No argument there - I was wondering what the
general modus operandi was.
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Senior Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications Corp.
Tel: 303-706-5467
Fax: 303-799-6222
Cell: 303-204-2974
Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com;
Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org
I don't think it is at all complicated, at least in principle. Maybe a
devil will emerge out of some details I am missing...
I don't see how an end-driven wire can radiate more efficiently than a tuned
half-wave dipole. That model can be used to convert from field intensity at
X meters to peak
In a message dated 7/7/2003 4:17:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
I'm looking for a high power transorb ( NOT MOV ). Currently the
biggest I can find is 5kW. Can anyone point me to a higher power
device?
5 kW for how long? Isn't it the total energy that is
I read in !emc-pstc that lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in 196.1cf48d62.2c3a
f...@aol.com) about 'High Power Transorb' on Mon, 7 Jul 2003:
I'm looking for a high power transorb ( NOT MOV ). Currently the
biggest I can find is 5kW. Can anyone point me to a higher power
device?
5 kW for
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote
(in bb2efbe8.2b77%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com) about 'cable
maximization - do you or don't you??' on Mon, 7 Jul 2003:
Why not calculate the cable conducted emission that would result in radiated
spec level compliance, and levy
I read in !emc-pstc that lfresea...@aol.com wrote (in 7a.439a5e0a.2c3ad
c...@aol.com) about 'cable maximization - do you or don't you??' on Mon,
7 Jul 2003:
I've often wondered what would happen if the FCC ( for example )
had under cover engineers that took products barely passing to
Hello Derek,
Try General Semiconductor Industries or SGS-Thompson, They both have at lest
5 kW devices.
Best regards
Helge Knudsen
Test Approval manager
Niros Telecommunication
Hirsemarken 5
DK-3520 Farum
Denmark
Tel +45 44 34 22 51
Fax +45 44 99 28 08
email h.knud...@niros.com
Neil,
Are there any public documents accessible on the WWW regarding the
framework directive you mention?
Nick.
At 9:44 + 4/7/03, Neil Helsby wrote:
Joe,
I haven't seen any replies to this query so will just put in my ha-peth
(cent) for what it's worth.
In order to declare
Hi all,
I'm looking for a high power transorb ( NOT MOV ). Currently the biggest I can
find is 5kW. Can anyone point me to a higher power device?
Thanks,
Derek N. Walton
Owner L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility
Poplar Grove,
Illinois, USA
www.lfresearch.com
Rich,
Inductive Devices operating at 13.56 MHz are Class 1 and are therefore
harmonized in the EU.
Non-specific 13.56 MHz devices are not Class 1 and are therefore not
harmonized. See http://www.ero.dk/rtte
Regards,
Frank de Vall
Assa Abloy ITG
Derek N. Walton wrote:
I've often wondered what would happen if the FCC ( for example ) had
under
cover engineers that took products barely passing to test labs.
Specifically,
what the results would be :-)
That is pretty close to what the FCC used to do, remember? Testing indoors
at one
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hi Charles,
I always made it my responsibility (the owner of product) to ensure that the
max config was tested, including cables.
I find that most lab techs won't remind you of this, once you have arrived
with your equipment, either they don't have
Scope appears to be for end-use stuff only, so I would only use as guidance,
as I have done for other EMC stds . I am not familiar with this standard. Are
there any significant differences in immunity or emission requirements, as
compared to the Basic (61000-3 and -4) or Generic stds? Note that
An excellent opportunity to ask a question of list members, especially those
involved in standards writing.
Why not calculate the cable conducted emission that would result in radiated
spec level compliance, and levy a cable conducted emission requirement?
Then OATS testing would not require
In a message dated 7/7/2003 9:05:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
jim.bac...@paxar.com writes:
Charles, I have used three labs over the last two years. Every single one of
them maximized the cables. One of the labs was part of a large company, the
other two were smaller privately owned labs. In
Charles, I have used three labs over the last two years. Every single one of
them maximized the cables. One of the labs was part of a large company, the
other two were smaller privately owned labs. In each of these cases the
reports specified that they maximized the cables.
An the other hand, 20
When the standards changed to move the EUT and peripherals to the back edge of
the test table, cable maximization was left mostly up to gravity with the
cables being draped as they fell. Most test facilities do not go any further
than that. I have seen OEMs that go so far as to do cable
Keven, check out the following sites.
http://www.ul.com/argentina/index.htm
http://www.ul.com/argentina/overview.htm
http://www.int-app.tuv.com/SouthAm/Argentina/Argentina.htm
http://www.ce-mag.com/ARG/Jones.html
http://europe2.dynamicweb.dk/Default.asp?ID=72
Can anyone advise where I can find:
- good information on Argentina's regulatory requirements concerning
electrical safety and what you need to do etc
- where I can find a listing of non-Argentine labs whose reports are
acceptable
- information relating to differences, if any, from USA and IEC
19 matches
Mail list logo
