't just use any lab in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that advertise that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [ mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com <mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com> ] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, >From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held in Baltimore at the beginning of October. The only report acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located in the United States. Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily reflects that of my employer. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4077 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com <mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com> Web: http://www.marconi.com <http://www.marconi.com>
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
If I may add to that . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but my past NEBS experience (prior to 1998) taught me that you can't just use any lab in the US either (I don't know if that's changed since 1998). The RBOCs are fussy in this regard. In addition to Telcordia themselves, there are a couple of large ones that advertise that their NEBS data is accepted by the RBOCs . . . John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: daniel.sic...@marconi.com [mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:09 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Chris, >From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held in Baltimore at the beginning of October. The only report acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located in the United States. Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily reflects that of my employer. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4077 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com Web: http://www.marconi.com
Re: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Chris, >From what has been said during the NEBS 2000 Conference held in Baltimore at the beginning of October. The only report acceptable to the RBOCs are those issued by a Test House located in the United States. Thus if your intended market is the United States, which I think is the cases, than you will have to test in a US based facility. DISCLAIMER: The above opinion is mine and does not necessarily reflects that of my employer. Daniel Sicard Compliance Engineer / Ingénieur Certification Marconi Communications - Optical Network Corp Tel: 514-685-1737 Ext. 4631 Fax: 514-822-4077 E-mail: mailto:daniel.sic...@marconi.com Web: http://www.marconi.com Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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
RE: Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Chris, I'm not so familiar in what the European labs can offer, but I believe that Hermon Labs in Israel can provide these services (and more). Feel free to contact her...@netvision.net.il and ask for Dr. Edward Usoskin or Gonen Usishkin. Feel free to post your findings. Regards, Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 Voice 613.599.6430 x.8277; Fax 613.599.6433 E-mail: nsh...@catena.com -Original Message- From: Chris Collin [mailto:globalass...@altavista.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:58 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Testfacilities GR-1089-Core Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Testfacilities GR-1089-Core
Hi, I'm looking for test facilities in Europe or Asia that can perform tests for Bellcore (better now TelCordia) GR-1089-CORE? Thanks for any information. Chris Collin Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping! http://www.shopping.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
RE: DC Power Short-circuit test GR-1089 Section 9.8.1
Eric, I assume you are aware of the published clarification on this subject published by Telcordia in December 1999. I suspect this might have led to your questions, which are very good. Rather than discuss your points specifically, I feel that simply covering the intent of this generic requirement might clarify the issue. I am also confident you will also find varying interpretations at the various test houses. The first point is that this requirement is found in Section 9 of GR-1089-CORE which is titled "Bonding and Grounding". Just as the title implies, the intent behind the requirements is to ensure there is a reliable path for fault currents to flow and for reliable equipotential grounding. This section was not intended for maintained functionality after a fault condition. This may be desired, but the short circuit tests that require continued functionality are in Section 4 and deal with Tip and Ring circuits. The second point is that R9-20 and R9-21 are "type" tests. That is the lab will short the output at the output terminals and again at the load (if it is remote to the EUT). The assumption is that during normal operation, a component fails and the output is shorted. The test is to determine if a safety hazard is possible if this situation occurs. The pass/fail criteria are simply to make sure that the bonding and grounding paths (fault current carrying paths) remain undamaged, and there is not a risk of a fire hazard or mechanical hazard. This is best accomplished by using fusing or other sacrificial component that limits the current or opens the current path before any damage to the bonding and grounding paths can occur. If a non-bonding or grounding trace opens benignly without catching the cheesecloth on fire, that would in my opinion be acceptable. However if a trace opens and in the process damages a frame ground trace, -48VR trace, or other trace that will provide electrical safety (even without fire) that would be a failure. The third point is that this test is not an in-depth investigation into what happens under every conceivable change of load impedance or overload condition. These types of investigations are normally part of a safety listing program performed by a NRTL "Nationally Recognized Testing Lab". That is why I strongly endorse the Listing of all equipment regardless of its location in the network. The testing program for a Listing would be far more thorough than what is in R9-20 or R9-21. Overload testing, component fault analysis, as well as short circuit testing would be conducted. Not only would this type of evaluation look for damaged fault return paths, and blatant fire hazards, it would look for components that would overheat and potentially cause a fire. A major omission to the requirements in R9-20 and R9-21 is that the length of time the output is shorted is not defined. Therefore technically for NEBS compliance a 1 ms short is as valid as a 30 minute or 10 hour short. The tests for a safety listing would require the current to stop flowing or require thermal equilibrium to be reached or 30 minutes before the faults are removed. On a second somewhat related issue, the status of safety listing standards for Network equipment is a mess right now. There is technically not a safety standard to which most network equipment should be allowed to be Listed. UL 1950, UL 1459 (which goes away April 1), and the new UL 60950 all require that the equipment listed by the safety standard be "intended to be installed per the National Electric Code". Network equipment that resides on the telco side of the demarcation point is exempt from the NEC per Article 90-2 section b which states that the following are not covered, "Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive control of communications utilities located outdoors or in building spaces used exclusively for such installations". Only the installation methodologies of the wire and cable are controlled by the NEC, the telco owned "equipment" is exempt. Therefore telecommunications equipment that is intended for deployment in C.O.'s, the outside plant, or inside the customer premise (if on the telco side of the demarc) cannot be listed to appropriate safety standard as one does not exist (although several NRTL's are inappropriately doing it to UL 1459 and UL 1950 due to NEBS requirements or customer requests). What I would propose is that industry (either through UL, T1E1.7 or TIA TR41.7) develop an ANSI safety standard for network telecommunications equipment that resides on the telco side of the demarc point or that makes up the demarc point. The new safety standard could be closely modeled after UL 1950, 1459, 1863, GR-63-CORE and GR-1089-CORE. It could incorporate several GR-63-CORE, and GR-1089-CORE items so that the original compliance as well as continued compliance could be verified by the end customer
RE: GR-1089 Above 10GHz
My experience has been that the requirement is limited to 10GHz. This includes some major (and very critical!) telecom clients who operate at ~1.3GHz. Bob Martin Sr Technical Manager ITS - Northeast The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer -- From: Paul Wooley To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: GR-1089 Above 10GHz List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 5:26PM In emissions testing for compliance to FCC standards the test is required to be extended to 10x the highest clock in the EUT. My system is spread spectrum with an in-band fundemental of 1.9GHz so for the FCC testing I have to test up to 20GHz. No problem. However I also have to comply with the GR-1089 document. It seem to me that if the EMI test is performed to 20GHz then the logical extention of that line of thought is that the EUT should also be tested to 20GHz for RF immunity. However, if I don't need to actually go to 20GHz to satisfy the BELLCORE requirement I surely don't want to for time and cost reasons. Does anyone out there have any experiance with this or know what BELLCORE expects? RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center
GR-1089 Above 10GHz
In emissions testing for compliance to FCC standards the test is required to be extended to 10x the highest clock in the EUT. My system is spread spectrum with an in-band fundemental of 1.9GHz so for the FCC testing I have to test up to 20GHz. No problem. However I also have to comply with the GR-1089 document. It seem to me that if the EMI test is performed to 20GHz then the logical extention of that line of thought is that the EUT should also be tested to 20GHz for RF immunity. However, if I don't need to actually go to 20GHz to satisfy the BELLCORE requirement I surely don't want to for time and cost reasons. Does anyone out there have any experiance with this or know what BELLCORE expects? RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center
RE: GR-1089-CORE Section 3
In GR-1089-CORE Section 3, R3-3 is a requirement and the wording probably should say SHALL instead of SHOULD NOT. In the previous version of GR-1089-CORE, 3-3 was an objective hence the SHOULD NOT wording. When this changed from a objective to a requirement on 1/1/96 O3-3 became R3-3. When the standard was reissued they apparently made the change from O to R without changing the text of the paragraph from SHOULD NOT to SHALL. When doing radiated emissions testing to GR-1089-CORE it is an objective (but not a requirement) to meet the closed door limits (Table 3-1) with the doors open. It this objective is satisfied then the closed door requirement R3-1 is considered met. If the EUT does not meet the closed door limits with the doors open the same data set is then compared to the open door limit (Table 3-2). It is a requirement that this condition be met. In the case where the closed door limits have not been met with the doors open, the doors are closed and the test repeated at the failing frequencies. This is how the standard is applied by BELLCORE. I perform this testing with BELLCORE witness on a fairly regular basis. Tom Donnelly Lucent Technologies tdonne...@lucent.com *** I'm taking an informal poll on standard interpretation in regard to GR-1089-CORE, Section 3, R3-3, which is the radiated emissions criteria for cabinet doors open. Comments from RBOCs, NRTLs, and BELLCORE will be particularly appreciated. My confusion is this. While the R preceding the 3-3 indicates that this is a requirement, the verbiage under this requirement states the following: "Radiated emissions.SHOULD NOT exceed the levels.given in Table 3-2." The levels in 3-2 are for a CABINET DOORS OPEN test. This seems ambiguous to me that there is a REQUIREMENT with the wording SHOULD instead of SHALL. Does this requirement indicate that the data must be taken but the LIMITS do not ABSOLUTELY HAVE to be adhered to? Is failing data acceptable in this instance? Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Paul Wooley Samsung Telecommunications America pwoo...@telecom.sna.samsung.com
Re: GR-1089-CORE Section 3
In Issue 1 of GR-1089-CORE, 3-3 was an objective not a requirement (although it stated that it would become a requirement effective January 1, 1996). I would suggest that it is the fact that this was originally written as an objective and not as a requirement that has led to this ambiguity. I would further suggest that since it is now a R not an O, that you shall meet it... That's my opinion. Incidentally, Cabletron has a Compliance Engineer position open in our Corporate facility in Rochester NH. We are looking for someone with a few years of experience in EMC and/or Telecom approvals including design reviews. If you are interested, please send your resume to me. My fax number is 603-337-1764 and my e-mail is fot...@ctron.com. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 603-337-2822. Regards, Ron Fotino Cabletron Systems. Inc. Paul Wooley wrote: > > I'm taking an informal poll on standard interpretation in regard to > GR-1089-CORE, Section 3, R3-3, which is the radiated emissions criteria > for cabinet doors open. Comments from RBOCs, NRTLs, and BELLCORE will > be particularly appreciated. > > My confusion is this. While the R preceding the 3-3 indicates that this > is a requirement, the verbiage under this requirement states the > following: > > "Radiated emissions.SHOULD NOT exceed the levels.given > in Table 3-2." >
GR-1089-CORE Section 3
I'm taking an informal poll on standard interpretation in regard to GR-1089-CORE, Section 3, R3-3, which is the radiated emissions criteria for cabinet doors open. Comments from RBOCs, NRTLs, and BELLCORE will be particularly appreciated. My confusion is this. While the R preceding the 3-3 indicates that this is a requirement, the verbiage under this requirement states the following: "Radiated emissions.SHOULD NOT exceed the levels.given in Table 3-2." The levels in 3-2 are for a CABINET DOORS OPEN test. This seems ambiguous to me that there is a REQUIREMENT with the wording SHOULD instead of SHALL. Does this requirement indicate that the data must be taken but the LIMITS do not ABSOLUTELY HAVE to be adhered to? Is failing data acceptable in this instance? Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Paul Wooley Samsung Telecommunications America pwoo...@telecom.sna.samsung.com
re: BellCore GR-1089 testing
Hello Mr. Leipold TUV Product Service has run this test at its Minneapolis labs for the last three years. Contact Jennifer Anderson at 612 638 0252 for a quote and Ron Amundson at 612 638 0241 for technical questions on the EMC side. Best Regards, Gene Panger TUV Product Service - Original Text From: "Leipold, Harold" , on 10-17-96 8:22 AM: To: Hello emc-pstc'ers - I need to get testing done to qualify a relay to BellCore GR-1089 (formerly TR-NWT-001089) EMC and Electrical Safety for Network Telecommunication Equipment. Several labs have been contacted and a few have called for more info - then never were heard from again. I cannot find out if they are not comfortable with the testing required - or don't want to bother with what appears to be a relatively small testing job. Does anyone out there have experience with particular labs and this requirement? Surely there are enough telecommunications relays being sold into the network equipment market to justify someone doing it. All responses will be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Harold Leipold Siemens Electromechanical Components Inc. Princeton, IN Tel (812)386-2161 Fax (812)386-2616 Internet mail leipo...@ae.sec.siemens.com ATTRIBS.BND Description: Binary data
BellCore GR-1089 testing
Hello emc-pstc'ers - I need to get testing done to qualify a relay to BellCore GR-1089 (formerly TR-NWT-001089) EMC and Electrical Safety for Network Telecommunication Equipment. Several labs have been contacted and a few have called for more info - then never were heard from again. I cannot find out if they are not comfortable with the testing required - or don't want to bother with what appears to be a relatively small testing job. Does anyone out there have experience with particular labs and this requirement? Surely there are enough telecommunications relays being sold into the network equipment market to justify someone doing it. All responses will be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Harold Leipold Siemens Electromechanical Components Inc. Princeton, IN Tel (812)386-2161 Fax (812)386-2616 Internet mail leipo...@ae.sec.siemens.com
