Re: modest proposal
I'll buy into this when all people who speak a common language get along with each other... -- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@grucad.ufsc.br To: EMC-PSTC List emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: Lou Gnecco l...@tempest-inc.com Subject: Re: modest proposal Date: Mon, Mar 27, 2000, 9:24 AM Snip: The original purpose of the esperanto language is to be a nation-free language. A language that someone learns because someone wants to talk with people from other nations, without any prejudice of race, language or faith. End snip. --- 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
Esperanto
Scott: According to Ergane 4.2; freedom = libereco justice = justeco property = bieno / eco / kvality (three different words meaning property) private = nepublika / privata / senofica (three different words in Esperanto, only one word in English) protest = protesti / protesto tyranny = tiraneco Mike Mertinooke Muriel, As you are one who has studied Esperanto, I wonder if you would be kind enough to list the Esperanto equivalents of the following words in English: Freedom Liberty rightsprotesttyranny ?justice property privacy This is not simply curiosity, as I was unable to find these in any Internet Esperanto dictionary. I am very aware of the warning given by Eric Blair (writing as George Orwell) to be cautious about adopting any language which does not contain words for such concepts. Scott Lacey --- 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
Questions about EN61000-4-6
Hi Group, Here are some of my questions and thoughts about EN61000-4-6. Any corrections and comments are greatly appreciated. In discussion of Wisdom behind all these standards, Richard Nute summarized three points raised by Martin Rowe. One of them is reasonableness or appropriateness of the standard. Please allow me to have better understanding of reasonableness or appropriateness of the EN61000-4-6. Both EN61000-4-3 (4-3 in short below) and EN61000-4-6 (4-6) verify the immunity of EUT against induced disturbances caused by incident electromagnetic fields from 150 KHz to 1 GHz. The chamber test approach used in 4-3 is not suitable at lower frequencies (150 KHz to 80 MHz), - not in principle only technically. That's why we need to perform 4-6 differently from 4-3. The methodology of 4-6 is to inject conducted disturbance to cables connected to the EUT by using direct injection or clamp coupling. The injected cable currents are supposed to be the same as induced by incident electromagnetic fields in real world. The methodology of 4-6 also implies that at low frequencies the possible disturbance directly coupled into the EUT from incident electromagnetic fields can be ignored in comparison with the disturbance indirectly coupled to the EUT via attached cables. For many well-shielded EUT that assumption works because it is difficult for low frequency electromagnetic fields to directly get into the EUT through apertures (such as slots, seams, and holes), whose dimensions are small compared to wavelength. But what if the EUT has larger openings or only plastic enclosure? Let's see an extreme example. A component cannot work properly under the illumination of 2.5 V/m incident field at 50 MHz The component would feel 2.5 V/m field when installed if the EUT is illuminated by 3 V/m incident field. But the component could work OK if injecting cable current of 3V into the EUT. The boundary 80 MHz between 4-3 (80 to 1000 MHz) and 4-6 (0.15 to 80 MHz) is not always fixed. It may be adjusted depending on different scenario. That principle is mentioned only in principle. I would like to see a real example to adjust the boundary between 4-3 and 4-6. Does it make more sense to setup a transition region, say 50 to 100 MHz, for both 4-3 and 4-6 to overlap? For the same EUT the test level of 4-3 is 3V/m, and the test level of 4-6 is 3V (80% AM @ 1KHz). Is there any explanation or verification available to show the equivalence (even roughly) between these two levels in interferences with the EUT at boundary frequency? In real world all attached cables would have induced currents at the same time if an incident field illuminates upon the EUT. In 4-6 test procedure, however, all cables are injected one by one in turn. On the other hand, in Radiated Emission test we have to manipulate the placement of all attached cable to maximize the resultant emission from all cables. Is it fair? I mean there seems to be a double standard for Radiated Emission and Conducted Immunity. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.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: modest proposal
Hi there, A little bit behind the subject, i take the opportunity to express my opinion in general on english and at the end a NEW proposal (maybe). I'm from belgium and as you certainly know we don't have our own language here. In my country we have FRENCH, FLEMISH and GERMAN. I speak/write only French, Flemish (equivalent to Dutch) and some English (it could be worse). This being said let me comment a few general problems encountered with english: - its unbelievable the long time it takes to express my opinions and put it down on paper. The same way, it takes a long time to find-out the real meaning of some sentences put forward by people who try to convince they know very well english subtleties. The use of commonly used words in simple expressions would be more efficient and helpful. - in the future i had some people who ridiculed my spelling and expressions, but that past time, thanks for your understanding There is now spell checking, it helps (a lot). - pithy enough, and i find things smoothly changing, english speaking people don't do enough effort to try to find-out what's the real meaning behind the sentences and words expressed. This happens often during meetings. Just misplace the accentuation point in a word and there it goes.. A little more interpretation effort to understand the objective of the text or at least ask for complementary information could be less frustrating when the author read the reply. - the last, and the worst. To understand english i have to have at least 2 big dictionaries of abbreviations generally used. OK EMC everybody knows but other ones... Some time ago i worked with the US airforce, how boy that's an adventure you never forget. I think it would be wise to have at least once in the original text a full expression (word) and then its abbreviated equivalent. Final modest proposal for a solution (maybe): I suggest to use hieroglyphics in stead of abbreviations, its more image speaking and universal for everybody but i'm afraid it will require an extra language on my computer. Hey Mr MicroSoft! Consider this not as a open criticisms but more as an expression of my findings during several years of traveling (-/+ 45 times to the us and 15 to canada). I enjoy to come to the states, a comfortable car and country music let's me feel like in holiday even if i'm not. Best regards to all of youPaul On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:53:40 -0500, you wrote: To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! SORRY LOU, it took me some time I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Just realize, whe strugle here with frensh, english, german, dutch, spanish, italian, greeks, norsk, and more. Whe don't require an extra one. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. See above. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: EN61326-1 Harmonics
All, I commented on this before, in essence saying that a new standards committee must be able to create a the standard they are charged-with and believe they are free to create requirements appropriate for the product familiy and that can differ as needed from other standards. Otherwise, why create new standards if the older standards are so entrenched as to kill variation? Why form a new committee if only to mimic the work of another? There are other important differences (relaxations?) between EN 61326-1 and the other new generation product family standards. I decided not to list them here because I'd suspect that somebody out there would complain and start another thread. Trying to compare different product family standards is doomed to find differences that annoys someone. Regards, Eric Lifsey Compliance Manager/Engineer National Instruments Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: bkundew...@qtm.net, nprov...@foxboro.com cc: emc-p...@ieee.org (bcc: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC) Subject: RE: EN61326-1 Harmonics Hi Brian, Here is my $0.02. (1) As far as EN61326-1 is concerned, Class A is not required to pass EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. Because EN61326 committee treated these two standards as basic standards. (2) However, they are not basic standards. They are product standards. If your product falls under their definition the product MUST comply with them no matter whether EN61326 calls for them. (3) Therefore, we found a conflict between 61326 and 61000-3-2/3 (although they are all listed in harmonized standards). How to solve the conflict? There might be two options. (A) Change 61326: Class A is also required to pass EN61000-3-2 and -3. (B) Change 61000-3-2/3: They are basic standards. (the same as 61000-4-X series). Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Fri, 24 March 2000, Provost,Norm wrote: The exclusion of harmonic test requirements in EN 61326 for equipment which need only meet Class A emission limits was a deliberate decision by the authors. It was not an omission by error. Many outside the committee now view this decision as a mistake. There is no revision in progress. Best Regards, Norm Provost -Original Message- From:Brian Kunde [SMTP:bkundew...@qtm.net] Sent:Friday, March 24, 2000 12:16 PM To:'IEEE EMC/PS Group' Subject:EMC: EN61326-1 Harmonics The EN 61326-1 family standard for laboratory equipment only lists Harmonic testing as a requirement for Class B environments. So Class A products are not required to pass the harmonics tests (flicker too). Is this going to continue as the rule in the future? Will this rule carry over to other family and generic standards? I had heard that omitting harmonic testing in a class A environment was a mistake and that it will be corrected on future versions of the standard. Can anyone validate or invalidate this statement. Thanks, Brian --- 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
Dobble Testing References
Can anyone suggest text or standard references to Dobble testing of high voltage transmission/switchgear, or just references explaining the correlation of Dobble test results to system reliability/safety? Rob Legg Tectrol Inc. rl...@tectrol.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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Some food for thought . . . It can depends what you mean by 'system'. Here's two examples: 1) A system can be a single product (like a PC) that can contain 'components' that are CE compliant (power supply, modem card, motherboard). 2) Or a system can consist of several products - a workstation, a disk server, a printer. In example '1' CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. When put together the 'system' may radiate. The individual items may have been tested in a certain configuration which the integrator may not be mimicking. There was an instance in the UK where a PC manufacturer was fined by Cardiff Trading Standards (who routinely patrol for EMC Directive - amongst others - violations). THe manufacturer of that PC used the CE + CE = CE approach. But when the unit was actually tested, it failed miserably. For example '2', you may be able to get away with CE + CE = CE. With this type of 'system', the 'modules' themselves were most likely tested in a configuration that the system 'manufacturer' (integrator) would most likely be assembling. Typically this is what happens with home PC 'systems'. Those that assemble such a 'system' at home, for home use don't have to demonstrate compliance. But then again, the home user is not bundling the package for resale. In that case I, as a manufacturer would evaluate the system because it is ultimately my responsbility in ensuring that MY end product (the bundled 'system' with a model number that I generated) meets the requirements. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Canio Dichirico [mailto:cdich...@eso.org] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:31 AM To: IEEE EMC List Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org mailto:cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org http://www.eso.org
RE: modest proposal
Muriel, As you are one who has studied Esperanto, I wonder if you would be kind enough to list the Esperanto equivalents of the following words in English: Freedom Liberty rightsprotesttyranny justice property privacy This is not simply curiosity, as I was unable to find these in any Internet Esperanto dictionary. I am very aware of the warning given by Eric Blair (writing as George Orwell) to be cautious about adopting any language which does not contain words for such concepts. Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [SMTP:mur...@grucad.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC List Cc: Lou Gnecco Subject:Re: modest proposal Group, I think this discussion of language is very important. Why? I'll speak for myself... During the last centuries/years, most of the third-world or developing countries (as you prefer) has adopted the idea of buying technologies instead of developing its own. Together with that, has come the imposing of the product's manufacturer language, that is the english, german, etc... As you can see, we don't use english because it is simple or easy to write/talk. We use it because most of the industrial world has adopted it as a universal language. Lou wrote: I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. I'm studying esperanto for some time, and I don't think esperanto is artificial at all! Esperanto was made to be easy for people from all nations. It's made of pieces from various languages (most radicals resemble latim language, the grammar is very similar to english, because of its simplicity). The original purpose of the esperanto language is to be a nation-free language. A language that someone learns because someone wants to talk with people from other nations, without any prejudice of race, language or faith. We are in entering the third millenium. I think it's time to begin thinking/acting different. Why couldn't we all talk a language that everybody has to learn, instead of only the non-english countries? It can be esperanto, universal language, etc... Well, all of these may seem only dreams from a brazilian engineer... but I think that's the way we create our world! Best Regards, Saudacoes, Salutojn! Muriel --- 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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Does CE + CE = CE? My simple interpretation of this is that the boundary for modularity ends at the enclosure that the customer sees. A short and sweet example based upon one of our designs is: We make a unit incorporating a CE marked open frame power supply. We use a CE marked processor card. Our unit interfaces to a printer. For our unit, we cannot use CE + CE = CE as it applies to the open frame power supply and processor card. We have design control over the enclosure that our customer sees around these components. As such, we have to build a prototype of our enclosure and have our unit tested for EMC and safety. Once the unit passes, we write our Declaration of Conformity and put the CE mark on the enclosure of our unit. However, we can use CE + CE = CE as it applies to the printer. Why? Because we have no design control over the printer's enclosure. During EMC and safety testing, we use any CE marked printer as a dummy load for our printer port. We exercise this port during the testing to ensure that our end of the interface holds up. If we pass testing with the CE marked printer, then we can assume that any other CE marked printer can be used. This is the reasoning that I use as my starting point to determine modularity. Only experience can help with the other factors such as interface requirements ... -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [SMTP:nutwoo...@email.msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 9:25 AM To: cdich...@eso.org Cc: emc-pstc discussion group Subject: Re: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Canio In the EMC+LVD +Machinery Yearbook 1999 was an excellent article on this very subject by Neil Harvey who at that time was with BSI. The summary said It is never possible to be sure that a system will be compliant, when using the CE+CE=CE approach. As a result, the decision regarding its adoption and use is fundamentally a matter of sound judgement, flavoured with careful risk assessment Regards Alan E Hutley Editor EMC+Compliance Journal nutwoo...@msn.com mailto:nutwoo...@msn.com www.emc-journal.co.uk http://www.emc-journal.co.uk - Original Message - From: Canio Dichirico mailto:cdich...@eso.org To: IEEE EMC List mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 01:30 Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! In the EMC+LVD +Machinery Yearbook 1999 was an excellent article on this very subject by Neil Harvey who at that time was with BSI. The summary said It is never possible to be sure that a system will be compliant, when using the CE+CE=CE approach. As a result, the decision regarding its adoption and use is fundamentally a matter of sound judgement, flavoured with careful risk assessment Regards Alan E Hutley Editor EMC+Compliance Journal nutwoo...@msn.com mailto:nutwoo...@msn.com www.emc-journal.co.uk http://www.emc-journal.co.uk Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org mailto:cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org http://www.eso.org
RE: RAPEX procedure
I found the answer to my own question. Per the Commission, Establishment of a rapid exchange of information system (RAPEX) for rapid exchange of information on products posing a serious and immediate risk, when a Member State adopts or decides to adopt measures to prevent, restrict or impose specific conditions on the marketing or use of such products. Details of the functioning of the system are set out in an annex to the Directive. Richard Woods -- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:22 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RAPEX procedure Can someone explain the RAPEX procedure as it may relate to the General Product Safety Directive? It appears to be some type of enforcement procedure. Richard Woods --- 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
Spice models for FCC 68 and other Surge Generators
We are interested in availability of SPICE models for FCC Part 68 surge generators (plus other surges for different standards.) Anyone who knows of existing models or web sites regarding this subject, please send information. Thanks, Alan deSchweinitz Digitan Systems Inc __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: The wisdom behind all these standrads
Hi Martin and Richard, The world consists of ordinary people and lawmakers. As ordinary people we must comply with laws, and respect the wisdom behind laws. On the other hand, ordinary people also have some ways to express their views on the current laws in modern democratic society. All lawmaker should respect public opinions as well. In EMC/Safety world, compliance engineers are ordinary people, and committees are lawmakers. Can we find some way to improve the communication between lawmakers and ordinary people? I think the EMC-PSTC forum is a good place for lawmakers to listen to public opinions and explain their intentions. Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Fri, 24 March 2000, Rich Nute wrote: Hi Martin: There are three issues in your message: 1) compliance to the standard; 2) reasonableness or appropriateness of the standard; 3) value added to the product through compliance. You point out that messages posted to this list address compliance to the standard, but not the other two issues. I believe the nature of the issues is such that we can effectively address compliance issues and resolve them but not the other two. A committee addresses the content of standards. Discussion of the value of the limits and of other content of a standard is only effective insofar as members of this listserver are also members of the committee. We have a few committee members as subscribers, but not all committee members are subscribers. So, a broad discussion of standards contents cannot be brought to a conclusion through the subscribers to this listserver. I have often commented on contents of safety standards, but such comments are not effective in changing the standards; to change a standard I must make a very specific input to the committee or to a member of a committee who agrees that the issue should be addressed by the committee. For political reasons, committee members are reluctant to share their views in a public forum such as this. The view may be mistaken as an official interpretation or position of the committee. Official outputs of standards committees are the minutes and the draft standards produced by the committees. For comments on those standards to be considered, the comments on those outputs must be through the official channels for such comments, not in a public forum such as this listserver. So, discussion of the appropriateness of the standard or its contents is largely ineffective in this forum. Its not that we don't have concerns regarding the contents and appropriateness of standards, its that this is not an effective place for such discussions. The same comments can be said for the value added to a product by virtue of compliance to the standard. We all have doubts as to some or all of the requirements being of value. But, expression of those doubts here will not be effective in implementing any change. Of course, the regulatory engineer's place is to question the appropriateness of a standard and its contents. And we do so. Some of us sit on the committees that draft and change the standards. But, we can't all sit on the committees; the committees would be huge and unwieldly. Whether or not safety and EMC standards make this world a better place is an interesting question. I think the EMC standards are effective in doing this. Emission and susceptibility limits establish compatibility that normal equipment operation is assured. I'm not sure safety standards are effective because we don't have a solid engineering basis for the safety standards. Instead, safety standards are based on inversion of bad experiences. This is not a good, systematic approach for predicting injury and providing safeguards -- which is what we SHOULD be doing in product safety. Best regards, Rich For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.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: A modest proposal.
Tanja, A bit off the subject, but relevant to questions you've raised. To my knowledge, there were 60,000 esperantists in the world before the WW2. 20,000 Russian esperantists disappeared in the Soviet Gulag. Those idealistic linguists were trying to create a new way of international communications without dominant single language. Stalin (you would expect) was promoting Russian language. -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [SMTP:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 4:33 PM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Lou Gnecco' Subject: Re: A modest proposal. Well said. -- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org, 'Lou Gnecco' l...@tempest-inc.com Subject: RE: A modest proposal. Date: Sun, Mar 26, 2000, 4:32 PM Lou, Esperanto (the language) had international backing. Where is it now? Who is using it? The trouble with language is that it is a thought process and a cultural thing. Changing a language artificially has not worked in the past;-- I doubt that it would work today or in the future. The EMC community at large has enough peculiar idioms which are understood world-wide. However, creating something artificially would probably confuse more people. The reason we are using English here is that the IEEE EMC-PSTC (EMC-Product Safety Technical Committee) was started here in California, in the good old U.S.A.However, if something like this were started in France or Germany, you and I would be out of luck!!! We should be thankful that so many people world-wide share their knowledge with us, even if the English grammar is not always perfect.As long as I understand the point they are making, I am very very grateful. Danke shoen; Merci; Aciu Jums; Muchas Gracias; Spasibo! (And forgive my spelling/pronunciation!) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Lou Gnecco [SMTP:l...@tempest-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:15 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: A modest proposal. Group: Having subscribed to this group for over a year now, I am really impressed by how easily we hold technical bull sessions with emc engineers from all over the world. This is a fabulous service of the ieee. There is only one problem with it: ya gotta speak english. If an engineer can't speak english, he or she is really handicapped nowadays. Like it or not, it has become the de facto world language. But english is a very hard language to learn. Linguists rank it up there among the most difficult in the world. Our spelling is really screwy, for one thing. I hate to see some of our overseas clients - smart people and good engineers - having to struggle with the inconsistencies of the language. Many of our own college graduates have problems with grammar and spelling. As a communications engineer, i can tell you that this is not a good situation. I think we ought to simplify it. If we can virtually eliminate the word he and erase the suffix -man due to political correctness, we certainly can substitute thru for through and enof for enough and make a few simple changes like that. Maybe there ought to be a new European Standard: a simplified version of English for international use. Sort of a CE-Mark version of English to make life a bit it easier for the rest of the world, and to encourage more smart people to participate in valuable forums like this one. Comments welcomed. Regards, LOUIS T. GNECCO M.S.E.E., PRESIDENT TEMPEST INC. 112 ELDEN ST. HERNDON VIRGINIA 20170 (703)TEMPEST (836-7378) CERTIFIED ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY ENGINEER CERT. # EMC-000544-NE CERTIFIED ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CONTROL ENGINEER: CERT.# ESD-00143-NE --- 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
RAPEX procedure
Can someone explain the RAPEX procedure as it may relate to the General Product Safety Directive? It appears to be some type of enforcement procedure. Richard Woods --- 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: MoU between Czech Republic and EU countries?
Kevin, we are presently submitting a short range transmitter. We have given them a test report from a recognized European radio test lab and a safety test report from TUV. They seem to be happy so far. Richard Woods --- 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: modest proposal
Group, I think this discussion of language is very important. Why? I'll speak for myself... During the last centuries/years, most of the third-world or developing countries (as you prefer) has adopted the idea of buying technologies instead of developing its own. Together with that, has come the imposing of the product's manufacturer language, that is the english, german, etc... As you can see, we don't use english because it is simple or easy to write/talk. We use it because most of the industrial world has adopted it as a universal language. Lou wrote: I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. I'm studying esperanto for some time, and I don't think esperanto is artificial at all! Esperanto was made to be easy for people from all nations. It's made of pieces from various languages (most radicals resemble latim language, the grammar is very similar to english, because of its simplicity). The original purpose of the esperanto language is to be a nation-free language. A language that someone learns because someone wants to talk with people from other nations, without any prejudice of race, language or faith. We are in entering the third millenium. I think it's time to begin thinking/acting different. Why couldn't we all talk a language that everybody has to learn, instead of only the non-english countries? It can be esperanto, universal language, etc... Well, all of these may seem only dreams from a brazilian engineer... but I think that's the way we create our world! Best Regards, Saudações, Salutojn! Muriel --- 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: EN61326-1 Harmonics
Hi Brian, Here is my $0.02. (1) As far as EN61326-1 is concerned, Class A is not required to pass EN61000-3-2 and EN61000-3-3. Because EN61326 committee treated these two standards as basic standards. (2) However, they are not basic standards. They are product standards. If your product falls under their definition the product MUST comply with them no matter whether EN61326 calls for them. (3) Therefore, we found a conflict between 61326 and 61000-3-2/3 (although they are all listed in harmonized standards). How to solve the conflict? There might be two options. (A) Change 61326: Class A is also required to pass EN61000-3-2 and -3. (B) Change 61000-3-2/3: They are basic standards. (the same as 61000-4-X series). Best Regards, Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com -- On Fri, 24 March 2000, Provost,Norm wrote: The exclusion of harmonic test requirements in EN 61326 for equipment which need only meet Class A emission limits was a deliberate decision by the authors. It was not an omission by error. Many outside the committee now view this decision as a mistake. There is no revision in progress. Best Regards, Norm Provost -Original Message- From:Brian Kunde [SMTP:bkundew...@qtm.net] Sent:Friday, March 24, 2000 12:16 PM To:'IEEE EMC/PS Group' Subject:EMC: EN61326-1 Harmonics The EN 61326-1 family standard for laboratory equipment only lists Harmonic testing as a requirement for Class B environments. So Class A products are not required to pass the harmonics tests (flicker too). Is this going to continue as the rule in the future? Will this rule carry over to other family and generic standards? I had heard that omitting harmonic testing in a class A environment was a mistake and that it will be corrected on future versions of the standard. Can anyone validate or invalidate this statement. Thanks, Brian For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Here is my understanding of the approach to systems compliance for CE marking. If all parts of the system are CE marked you are not (legally) required to re-test the system for compliance to the EMC Directive, provided you give clear instructions for assembly/installation/operation/maintenance in the instructions for use (installation guidelines). The Declaration of Conformity , as well as the instructions for use, must refer to the system as a whole. My understanding of the modular approach is that if all parts are CE-marked you are not required to put the CE mark on the system as a whole. This is the legal aspect. On the other end, I fully agree that CE + CE = CE is far from sure until you have tested the whole system for compliance ! There is a clear statement on this in the Guide to the Application of Directive 89/336/EEC published by the European Commission (1997). In sec. 6.4.2.1 (System assembled from only CE marked apparatus) there is a paragraph titled Additional comment: ... combining two or more CE-marked subassemblies may not automatically produce a system which meets the requirements of the relevant standard. I fully agree with this statement, since the wirings/packaging/grounding/shielding aspects of any assembly process can determine the EMC behavior of the complete system. So my conclusion is: the safest way is to test the system as a whole, because in any case (whether you choose to follow the modular approach or not) the Declaration of Conformity refers to the whole system and manufacturer is responsible for compliance. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Paolo Roncone Compuprint - Italy Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org on 27/03/2000 14.30.50 Please respond to Canio Dichirico cdich...@eso.org To: IEEE EMC List emc-p...@ieee.org cc: (bcc: Paolo Roncone/IT/BULL) Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype)system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out ofsubsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the "modular approach to EMC". In ordertounderstand this argument I read thepaper "Update on the European Union's EMC Directive", appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering- 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper onemayread that "For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approachmay be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if
RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Such as Appendix A in UL2601 - General Guidance and Rational I've been in this section more than once and find it very useful. Also for medical - The European Commission puts out Working Documents titled MEDDEV's. These are used to explain and define either a directive, or define terminology within directives, very useful documents. Some do exist today, but more certainly wouldn't hurt! -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:10 AM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Tania, I wholeheartedly concur with your comments. The single biggest thing I fight as a compliance engineer is the lack of clear and sufficient communications. Poor writing techniques, to include grammar and choice of words, are the toughest of problems. I see this every day in every aspect of life, whether here in the compliance world, at home with communications from my children's schools, and in local politics. Having been a local elected official, I have seen the results of poorly written regulations allow some to do what they please, in spite of the desires of the community in general. When the regulations are made clear and precise, enforcement gets easier. But when the reason why is added to the regulation, there are many fewer attempts to get around them and less enforcement is required. So here is my vote for adding the whyfors to the whats in all of our standards. And I am not talking about adding pages here, just a simple clear concise sentence of the intent would be adequate. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: tgr...@lucent.com [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:58 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Importance: Low Thank you, Rich, I notice that I am more tolerant of requirements when I understand their reason for existence.This, unfortunately, is not part of a standard's format;-- however, it would be of great benefit ( I am changing subjects now!) if standards routinely identified the objective of every test, and sometimes even of requirements. What happens often is that due to either poor sentence structure or poor translations, the language is so garbled that it is not at all clear what the whole thing is all about. This then becomes an open field for a multitude of 'interpretations'.In majority of cases this could be avoided by clearly stating the objective and employing good writing techniques. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:25 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: Re: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Hi Tania: For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. That's not the only reason... Norway uses the IT power distribution system; nothing wrong with that. But, not all Norwegian outlets include a ground contact. A few years ago, I was at NEMKO in Oslo for a meeting. The NEMKO main meeting room has two-wire outlets! (Their labs have grounding-type outlets.) When I lived in Spain, my NEW condo (1994) had BOTH grounding and two-wire outlets, depending on location. The outlets that were optimally positioned for lamps were two-wire; all of the rest were grounding. Unlike the USA, the two-wire outlets in both NEMKO and my condo accept grounding-type plugs. Two-wire outlets commonly exist in homes throughout the world. For this reason, our grounded products are also double-insulated. (The ground wire is for EMC purposes, not for safety purposes.) Best regards, Rich --- 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: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
I also agree that the headphones are a patient connection. Hi, Its been a while since I looked at UL 544, but a few comments. 1. Headphones are an applied part (UL2601-1) or patient connection (UL544). They come into direct contact with the patient. You can argue that they are an ordinary patient connection (Clause 2.18 of UL544). But, it is still a patient connection. The limit is 50 uA for ordinary patient connection. 2. How long is this product going to be in the market? UL 544 goes away on 1/1/2003 for new products and 1/1/2005 for all products. You might be better off going to UL2601-1 now. In UL2601-1 this type of patient connect is Type BF. The patient leakage current limit is 100 uA in normal condition and 500 uA in single fault condition. 3. Call UL. Maybe I missed some out in UL544. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:36 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment* Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- 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 __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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:
RE: Immunity Port distinction EN 50082-2:1995
Mike, Again - perfect clarification. Thanks a million. Dan Sincerely, Daniel C. Kinney Lead Qualification Engineer Horner APG, LLC Advanced Products Group 640 N. Sherman Drive Indianapolis, IN 46201 Phone: (317) 916-4274 ext. 462 FAX:(317) 916-4287 Email: dan.kin...@heapg.com Website: http://www.heapg.com -Original Message- From: Michael Mertinooke [SMTP:mertino...@skyskan.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:36 AM To: 'Dan Kinney (A)' Subject: RE: Immunity Port distinction EN 50082-2:1995 Yeah, no sweat. If the ports are for signal functions, and if unplugging the port will not change the process, then this is Table 2. If you unplug the cable and the process stops or goes whacky, then you are Table 3. One example is if you have a programming panel for setup purposes, or if you have a port to monitor some process now and then. This is incidental usage and has no direct bearing on the safety or operation of the PLC system. So the more relaxed numbers apply. Sometimes, in fact, you can avoid test entirely (e.g. a blocked-off port that is only used for troubleshooting). Can anyone distinguish the difference between ports described in Table 2 and Table 3 and advise which category my ports apply. See ya. Mike Mertinooke --- 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: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation?
Mike, Wow - that helps a lot. Thanks for the information. Dan Sincerely, Daniel C. Kinney Lead Qualification Engineer Horner APG, LLC Advanced Products Group 640 N. Sherman Drive Indianapolis, IN 46201 Phone: (317) 916-4274 ext. 462 FAX:(317) 916-4287 Email: dan.kin...@heapg.com Website: http://www.heapg.com -Original Message- From: Michael Mertinooke [SMTP:mertino...@skyskan.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:28 AM To: 'Dan Kinney (A)' Subject: RE: EMC - Declaration of Incorporation? Dan; Until 6 minths ago I was working for one of your competitors. All PLCs were shipped with Declarations of Conformity. The Declaration of Incorporation actually would be more appropriate, but we found our customers screaming for a DofC. So fine. We hired a Notified Body, set up TCFs, and went with DOCs. Also please note that the DOI is only mentioned in the Machinery Directive. This has often been interpreted to mean that it is only appropriate for mechanical parts. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that the rules are not clear for something like a PLC, which has its own enclosure (and therefore is a device) but which does not perform a complete standalone action (and therefore is a component). In this case none of the rules fit exactly - so I am in favor of using whatever existing precedents you can find. In this case, DOI would fit the situation perfectly: the device cannot be meaningfully tested all by itself, but you need to declare that when properly installed in accordance with user instructions, the device will meet all the declared requirements. One other point is the ongoing debate about random combinations of modular products. It is questionable whether the configuration you tested actually represents the real world. A DOI would sidestep this whole rathole, whereas a DOC is sort of a gamble. If you declare absolute conformity with a DOC, how do you know some customer won't put together a magic combination of modules that will violate emissions or immunity requirements? Personally, I spent a lot of test money proving to my satisfaction that I was really and truly testing the absolute worst case configuration for each test. I shipped with a DOC and a clear conscience, but a DOI would have made life a lot simpler and cheaper. See ya. Mike Mertinooke --- 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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
THis whole issue is especially frustrated when an NRTL, Notified Body, CB, or other relevant Authority can't even understand the purpose, intent, or Pass-fail criteria for a (thier own) particular requirement! At least one NRTL still has trouble with different offices giving different interpretations...then you have an NRTL refusing its own mark! Mel Pedersen Midcom, Inc. Homologations Engineer Phone: (605) 882-8535 mpeder...@midcom-inc.com Fax: (605) 882-8633 -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:s_doug...@ecrm.com] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 7:10 AM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Tania, I wholeheartedly concur with your comments. The single biggest thing I fight as a compliance engineer is the lack of clear and sufficient communications. Poor writing techniques, to include grammar and choice of words, are the toughest of problems. I see this every day in every aspect of life, whether here in the compliance world, at home with communications from my children's schools, and in local politics. Having been a local elected official, I have seen the results of poorly written regulations allow some to do what they please, in spite of the desires of the community in general. When the regulations are made clear and precise, enforcement gets easier. But when the reason why is added to the regulation, there are many fewer attempts to get around them and less enforcement is required. So here is my vote for adding the whyfors to the whats in all of our standards. And I am not talking about adding pages here, just a simple clear concise sentence of the intent would be adequate. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: tgr...@lucent.com [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:58 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Importance: Low Thank you, Rich, I notice that I am more tolerant of requirements when I understand their reason for existence.This, unfortunately, is not part of a standard's format;-- however, it would be of great benefit ( I am changing subjects now!) if standards routinely identified the objective of every test, and sometimes even of requirements. What happens often is that due to either poor sentence structure or poor translations, the language is so garbled that it is not at all clear what the whole thing is all about. This then becomes an open field for a multitude of 'interpretations'.In majority of cases this could be avoided by clearly stating the objective and employing good writing techniques. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:25 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: Re: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Hi Tania: For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. That's not the only reason... Norway uses the IT power distribution system; nothing wrong with that. But, not all Norwegian outlets include a ground contact. A few years ago, I was at NEMKO in Oslo for a meeting. The NEMKO main meeting room has two-wire outlets! (Their labs have grounding-type outlets.) When I lived in Spain, my NEW condo (1994) had BOTH grounding and two-wire outlets, depending on location. The outlets that were optimally positioned for lamps were two-wire; all of the rest were grounding. Unlike the USA, the two-wire outlets in both NEMKO and my condo accept grounding-type plugs. Two-wire outlets commonly exist in homes throughout the world. For this reason, our grounded products are also double-insulated. (The ground wire is for EMC purposes, not for safety purposes.) Best regards, Rich --- 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:
RE: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment
Good Day - First, why are you using UL544? Why not use UL2601, based on IEC601-1 with US deviations? Beware, UL544 UL187 may be used until Jan 1 2003, after that use of UL2601 will be mandatory. Also, As of Jan 1 2005, all Listed, Classified and Recognized medical and dental products, where UL544 or UL187 was used to evaluate the product, must comply with UL2601-1 (direct quote from UL2601). This may shed some light - definitions from UL2601 Applied Part: Entirety of all parts of equipment including the patient leads which come intentionally into contact with the patient to be examined or treated. For some equipment, particular standards may consider parts in contact with the operator as an applied part. Enclosure: Exterior surface of equipment including: - all accessible metal parts, knobs, grips and the like - accessible shafts - for the purpose of tests, metal foil, with specified dimensions, applied in contact with parts of the exterior surface made of material with low conductivity or made of insulating material (i.e. insulated / double insulated enclosures) Patient Circuit: Electrical circuit of which the patient forms a part. F-Type applied part: Applied part isolated from all other parts of the equipment to such a degree that the patient leakage current allowable in single fault condition is not exceeded when a voltage equal to 1.1 times the highest rated mains voltage is applied between the applied part and earth. Type B equipment: equipment providing a particular degree of protection against electric shock, particularly regarding: allowable leakage current, reliability of the protective earth connection (if present) Type BF equipment: Type B equipment with an F-Type applied part. Allowable leakage currents: Enclosure Leakage: N.C. (normal condition) .1 milliamps, S.F.C. (single fault condition) .5 milliamps Same limits for Type B or BF equipment Patient Leakage: Same as Enclosure Leakage for both Type B or BF equip. (Taken from Table IV of UL2601, other leakage currents of concern are Earth Leakage, Patient Aux Current, Patient Leakage Current with Mains Voltage Applied) With regards to your equipment, depending on your design, I would say it is either a Type B or Type BF. I would lean towards the Type B. It would be VERY wise to confer with the engineer at your chosen NRTL (domestic National Recognized Testing Lab). These are the people you need to convince on the classification of your product and your chosen route to compliance. I hope this didn't confuse you any more, I know it can be and that's why I do not hesitate to contact the engineers at UL from time to time. I have found the ones I deal with helpful and very understanding and easy to work with (this is not intended to promote UL, only my opinion of them). -Original Message- From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:36 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment* Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts),
MoU between Czech Republic and EU countries?
Hello Group, Does anyone know if there is a MoU between the Czech Republic and EU countries for the acceptance of each others type approval test reports for low power transmitters (CEPT/ERC 70-03 type) . Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 --- 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: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
Hi, Its been a while since I looked at UL 544, but a few comments. 1. Headphones are an applied part (UL2601-1) or patient connection (UL544). They come into direct contact with the patient. You can argue that they are an ordinary patient connection (Clause 2.18 of UL544). But, it is still a patient connection. The limit is 50 uA for ordinary patient connection. 2. How long is this product going to be in the market? UL 544 goes away on 1/1/2003 for new products and 1/1/2005 for all products. You might be better off going to UL2601-1 now. In UL2601-1 this type of patient connect is Type BF. The patient leakage current limit is 100 uA in normal condition and 500 uA in single fault condition. 3. Call UL. Maybe I missed some out in UL544. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: me...@aol.com [mailto:me...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:36 PM To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com; m.r...@ieee.org; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment* Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- 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: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Canio In the EMC+LVD +Machinery Yearbook 1999 was an excellent article on this very subject by Neil Harvey who at that time was with BSI. The summary said It is never possible to be sure that a system will be compliant, when using the CE+CE=CE approach. As a result, the decision regarding its adoption and use is fundamentally a matter of sound judgement, flavoured with careful risk assessment Regards Alan E Hutley Editor EMC+Compliance Journal nutwoo...@msn.com www.emc-journal.co.uk - Original Message - From: Canio Dichirico To: IEEE EMC List Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 01:30 Subject: Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE? Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! In the EMC+LVD +Machinery Yearbook 1999 was an excellent article on this very subject by Neil Harvey who at that time was with BSI. The summary said It is never possible to be sure that a system will be compliant, when using the CE+CE=CE approach. As a result, the decision regarding its adoption and use is fundamentally a matter of sound judgement, flavoured with careful risk assessment Regards Alan E Hutley Editor EMC+Compliance Journal nutwoo...@msn.com www.emc-journal.co.uk Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org
Re: A modest proposal.
Cortland Following up on your comments from Churchill below, I think that we should all consider the concept of less is more when discussing a topic. Short and to the point email leaves a lot less to interpretation, regardless of the language used. Best Regards,Paul J Smith Teradyne, Inc., paul.j.sm...@teradyne.com Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com on 03/27/2000 02:07:19 AM Please respond to Cortland Richmond 72146@compuserve.com To: Lou Gnecco l...@tempest-inc.com, ieee pstc list emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Re: A modest proposal. More on BASIC English, etc: _The Oxford Companion to the English Language_ (ISBN 0-19-214123-X) has entries about BASIC English, Airspeak (ICAO English), Seaspeak and restricted vocabulary English. Things in modern usage we old f*rts might object to are hardly addressed by these abbreviated English forms at all. They are concerned only with maximizing communication with minimal knowledge on a speaker's or listener's part. While I sometimes find BASIC English awkward, it does have a lot to recommend it. I find, though, that I can get close to BASIC's ease of being understood by just making my words as short as I can. Wasn't it Churchill who said, Short words are best, and the old, short words, better? Ad Astra -- per Aspirin! Cortland --- 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: UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
Yes, I also belive that your equipment has no patient leads and that the enclosure leakage was performed as part of the power supply. If in doubt regarding the enclosure leakage, best is to ask the power supply manufacturer for a complete report. Why are you using UL544 power supply? This standard is becoming obsolete soon! There are many power supplies out there evaluated to UL2601-1 which is harmonized with IEC 60601-1. Best Regards At 15:35 24/03/2000 EST, me...@aol.com wrote: Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- 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 Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- 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: The wisdom behind all these standrads
After reading John's reply to The wisdom behind all these standards, I then read a colleague's question regarding UL 544 and leakage current. He mentioned a 50uA leakage current limit for cardiac tissue. I want to use this as an example of the wisdom behind all these standards. At some point in time, somebody performed an experiment to determine how much leakage current is safe for cardiac tissue. This was then incorporated into the CSA standard. From that point on, people don't need to re-invent this wheel when they make medical equipment. (I for one don't want to be the guinea pig for more cardiac tissue leakage current testing!) The safety standards from IEC, UL, CSA ... are loaded with little tidbits of information that can prevent customers from getting injured or even killed. The EMC standards set limits that minimize potential problems of interference and equipment failures due to Electro-Magnetic effects. Many people look at compliance as a money drain. However, take a look at this example. How much would it cost a medical manufacturer to determine a safe cardiac tissue leakage current? How would they get permission to perform the testing? Who would they use for the guinea pigs? Would people get injured during the experimentation? They should thank God that the standard is already there. All they need to do is look it up. By using, contributing to and updating these standards; we raise everybody's quality of life by supporting the technology that makes safer, higher quality products. There is the wisdom. That is why it is worthwhile to meet the standards. We may have differing opinions regarding where the limits should be set in the standards. But, as long as the standards are there, we have a starting point for the negotiation. If you eliminate the confusion of, which standard to meet for which country? Then the utility of safety and EMC standards become much more apparant. There is a great deal of overlap among standards from different countries. That's why, in my opinion, a single set of worldwide standards would be an ideal that we should always support and reach for. The wisdom is there, the implementation needs work. -Original Message- From: John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 1:27 PM To: 'Martin Rowe (TMW)'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: The wisdom behind all these standrads Maybe I'm reading Martin's message wrong. If I am, then I apologize. Here's my response to Martin's message. Based on what I've learned (?) over the years, the intent of these standards is to control interference. I think this is a good thing. I don't necessarily agree with some of the limits imposed, but that's another discussion. What we must remember here, though, is that is nearly all the cases (VCCI is a little different, it is mandatory BY LAW to meet these standards! Whether I believe in an EMC standard's appropriateness or not, or whether the standards add value or not is not an issue. Complying with the law in order to keep my company from being fined, or worse losing business due to blacklisting as a result of repeated non-conformance is THE ISSUE. It is also worth noting that customers (at least in my case) are becoming more knowledgable about regulatory affairs, and often use regulatory compliance as a bench mark when choosing a supplier. These views are mine, and mine only, and do not necessarily reflect those of my company. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Martin Rowe (TMW) [ mailto:m.r...@ieee.org] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: The wisdom behind all these standrads I've been reading messages from this list for several months, and I see many questions about how to comply with the long list of EMC standards. Yet, I can't recall anyone ever questioning the appropriateness of any standard. That is, should the standand add value to a product or to those who use it? Is it that the EMC engineer's place is not to question the wisdom of a standard's value, but simply to make products with those standards, whether or not we agree with the intent of those standards? That's not to say that these regulations are bad. Maybe they're good because they make the world a better place for those who use electronic products. Just wondering. /\ | Martin Rowe | / \ | Senior Technical Editor | /\ /\ | Test Measurement World | / \/ \/\ | voice 617-558-4426 |/\ /\ / \/ | fax 617-928-4426 | \/ \/ | e-mail m.r...@ieee.org | \ / | http://www.tmworld.com |\/ --- This message is from the
RE: modest proposal
I had to throw this in here wink. This came from a friend of mine...the source I do not know. Remember, this is a joke :) Let's just make sure we don't all start speaking New-Speak a la 1984. The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish. In the first year, s will be used instead of the soft c. Sertainly, sivil servants will reseive this news with joy. Also, the hard c will be replaced with k. Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome ph will be replaced by f. This will make words like fotograf 20 persent shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent e in the languag is disgrasful, and it would go. By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing th by z and w by v. During ze fifz year, ze unesesary o kan be dropd from vords kontaining ou and similar chnages vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru. -Original Message- From: Lou Gnecco [mailto:l...@tempest-inc.com] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 20:54 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: modest proposal To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: Spice Models for Surge Generators
All, speaking of surge generators, I'd like to make one to generate a short transient and a ring wave. The main parameters of the first wave are: Vpk - 600 volts Ipk - 300 amps Rise-time - under 1 microsecond 50% decay in about 6 microseconds General shape - double exponential The main parameters of the second wave are: Vpk - 600 volts IPA - 300 amps Ring time 1 MHz Duration to zero - about 8 cycles The circuit elements are fairly easy to design, but I was wondering if there were any solid state devices I could use for a switch? i.e. IGBT, FET, TRIAC etc. Any suggestions? Thanks, Derek Walton --- 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:Spice Models for Surge Generators
Hi Alan and Jim I am using ICAPS4 from INTUSOFT. Surge generators are part of the std. library. Best regards George * Dr. Georg M. Dancau * HAUNI MASCHINENBAU AG * * g.m.dan...@ieee.org * Manager Technology Research * * TEL: +49 40 7250 2102 * Kampchaussee 8..32 * * FAX: +49 40 7250 3801 * 21027 Hamburg, Germany * * home: Tel: +49 4122 99451 * Hauptstr. 60a * * Fax: +49 4122 99454 * 25492 Heist, Germany* Forwarded for Alan. Jim Reply Separator Subject:Spice Models for Surge Generators Author: Alan de Schweinitz alan_...@digitan.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/24/00 12:25 PM We are interested in availability of SPICE models for FCC Part 68 surge generators (plus other surges for different standards.) Anyone who knows of existing models or web sites regarding this subject, please send information. Thanks, Alan deSchweinitz Digitan Systems Inc --- 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 --- Internet Header Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by sphmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) with ESMTP id HAA18639; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by ruebert.ieee.org (8.9.3/8.9.3)id HAA08736; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:50:30 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:37:35 -0500 Message-ID: 000ba0c5.c22...@mail.monarch.com From: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher) Subject: Re:Spice Models for Surge Generators To: Alan de Schweinitz alan_...@digitan.com, emc-p...@ieee.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Sender: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com (Jim Bacher) X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.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: Certification of Products and other emerging countries
Tania, I wholeheartedly concur with your comments. The single biggest thing I fight as a compliance engineer is the lack of clear and sufficient communications. Poor writing techniques, to include grammar and choice of words, are the toughest of problems. I see this every day in every aspect of life, whether here in the compliance world, at home with communications from my children's schools, and in local politics. Having been a local elected official, I have seen the results of poorly written regulations allow some to do what they please, in spite of the desires of the community in general. When the regulations are made clear and precise, enforcement gets easier. But when the reason why is added to the regulation, there are many fewer attempts to get around them and less enforcement is required. So here is my vote for adding the whyfors to the whats in all of our standards. And I am not talking about adding pages here, just a simple clear concise sentence of the intent would be adequate. Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: tgr...@lucent.com [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 4:58 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com; ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: RE: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Importance: Low Thank you, Rich, I notice that I am more tolerant of requirements when I understand their reason for existence.This, unfortunately, is not part of a standard's format;-- however, it would be of great benefit ( I am changing subjects now!) if standards routinely identified the objective of every test, and sometimes even of requirements. What happens often is that due to either poor sentence structure or poor translations, the language is so garbled that it is not at all clear what the whole thing is all about. This then becomes an open field for a multitude of 'interpretations'.In majority of cases this could be avoided by clearly stating the objective and employing good writing techniques. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Rich Nute [SMTP:ri...@sdd.hp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 5:25 PM To: tgr...@lucent.com Cc: geor...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; private_u...@lexmark.com Subject: Re: Certification of Products and other emerging countries Hi Tania: For example, I always thought that it was a perfectly ridiculous idea to require that all equipment falling under the scope of IEC 950 should be double insulated, as pushed by certain Nordic countries many ages ago. Until--- until it was pointed out to me that certain Nordic countries have a heck of a time finding a reliable ground connection in permafrost. I no longer think that this is a ridiculous idea;-- I am just grateful that we still have choice in IEC 60950. That's not the only reason... Norway uses the IT power distribution system; nothing wrong with that. But, not all Norwegian outlets include a ground contact. A few years ago, I was at NEMKO in Oslo for a meeting. The NEMKO main meeting room has two-wire outlets! (Their labs have grounding-type outlets.) When I lived in Spain, my NEW condo (1994) had BOTH grounding and two-wire outlets, depending on location. The outlets that were optimally positioned for lamps were two-wire; all of the rest were grounding. Unlike the USA, the two-wire outlets in both NEMKO and my condo accept grounding-type plugs. Two-wire outlets commonly exist in homes throughout the world. For this reason, our grounded products are also double-insulated. (The ground wire is for EMC purposes, not for safety purposes.) Best regards, Rich --- 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.
Re:TEM cell
forwarded for Cristian... Jim Reply Separator Subject:TEM cell Author: Cristian Goiceanu goice...@mail.dntis.ro List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/24/00 2:12 PM Help me to obtain some detailed information about TEM cells? I particularly like to know : Can I use a TEM cell at frequencies higher than cut-off frequency of TE10 mode? If yes: 1. How much can I increase frequency and still have a quasi-uniform field inside? 2. Do I have to place the exposed/emitting device in a special position? 3. Can I calculate the E field in this case? Thank you in advance for any help, Cristian Goiceanu Contact me by e-mail: goice...@mail.dntis.ro --- 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:Spice Models for Surge Generators
Forwarded for Alan. Jim Reply Separator Subject:Spice Models for Surge Generators Author: Alan de Schweinitz alan_...@digitan.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 3/24/00 12:25 PM We are interested in availability of SPICE models for FCC Part 68 surge generators (plus other surges for different standards.) Anyone who knows of existing models or web sites regarding this subject, please send information. Thanks, Alan deSchweinitz Digitan Systems Inc --- 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
Is the modular approach to EMC the same as CE + CE = CE?
Hi All! The designer/manufacturer of a (prototype) system has recently exposed to me the following argument. If the system is built out of subsystems that are CE-marked, the complete system may be considered compliant with the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC. The designer stated that this is possible on the basis of the modular approach to EMC. In order to understand this argument I read the paper Update on the European Union's EMC Directive, appeared on the European Edition of Compliance Engineering - 1999 Annual Reference Guide. In this paper one may read that For systems and installations ... either a system or a modular approach may be used to demonstrate compliance. The TCF [Technical Construction File] route is thus not required for verifying a system and/or installation if all subunits and subsystems comply with the EMC requirements (modular approach), presuming that the referenced standards are relevant for intended environments and that installation guidelines are followed. Does what I read on Compliance Engineering confirm what declared by the (prototype) system designer? Which are the installation guidelines that the paper quoted above is referring to? Which are the differences, if any, between the modular approach and the equation CE + CE = CE? I remember reading in this forum (plenty of times) that CE + CE does not necessarily equal CE. Any replies or comments are welcome. Thank you all in advance! Canio Dichirico European Southern Observatory Technical Division - Electronic Systems Department Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2 D-85748 Garching bei München Tel. +49-89-3200 6500 Fax +49-89-320 23 62 email: cdich...@eso.org website: www.eso.org
Re: modest proposal
Hi all, that's the world we live in. Like it or not, English is the de-facto international language, especially in the technical/scientific community. I personally enjoy participating in this forum mostly for its invaluable technical contents but I also find it a very useful tool for improving my knowledge of the english language (mostly american English I should say). As a non-english participant, I personally prefer colloquial or informal English than the bureaucratic English used in the regulatory documents (CENELEC, IEC, FCC etc.). The spirit of this forum is to be an informal gathering of professionals open to discuss any EMC/Sfafety issue like they would do if they met personally. The only recommendation I would make - especially to the majority of US participants - is not to let too much slang into their language, if they honestly want to reach out to all international participants. It's not a question of oversimplifying the english language, just take care of using a little bit more of plain standard English than you would normally do when talking to your next-door buddies ! I think that would not impoverish the language and would just be more understandable to a wider international audience. As Lou pointed out, not everyone out there has the same proficiency in the english language so it's just a question of keeping it a little more standard if you want to maximize the EMC/Safety knowledge and experience that you can tap from this planet . Having said that, I personally enjoy extending my vocabulary and learning american slang, but that's another, more personal, point. Thanks to all Paolo Roncone Compuprint - Italy P.S. BTW (= By The Way) Scott, what's the meaning of Please include gotcha's to watch out for.. ? (taken from you post with subj: PCI Cards EMC Testing) --- 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: A modest proposal.
Hi All! I really appreciate Lou's intention to make this forum more understandable to technicians whose mother tongue is not English. I belong to such a group (being an Italian). Indeed at times I have some problems in understanding some sentences and this is when the language becomes too colloquial. Conversely, purely technical style sounds clear to me and I think that such a style better fits the purposes of this forum. I do not think that spelling changes would make my life with English easier. Upon reading enof I would be VERY puzzled! It would certainly look like a non-English word to me. With an Italian spelling I would write: Enof is tu mac! ;-) Thank you all for contributing to my knowledge of both EMC/Safety and English. Canio Dichirico - Original Message - From: Lou Gnecco l...@tempest-inc.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 03:14 Subject: A modest proposal. Group: Having subscribed to this group for over a year now, I am really impressed by how easily we hold technical bull sessions with emc engineers from all over the world. This is a fabulous service of the ieee. There is only one problem with it: ya gotta speak english. If an engineer can't speak english, he or she is really handicapped nowadays. Like it or not, it has become the de facto world language. But english is a very hard language to learn. Linguists rank it up there among the most difficult in the world. Our spelling is really screwy, for one thing. I hate to see some of our overseas clients - smart people and good engineers - having to struggle with the inconsistencies of the language. Many of our own college graduates have problems with grammar and spelling. As a communications engineer, i can tell you that this is not a good situation. I think we ought to simplify it. If we can virtually eliminate the word he and erase the suffix -man due to political correctness, we certainly can substitute thru for through and enof for enough and make a few simple changes like that. Maybe there ought to be a new European Standard: a simplified version of English for international use. Sort of a CE-Mark version of English to make life a bit it easier for the rest of the world, and to encourage more smart people to participate in valuable forums like this one. Comments welcomed. Regards, LOUIS T. GNECCO M.S.E.E., PRESIDENT TEMPEST INC. 112 ELDEN ST. HERNDON VIRGINIA 20170 (703)TEMPEST (836-7378) CERTIFIED ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY ENGINEER CERT. # EMC-000544-NE CERTIFIED ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CONTROL ENGINEER: CERT.# ESD-00143-NE --- 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: A modest proposal.
More on BASIC English, etc: _The Oxford Companion to the English Language_ (ISBN 0-19-214123-X) has entries about BASIC English, Airspeak (ICAO English), Seaspeak and restricted vocabulary English. Things in modern usage we old f*rts might object to are hardly addressed by these abbreviated English forms at all. They are concerned only with maximizing communication with minimal knowledge on a speaker's or listener's part. While I sometimes find BASIC English awkward, it does have a lot to recommend it. I find, though, that I can get close to BASIC's ease of being understood by just making my words as short as I can. Wasn't it Churchill who said, Short words are best, and the old, short words, better? Ad Astra -- per Aspirin! Cortland --- 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
modest proposal
To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- 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: A modest proposal.
Well said. -- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) tgr...@lucent.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org, 'Lou Gnecco' l...@tempest-inc.com Subject: RE: A modest proposal. Date: Sun, Mar 26, 2000, 4:32 PM Lou, Esperanto (the language) had international backing. Where is it now? Who is using it? The trouble with language is that it is a thought process and a cultural thing. Changing a language artificially has not worked in the past;-- I doubt that it would work today or in the future. The EMC community at large has enough peculiar idioms which are understood world-wide. However, creating something artificially would probably confuse more people. The reason we are using English here is that the IEEE EMC-PSTC (EMC-Product Safety Technical Committee) was started here in California, in the good old U.S.A.However, if something like this were started in France or Germany, you and I would be out of luck!!! We should be thankful that so many people world-wide share their knowledge with us, even if the English grammar is not always perfect.As long as I understand the point they are making, I am very very grateful. Danke shoen; Merci; Aciu Jums; Muchas Gracias; Spasibo! (And forgive my spelling/pronunciation!) Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Lou Gnecco [SMTP:l...@tempest-inc.com] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 5:15 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: A modest proposal. Group: Having subscribed to this group for over a year now, I am really impressed by how easily we hold technical bull sessions with emc engineers from all over the world. This is a fabulous service of the ieee. There is only one problem with it: ya gotta speak english. If an engineer can't speak english, he or she is really handicapped nowadays. Like it or not, it has become the de facto world language. But english is a very hard language to learn. Linguists rank it up there among the most difficult in the world. Our spelling is really screwy, for one thing. I hate to see some of our overseas clients - smart people and good engineers - having to struggle with the inconsistencies of the language. Many of our own college graduates have problems with grammar and spelling. As a communications engineer, i can tell you that this is not a good situation. I think we ought to simplify it. If we can virtually eliminate the word he and erase the suffix -man due to political correctness, we certainly can substitute thru for through and enof for enough and make a few simple changes like that. Maybe there ought to be a new European Standard: a simplified version of English for international use. Sort of a CE-Mark version of English to make life a bit it easier for the rest of the world, and to encourage more smart people to participate in valuable forums like this one. Comments welcomed. Regards, LOUIS T. GNECCO M.S.E.E., PRESIDENT TEMPEST INC. 112 ELDEN ST. HERNDON VIRGINIA 20170 (703)TEMPEST (836-7378) CERTIFIED ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY ENGINEER CERT. # EMC-000544-NE CERTIFIED ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE CONTROL ENGINEER: CERT.# ESD-00143-NE --- 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
