John:
After all your years on the committee and having heard all the technical
arguments, I am surprised the committee is still trying to justify the
additional costs on each product? If the power system is so bad it can be
fixed cheaply for the consumer once and for 30+ years by changing the
What is Dithering?
The dictionary defines dithering as agitating or in a state of indecision.
Dithering is a method for distributing energy across a wider spectrum.
Another and more accurate term for dithering is spread spectrum. In a
spread spectrum application the clock frequency or carrier
Jon:
150 watts under the old revisions was borderline compliance without and PFC.
The old requirements were either not applicable to some products or they
were for home use. Home us was and still is a flat line. The limits for
home products are the same for 75 watts (300ma) as for 16 amperes.
Jim:
There are conflicts between product standards and product family standards.
Your opinion is as accurate as the next guy except for your remark
concerning the system is out of control. This is a as accurate an one can
get. As for standing too close to the microwave, this to will stop after
One could follow the guidelines in the standard but the alternatives are
sometimes as costly as buying the test equipment that does this
automatically. The alternatives are labor intensive except in the simplest
of products. Look at the web site www.ergonomicsusa.com for test equipment.
They
There was a meeting between the US Trade, the Low Frequency Emissions
Coalition and CENELEC on Wednesday. The purpose of the meeting was to
postpone the implementation of EN61000-3-2 and -3 until 2004. By then the
standards will have had a complete revision. The news is not out yet but
many
Mark;
There are several standards. One was mentioned before (IEC61000-3-3). This
standard is vague on its application to inrush currents but most people
consider it also applies to inrush. Committee work in process clarifies
this in the latest draft now out for vote. Maybe the vote is complete
If A2LA wants something they should be able to define it and tell their
customer (you laboratory) what it is they want. Some things are not
definable. How do you put an uncertainty on insulation thickness
measurements when the value is given by a vendor to your specifications?
Put the shoe on
Average number of messages is now between 30 and 50 a day. And people want
more! I wish I had enough free company time to participate in this mountain
of mail. We need to increase the quality and substance of the messages
rather than to increase the amount.
Dave George
Unisys
-Original
Still better, only important chatter should be posted. I have just violated
my suggestion.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: John Coyle [mailto:jco...@norsat.com]
Sent: 10 March, 2000 5:15 PM
To: 'Robert Legg'; 'IEEE EMC-PSTC Forum'
Subject: RE: EMC and product safety split?
A better
Gert:
You are predicting the future. The committee drafts are the way you say but
they have not been approved. Approval or rejection is anticipated sometime
in the fourth quarter 2000. This a estimated schedule. If it is approved
there is always a grand fathering period. This is helpful since
You have already spent the difference jury rigging something and it is not a
valid test when through. Where is the economy?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 6:03 PM
To: Dwight Hunnicutt; EMC PSTC
Subject: RE:
Try Ergonomics, Inc at Ergonomicsusa.com or 215 357 5124
Dave George
-Original Message-
From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:20 PM
To: EMC PSTC
Subject: impact /probes
Mech testers-
Anyone know of sources for the UL1950
[mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:08 PM
To: George, David L; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Limits for Class D equipment in EN61000-3-2
It is my understanding that the delay period is over for the IEC version.
It is also my understanding that the 4 year period
Nadeau:
The delay period is complete and the standard applies to products 50 Watts
and above. However the actual application of the standard is up to the each
country and how it is adopted. For example, in Europe the standard applies
to only some products until 1 January 2001. On this date it
Kyle:
Lots of questions. First the ITE product is professional equipment and it
draws more than 1 kW. Therefore there are no limits for professional
products over 1 kW, even after 2001. Class E was a proposal by the IEC
committee and it was not accepted and therefore not in the standard.
I
Chris:
I am not sure how to contact them but I know a good contact who can help
manufacturers with the certification processes in Australia. His
information is:
Kevin Richardson
Stanimore Pty Limited
8 Mindaree Ave.
Wyoming NSW 2250
Australia
Email: k...@compuserve.com
Tel: (61) 2 43 29 4070
Has anyone heard of any regulatory requirements from India. My search has
found nothing. Do they have a standards organization?
Dave George
Unisys
-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single
Jon:
Please look at the title for the 601 standard. It is an EMC safety
standard. Look at EN 55011 for emissions.
Dave George
Unisys
-Original Message-
From: jgri...@itl.co.il [mailto:jgri...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 3:48 PM
To: George, David L; emc-p
...@lyons.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:48 PM
To: george.da...@unisys.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Medical Device Directive, IEC 601-1-2, and IEC 1000-3-2
In message 8E37550684B3D211A20B0090271EC59D01AF1427@tr-exchange-
1.tr.unisys.com George, David L writes:
Industry has
Pat:
61000-3-2 is a horizontal standard and it applies to all products unless
specifically excluded by 61000-3-2. The criteria is defined by CENELEC and
it is not necessarily specified by the individual product standards. This
is why it is so important to watch basic and horizontal standards
Russell:
This is the right group. We have an opinion on everything.
Power factor is tied up with the complex subject of power quality and low
frequency emissions. The US controls this on a facility basis with IEEE 519
and in Europe it is controlled by the EMC Directive under EN 61000-3-2.
Since there is still some confusion of the subject of power EMC, the
following workshop may be of interest to the members of this forum.
Dave George
Unisys
___
To All,
The second USCCEMC Harmonics Workshop will be held May 6th
I would agree is the scope was narrowed to worst standards.
Dave George
-Original Message-
From: b...@namg.us.anritsu.com [mailto:b...@namg.us.anritsu.com]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 11:04 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Awards for Worst EMC/PS qualities
Hi Group,
We have already
Derek:
It is not so much as being organized but to what extent. Except for a few
critical applications there is no need for mandatory immunity requirements
if there are emission requirements. Probably the reverse is also true but
to my knowledge this has never been proven. Immunity is
Best person to consult with is Kevin Richardson in Australia. His address
follows. He has helped us out and I highly recommend his services. His URL
is:
100356@compuserve.com
Dave George
Unisys
-Original Message-
From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON [mailto:umbdenst...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:
To All:
For your information, a workshop on harmonic generation. Since the copy
function does not display the same format, you will find the formatted
document in the attachment.
Dave George
Unisys
Workshop
A 2-day Workshop investigating issues concerning powerline harmonics
generated by
Paul:
There are many standards with this unit of measurement. Usually it is best
to hunt for a standard using the product or application nomenclature. I
have a database of acoustic standards which we can search. Please give me
some help and I will try to locate the standard or standards you
Lisa:
There seems to be one difference. Can anyone verify how the date code
is to be displayed? As in the old directive, Directive 98/37/EC
requires the use of the year of manufacture. The old Directive
indicated the year of manufacture should be a part of the CE mark, The
new Directive
Doug:
The change was an addition of a sentence to the existing definition. It
is up to the manufacture to determine if the product is professional or
not. You are on your own as far as the scope is concerned. The writers
(SC77A/WG1) say it includes everything. When reading the document there
This is the same problem appearing in IEC 61000-3-2 and -3. They solved
the problem by allowing the manufacturer to decide if the product falls
into the professional category. Then the manufacturer can make the
determination and plan accordingly.
Dave George
Unisys
--
Patrick:
Perhaps the conflict of dates is in the source of the document. The IEC
may say one date and the EU may adopt quite another. As an example: an
EU parallel vote document is usually pretty much in sync with the IEC.
IEC 60950 on the other hand was about 1 and a half years behind the IEC
Gary:
This standard is full of conflicts. Yes it is referenced by 50082-1 but
be careful. It is a product standard and therefore applies to all
products but with varying degrees. Even though it is referenced by
50082 the dates and conditions in EN 61000-3-2 apply. A few broad
statements can
I have not seen many comments about the remarks of Mr. Lawler (remarks
copied at the end of this note). He raises an important point about
standards which have a major effect on product design and cost.
We see a proliferation of EMC standards coming from the IEC and
sometimes blindly adopted by
When selecting an AC source one should be concerned with the source
impedance and inrush current capabilities for emission testing and
inrush current measurements required for the CE mark. The power must
also be clean enough to make higher frequency measurements. The AC
source should also be
I would like to discuss the flip side as indicated below.
Consultants and companies own what is called intellectual property. It
is knowledge or processes gained through the sweat of costly
investigations and trial and error. This is a possession with value.
All too often I see company
Well said.
Dave George
Unisys (sorry for the plug)
--
From: Rose, Manning I[SMTP:ros...@srdpost.daytonoh.ncr.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 9:34 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org; richard_c...@iris.scitex.com; Jim Hulbert
Subject: Upcoming EMC Seminar
who emc-pstc
To All:
For information.
The European Union has put out a notice to all national committees aimed
at clarifying the implementation dates for the harmonics and flicker
standards. (Reference TC741 JPV/is/970722 dated 1997-07-10) They have
also referenced the 555 series standards and in their
Pat:
Class E limits would be for equipment greater than 1000 watts. Class E
limits are contained in IEC document SC77A/164/CD. It has been commented on
by national committees and the results will be discussed at the next WG1
meeting starting on 24 April 1997.
A previous draft from SC77A/WG1
Obviously the different accreditation clubs are pressuring us into
compliance with their wishes. This should be opposed. Who is to say one
accreditation system is better than the other? If we ignore their requests
rather than jump to comply we would be better off. What is so wrong about
Rules are rules. Because we let NVLAP into the situation we now have a more
ridged and rigorous certification system in the US than in Europe for some
applications. If we are not careful how we implement the rules it will only
get worse. There are many people in the government who have not
42 matches
Mail list logo
