Rich,
There us to be a series of specifications for noise equipment in office
environments - not so much what type of equipment but more on the order of a
quiet office environment equipment had to be 50 or 55 dBA, I forget which. Lots
of nasty things to go along with all of
I was not arguing that PEDS should be allowed to operate throughout ascent
and descent. I was responding to Woodgate's comment that if PEDS are
causing a problem, there must be serious immunity issues with aircraft
avionics. I know in detail what the immunity requirements are, and I know
that
Have the chart in front of me and still making no sense out of it.
Table 3 Test specification T 3.1E calls out some test points and a
dwell time along with the reference to IEC 68-2-1, -2, -14 and -56. Under the
method column it then says that the method in Annex b can be used.
Ken, you may be right but it is like trying to convince the FAA that
there is no harm in using car gas in airplanes. There are just too
many ways for uncontrolled fuel to become contaminated from unknown
sources.
With respect to the EMC and immunity issues, it is not the technical
UL has 2 standards which pertain to power cables. UL 817 and UL 1072
Warren Birmingham
Epsilon-Mu Consultants
On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 09:32 US/Pacific, rbus...@es.com wrote:
I have been tasked with finding a standard and test procedure to
validate the reliability of flexible cables
I went to the Global Engineering Website and http://www.global.ihs.com
and found over 300 standards related to the keyword acoustic You can
narrow the search.
Warren Birmingham
Epsilon-Mu Consultants
On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 08:43 US/Pacific, richwo...@tycoint.com
wrote:
Are there
Bob,
A good idea, but we are dealing with some older technology in many cases.
The VOR (VHF Omni-Range) receivers are based on a pair of pulses from the
navigation station. The station puts out a rotating pulse with a sync pulse
when the rotating pulse is at 0 degrees (magnetic). Your receiver
You don't say to which standard UL has investigated the Product A
device or whether is is a listed product or a Recognized Component.
The listed product A must conform to the was it was built by the
manufacturer. Changes/options to it must be shown in the Followup
Services Books, otherwise
I read in !emc-pstc that John Juhasz john.juh...@ge-interlogix.com
wrote (in 2a1845f4cde8d511b4400090279c703bfb6...@bctexc10.ilx.indsys.ge
.com) about 'Add-On Printed Circuit' on Mon, 16 Sep 2002:
What are the regulatory requirements/manufacturer's responsibilities for
product B?
(est. 2-3 inches
I read in !emc-pstc that Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote (in
003e01c25daa$8da4b380$cb3e3...@corp.auspex.com) about 'Earthing
through screws.' on Mon, 16 Sep 2002:
I wasn't aware that primary grounding securements
could be used for another purpose.
It depends on the applicable safety
Hello Group,
We are considering relocating our 3 meter EMC chamber. Can you:
* Recommend a company that is proficient at this and will work in the Bay
Area ( San Jose / San Francisco CA)
* Give estimated costs
* Share things to watch out for
* Things you would do different the next
One thing that surprises me about avionics is the reports of spurious
and misleading readings from instruments due to interference. It seems
in these days of error checking and verification that we should be able
to make instruments which are either confident of the data received or
capable of
Richard,
I would contact Steven Kraemer @ TUV Rheinland in the Toronto office. He is
very knowledgeable in the area of Noise requirements in the EU.
regards,
John
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:44 AM
Tom,
Thank you, your information is very helpful.
-doug
---
Douglas E. Powell, Compliance Engineer
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
Mail stop: 203024
1626 Sharp Point Drive
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
970.407.6410 (phone)
970-407.5410 (fax)
mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com
---
I wasn't aware that primary grounding securements
could be used for another purpose.
Regards, Doug McKean
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at:
Heatsinks and EMIAny metallic structure capable of carrying circulating
currents will
radiate. Ungrounded heatsinks can be particularly susceptible to
radiation, or carrying crosstalk from one part of a circuit to
another part. Regards, Doug McKean
---
I've been watching this discussion with interest. It appears you are
agreeing with each other - at some length. (grin) The subject of
interference to airborne navigation and communications receivers seems
never to go away. Since it was the probability of just such interference
which lead the FAA
Richard,
I have three different articles about this subject. I think I found them on
CDs from recent IEEE EMC Symposiums but I don't remember which ones or even
if they were all on the same CD. I saved the files so I can e-mail them to
you if you wish; as I don't think the files are that big.
Most of what you say below meshes with my experience and does not contradict
my basic premise, that PEDs can only interfere through aircraft antennas. I
am curious what the resolution of the Boeing installation was. Equipment
undergoing EMI qualification must be tested with a representative
I have been tasked with finding a standard and test procedure to validate the
reliability of flexible cables over time. I have found a standard, EIA TP-41C
(EIS-364-41C), but it focuses primarily on the electrical connectors rather
than the cable. Another standard Mil-C-13777G is used by some
Very good point. Obviously the cables could be very long, at least as long
as half the aircraft, if the 12 Vdc supply were situated in the exact center
of the aircraft. Since the laptops were qualified running of a 50/60 Hz
power mains, the measured CSIPR emissions don't apply to this mode.
Actually the mil-std appendix does exactly what you suggest; the following
is excerpted from the discussion for RE102, which controls radiated electric
field emissions:
The basic intent of the requirement is to protect sensitive receivers from
interference coupled through the antennas associated
Are there any EU or national (e.g. GS) normative requirements to comply with
any of the following standards or any other acoustic standards for ITE?
EN27779 Acoustic measurement of airborn noise emitted by computer and
business equipment.
EN29295 Acoustic measurement of high frequency noise
Colleagues,
I am seeking your input.
Manufacturer A sells a complete, fully approved (CE, FCC Part 15, UL, etc)
product (product A)
Manufacturer B makes a device (product B) that will plug into a connector in
product A
(actually inside product A's enclosure - like a 'daughter' module) as a
This discussion is touching on several aspects of Personal Electronic
Devices (PED's) aboard aircraft. Bruce Donham, of Boeing, has a two-year-old
paper with some hard data at:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_story.html
Also, here's a cross reference to PED
Greetings All,
I sort of remember reading an article on heatsinks and radiated emissions
within the past 12 months. In short, the article indicated that the fins of
the heatsink should be considered an antenna regarding radiated emissions.
Has anyone else remember seeing such an article? If so,
Ken
During the mid 90s we manufactured equipment that was installed on 747s
which was tested to RTCA/DO-160C and all the cables on that aircraft for
that system were unscreened. Boeing informed us that they would not permit
screened cables due to the increase in weight that would then affect the
I do realize there is a big difference in the use of cable
shielding/screening between general and commercial aviation practices.
However the same general aviation aircraft that get by with little or no
cable shielding/screening also have no electronic critical flight controls,
so it is a wash.
Firstly all avionic equipment is qualified to RTCA/DO-160 (European
equivalent EUROCAE ED-14).
All new equipment is test to DO-160D however there is still equipment
installed on aircraft that was originally tested to DO-160A.
Overtime the DO-160 has become more stringent with tighter emission
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote
(in 0h2i002t0im...@mtaout03.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations -
civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002:
Another way to say this is to paraphrase the appendix of MIL-STD-461D/E,
which states categorically that there is no
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote
(in 0h2i001lcfw...@mtaout04.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations -
civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002:
My response is that conducted path is so lossy as to be negligible.
But how long are the cables? I think we have more
To all interested parties:
The September meeting of the RMCEMC IEEE Society is:
The Mysteries of Grounding on Tuesday, September 17, at
the Courtyard by Mariott in Louisville, CO from
7:00pm to 8:00pm. The speaker will be Daryl Gerke of
Kimmel Gerke Associates.
For more details please go to
I agree that we agree. The reason I responded in so much depth on this
thread is that I consider the underlying issue behind the terminology very
important, and I was dismayed during an earlier similar thread at some of
the responses posted on this forum. The issue I am referring to is that RE
My response is that conducted path is so lossy as to be negligible.
Consider that the 12 Vdc is developed by conversion from either aircraft 28
Vdc, or 400 cycles. In either case, that converter or power supply must
meet the conducted emissions requirements of RTCA/DO-160, or its European
34 matches
Mail list logo
