The report was produced by TNO, a Dutch private organization
(http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context
marktencontent=markt_persberichtlaag1=189item_id=200806250026Taal=2)
and some results are available here:
http://www.amc.nl/?pid=5266
Manufacturers name and equipment type included.
Am I alone in finding the number of wall warts supplied for the UK market that
have the plug part of the design upside down, irritating?
The cable entry is then often at the top causing the wall wart to lean out
from the socket and any logo and labelling is also up the wrong way.
Not just
The 13A UK wall socket is always earth pin uppermost as I’m sure you know
when fitted to a wall – extension leads laying on the floor and floor boxes
are another matter.
The intent with the warts with cable coming out the top is that the cable is
going to run upwards to a desktop/work
Unfortunately it's not just the cable entry that's often at the top, but the
mass of the electronics, which with linear wall warts can be quite
substantial, causing the wall wart to pull away from the socket, which would
not happen if it was up the correct way (that the manufacturer probably
In message
of2b774aca.a990abff-on80257474.002e26fd-80257474.002f1...@selex-comms.co
m, dated Thu, 26 Jun 2008, david.cole...@selex-comms.com writes:
Am I alone in finding the number of wall warts supplied for the UK
market that have the plug part of the design upside down, irritating?
The
Dear List Member, http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/
http://www.ieee-pses.org/
The IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society will hold its 2008 Symposium in
Austin Texas on October 20-22. The program is full with a diverse range of
topics and is now 2-1/2 days. Refer to the
Gert-
You mention one possible reason for the test results is that the EUT's
have immunity deficits.
I agree, that is one possibility.
here are a few other possibilities:
(BTW- not affiliated in any way with medical devices nor with, all
comments OOO )
b)
The major difference between medical and automotive equipment is volume. The
engineering to build in immunity is spread across a huge volume in the
automotive industry; not so for medical equipment, where volumes are much
smaller. Next, hospitals have a controlled rf environment; automobiles may
Comment (e) is unrealistic. Assuming 61000-4-6 was applied, the amount of
power required to directly inject 1, 3 or 10 Volts oc into 150 Ohms is well
above the radiated power from an rf id device.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Conway, Patrick R
There’s a possibility, depending the cables and interface types in EUT, that
the 61000-4-6 test did not apply much current to the device.
Ari Honkala
SGS Fimko Oy
Finland
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: 26.
Hi John:
Unfortunately, the printed report doesn't seem to be available at that
address. I was hoping to read a computerized translation of the report, as
poor as that might be.
If anyone can find the report (or a link to it), I'm interested in it. It
certainly seems to have stirred up
Patricks point is well taken with regard to old equipment. However, if the
medical equipment is functioning as designed
then this throws the entire Medical Device Directive ( and all of its
associated immunity
testing) into question does it not?
After all when we test a unit for immunity the
In message
of7a79aaf8.c7461c7b-on88257474.00581b3e-88257474.0058a...@slpower.com,
dated Thu, 26 Jun 2008, pat.law...@slpower.com writes:
Unfortunately, the printed report doesn't seem to be available at that
address. Â I was hoping to read a computerized translation of the
report, as poor
These two standards appear to be identical, at least in scope with both
applying to equipment rated 75A and below. Does anyone know why this is
so?
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
Ralph,
IEC 61000-3-5 is an older technical report giving direction for making
flicker measurement on products greater than 16A.
Whereas IEC/EN 61000-3-11 is a current standard and is a requirement
(for the EU market place) for products rated greater than 16A.
Regards,
David Spencer
EMC
In message
de87437fe365cb458c265ea3d73b6f1d03a24...@xbc-mail1.xantrex.com, dated
Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ralph McDiarmid ralph.mcdiar...@xantrex.com writes:
These two standards appear to be identical, at least in scope with both
applying to equipment rated 75A and below. Does anyone know why this
All,
I am shopping for a service that provides administration of calibrations. I
need this because I cannot spend the resources to administrate this myself. I
would like to get opinions from anyone who uses these services so I can
establish their track record. I realize that the scope each
Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/299/24/2884
$15 to download the article.
From the summary, no real info on the test process:
*Design and Setting * Without a patient being connected,^ EMI by 2 RFID
systems (active 125
While slightly off-topic, this discussion got me thinking about the
measurement of the voltage on the cable. If done with a RF cable current
clamp, do you have to do a conversion of some sort if the cable is assumed to
be 150 ohms?
For a 50 ohm system, a 3V level measured with a clamp would
None of the below. 61000-4-3 specified rf source impedance is 150 Ohms,
calibrated into 150 Ohms load impedance. The 1, 3, and 10 Volt levels are
open-circuit quantities, thus the potential developed in the matched load is
one-half the limit. The current flowing on a cable under test will depend
Forwarded to the list by Scott Douglas, EMC-PSTC Admin. Please make all
contacts off-line directly to the agent.
Davis, CA
3 months
I need a contractor with a very specific skill to help out one of my
clients for a few months. The manager is looking for some that that has
worked with IEC
21 matches
Mail list logo
