Re: Ground Fill on Multi-Layer PCBs
Darrell, one can only guess whether it is necessary to fill unused ground area. You haven't supplied enough information to tell. If the ground is a reference ground plane for establishing impedance anywhere then you must fill the plane. If thermal considerations exist then fill it. If current considerations exist then fill it. It's hard to make a case for not filling. To consider this trade-off at all makes me wonder how hard it is to do the extra work. Ground fill is a simple thing to do in most modern CAD systems and would be an automatic for me unless I had some excess capacitance in a circuit to worry about. Fred Townsend Darrell Locke wrote: Group, On two layer boards its always good to fill unused area with ground (signal return) for tight coupling. What about a six layer board with high speed traces sandwiched between two ground/power planes. Should the layer with only signals have ground fill? I don't think it would hurt EMC performance, but is the gain in decoupling worth the extra work? Anyone have expereince with this or know of technical papers on the subject? Thanks Darrell Locke Advanced Input Devices --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SEMI - EN standards cross reference
Nick, I have worked with the SEMI safety guidelines development committee for many years, and also with CE-Marking compliance... Generally speaking, there is no correlation between SEMI standards and EN Standards. That is to say, typically end users request line-by-line assessment of products to SEMI safety guidelines of thier choice. Typically this is SEMI S2 is requested which, in turn references several other SEMI safety guidelines as normative references (Such as SEMI S8-ergonomics, SEMI S1-hazard warning labels, SEMI S13-user documentation). No SEMI Safety guideline contains a statement such as demonstration of conformance to EN XX may be taken as conformance to this guideline and, of course, no EN standard has equivalent line items to the SEMI safety guidelines. Although SEMI safety guidelines may be coorelated to EN standards that address similar topics or range of topics, the assessment challange is in the details and the details are often quite different. Regards, Lauren Crane TUV America Product Service Division Cedar Park, TX 512 401-4922. -Original Message- From: Nick Williams To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: 6/25/2002 10:19 AM Subject: SEMI - EN standards cross reference We've had an enquiry from someone who wants to sell CE marked semiconductor manufacturing plant to a location in the far east. They are hoping that they can find a way of correlating the EN standards which they have already applied for CE marking purposes to the SEMI standards which their customer is demanding. If anyone has experience or relevant documentation for this type of project, please would they get in touch. I would expect to pay an appropriate amount for suitable materials. Regards Nick. Conformance Ltd - Product safety, approvals and CE-marking consultants Tel. + 44 1298 873800, Fax. +44 1298 873801 Registered in England, Company No. 3478646 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Environmental question
Andrew: One could theorize that the better growth had nothing to do with RF, but with the tower not competing with the surrounding trees for nutrients. Did New Scientist make any cause and effect comments? I wonder what the EMC-PSTC group thinks of this issue - should there be concern for irradiating trees with cellular phone calls? My own opinion mimics the tag line of John Stoessel on a US ABC-TV news magazine show: Give me a break. (idomatic expression meaning something like go away, don't you have better things to worry about?) Regards, Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. 65 Crandon Way Rochester, NY 14618 Phone: 585 442 3909 Fax: 585 442 2182 j.schan...@ieee.org - Original Message - From: Andrew Carson andrew_car...@uk.xyratex.com To: Scott Douglas dougl...@naradnetworks.com; Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@eel.ufsc.br; Lista de EMC da IEEE emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: RE: Environmental question I remember reading an article about this in New Scientist. After several years of operation they had found the Trees to either side of the antenna were growing taller and stronger than the rest of those in the Forest. Andrew Carson Senior Compliance Engineer Xyratex, UK -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Sent: 25 June 2002 13:16 To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz; Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Re: Environmental question Muriel, Don't know if there are any agency type regulations but can remember this issue came up when the government wanted to install a communications antenna in the north woods of Wisconsin. The antenna was to be used to communicate to submarines deep under water using something like 30 Hz or 60 Hz radio waves. The antenna was a long (miles long) cable buried underground. There were many battles between the local citizens, various environmental and animal groups, and the government (US Navy?). If I recall correctly, there were even court cases trying to prevent the antenna from being installed. The concerns were related to what effect the RF would have on the environment to include plants and animals. Don't know for sure, but I believe the antenna was actually installed and was/is operating. Might be worth a look to see what came of that and to see what arguments were made pro/con. Might even be something came out of all that related to what you want to know. Regards, Scott Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.com/ At 06:13 PM 6/24/02 -0300, Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: mechanical deformation rating under repeated impact
Chet, You might want to look in UL Safety Standard 508 starting with Part 1 Paragraph 6. This standards requires some very aggressive mechanical tests for enclosures. Ron Baugh VeriFone, Inc. -Original Message- From: Summers, Chet [SMTP:csumm...@pelco.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:23 AM To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail) Subject:mechanical deformation rating under repeated impact Hello group, I am looking for a standard (or standards) that rates the repeated impact or detent withstand of small electronic enclosures (app. one cubic foot or less in volume). I am aware of UL's impact rating test, but I am looking for something a bit more aggressive. Is there such a standard or guideline published that characterizes the amount of deformation an enclosure exhibits under repeated hammer blows, for example? The object delivering the blow is not limited to hammers, it could be any such weapon--lead pipe, pipe wrench, ice pick, screwdriver, combat boot(?)... Any info or direction is much appreciated! Chet Summers Compliance Engineering Group Pelco Ph: (559) 292-1981 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Environmental question
The following represents my thoughts on the matter. For the original query, and those looking for information on actual standards/recommendations on the original subject matter, there is none to be found in the answer below. Since I am self-employed, I need not concern myself with embarrassing anyone but myself: The original question related to rf fields in a forest or other uninhabited area. That last being an intrinsically species-ist statement, because the concern necessarily relates to the non-human denizens of the forest, fauna and for all I know flora as well. I lived in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the early '70s and recall the controversy surrounding the submarine communications system, predictions of cows not giving milk, etc. As pointed out by others, that was an underground ELF installation and likely not the kind of thing the original query addressed. That sounded to me more like a cell phone or other type of repeater tower installation. I would expect that whatever effects might be postulated, the effects of ELF vs. VHF/UHF are considerable. Further, a VHF/UHF tower would not immerse the innocent forest dwellers in the same kind of large area immersion associated with a buried ELF conductor whose purpose it is to transmit signals throughout a significant fraction of the globe's surface. The repeater's main beam, even if omni-directional, has a null towards the ground. To my knowledge there is no correlation established between a particular rf exposure and health effects in humans, other than gross heating at very high illumination intensities. Before everyone jumps on that and starts citing study after study, the point I am making is that there is no known unsafe or safe level beyond which predictions of a particular effect with high certainty can be made. All that you really have is the doctrine of prudent avoidance, the idea that if someone, anyone, can imagine a possible harm, even without any evidence to support it, then prudence dictates avoidance and control. Such is the current state of the art. Given that, it would seem a bit premature, indeed arrogant, to levy restrictions on rf emissions that might impinge on non-human, indeed non-animal life. I suppose if one were greatly concerned about the occasional bird that flew through an rf beam and was momentarily illuminated, one could use the same kind of heating calculations applied to humans and adjust for bird sizes and probable illumination times and arrive at a limit on ERP. Mind you I am recommending no such thing, but I'll bet there are people out there right now who if they read this thread would immediately hop on their cell phones and discuss the need for exactly such measures. One caveat. Simply due to the again species-ist tendency of man to use guinea pigs rather than humans as test cases, there is likely a large body of knowledge on the effects of all kinds of different electromagnetic radiation on small animals and perhaps plants as well. There is no doubt that at SOME level of immersion/illumination that ill effects are perceived. It is the nature of the people who do such work to linearly extrapolate those results to obtain safe levels of exposure orders of magnitude below the test levels. I'm obviously not trying to be diplomatic here, but real students of nature recognize that linear models, while extremely useful, can not in the general case accurately predict the functional relationship between an independent and dependent variable while the independent variable takes on ranges over several orders of magnitude. End of rant. -- From: mark_mayn...@dell.com To: mur...@eel.ufsc.br, emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Environmental question Date: Tue, Jun 25, 2002, 10:26 AM The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) have done the most research into this issue, that I am aware of. If you look into the TCO (Swedish Workers Union) website, you can find standards relating to ELF VLF magnetic and electrical fields exposure. http://www.tco.se/eng/ Thanks- Mark M. -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [mailto:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:13 PM To: Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Environmental question Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel
mechanical deformation rating under repeated impact
Hello group, I am looking for a standard (or standards) that rates the repeated impact or detent withstand of small electronic enclosures (app. one cubic foot or less in volume). I am aware of UL's impact rating test, but I am looking for something a bit more aggressive. Is there such a standard or guideline published that characterizes the amount of deformation an enclosure exhibits under repeated hammer blows, for example? The object delivering the blow is not limited to hammers, it could be any such weapon--lead pipe, pipe wrench, ice pick, screwdriver, combat boot(?)... Any info or direction is much appreciated! Chet Summers Compliance Engineering Group Pelco Ph: (559) 292-1981 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Class 2 Power Unit
Hello Brian, To my recollection (and in simplified form): Maximum Output voltage, less than 30V rms/42.2V peak/60V DC (including open circuit) Maximum Output current, less than 8 Amps, at one minute of overload, including short-circuit Charts and Tables within the standard further clarify the requisites. Best regards, Art Michael The Safety Link www.safetylink.com o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-0-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o The Web's Most Comprehensive Collection of Electrical Product Safety Standards Resources On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Brian McAuliffe wrote: Can anyone define, or point me to a definition of, a Class 2 Power Unit i.e. as covered by UL 1310. I know I could buy the standard to find out but .. Brian McAuliffe MCA Compliance Solutions Ltd Unit 2 Lissane Business Park|Clarecastle|Co.Clare|Ireland w: www.mcac.ie e: i...@mcac.ie t: +353 (0)65 6823452 m: +353 (0)87 2352554 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: SEMI - EN standards cross reference
Nick, What EN's did your product meet? EN 1010, EN60204 and EN292-1 2 are the closest relevant spec's I've used which relate to SEMI S2. You may want to look at the Machinery Directive, Low Voltage Directive and the EMAS Voluntary Directive ( Environmental Management and Audit Scheme) for their applicability to your product type. Remember Semi S2 is not a standard it is a design guideline primarily for US based customers. You should also review some US standards such as NFPA 70 79, National Electric Code ( NEC), the UBC / UFC ( Uniform Fire Code / Uniform Building Code) and 29CFR-1910 ( OSHA ) You may want to get a copy of SEMI S2 and identify the delta's between S2 and your EN certifications to your customers. Good Luck, Jeffrey Collins Sr. HW Engineering Manager EMC/ NEBS/ Safety/ Reliability CIENA Core Switching Division 10480 Ridgeview Court, Cupertino, CA. 95014 (408) 366-4806, Fax (408) 366-4866 jcoll...@ciena.com http://www.ciena.com -Original Message- From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:19 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SEMI - EN standards cross reference We've had an enquiry from someone who wants to sell CE marked semiconductor manufacturing plant to a location in the far east. They are hoping that they can find a way of correlating the EN standards which they have already applied for CE marking purposes to the SEMI standards which their customer is demanding. If anyone has experience or relevant documentation for this type of project, please would they get in touch. I would expect to pay an appropriate amount for suitable materials. Regards Nick. Conformance Ltd - Product safety, approvals and CE-marking consultants Tel. + 44 1298 873800, Fax. +44 1298 873801 Registered in England, Company No. 3478646 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Units, Symbols and Style Guide
My attempt to attach these files for all of you to download did not work, as the system won't allow the attachments. Here's the plan: If you would like a copy of PSMA's Units, Symbols and Style Guide, and my Writing Guide, just send me an email. I'll reply with a .pdf file for each. It will take some time, but we are planning to make both of them available at no charge on the PSMA Web site (psma.com). PSMA presently offers, and will continue to offer, the Units, Symbols and Style Guide as a notebook insert, 3-hole punched with index tab, printed on coated card stock for $0.30 in lots of 10. Chuck Mullett Chairman, Power Sources Mfg. Assn. Principal Systems Engr., ON Semiconductor --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Hi Xing, Find my comments below marked with ***. Your email stated: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? *** To answer your question, you/we will need to know the applied voltage and frequency across that capacitor. On the surface, it does appear that the CB and your lab measured this parameter under different conditions. Also, was this single capacitor the only component that was bridging the reinforced barrier during the CB's test? it depend on test equipment? *** Possibly. How to judge *** This can easily be calculated. The measured results should be very close to the calculated results. For instance: @120V 60Hz, I = 0.213 mA @220V 50Hz, I = 0.325 mA @240V 50Hz, I = 0.354 mA @264V 50Hz, I = 0.390 mA How to obtain accurate result? *** Use good quality instruments (I'm sure that you are) with suitable measurement resolution. I hope this will assist you in approaching a satisfactory resolution to your problem. Comments anyone? Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Formaldehyde requirements for Europe
This website is for the German RAL agency, which has responsibility for the Blue Angel environmental requirements for products in Germany. http://www.blauer-engel.de/willkommen/willkommen.htm Thanks- Mark M. -Original Message- From: Tyra, John [mailto:john_t...@bose.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Formaldehyde requirements for Europe Hello Everyone, I am new to the list and was hoping that someone could help me with the following question. I have been tasked with researching Formaldehyde out gasssing regulations for products utilizing composite ( particle board) material. Our speaker cabinets utilize this material. I have recently received some information concerning German regulations which seems to indicate that our speakers must be subjected to testing by a recognized authority in Germany. Does anyone have any information on this subject or have any sources they can direct me too? I am happy to share the limited info I have so if you are interested please e-mail me privately. Thanks in advance for your help. regards, John Tyra Design Assurance Engineering, Product Safety Regulatory Manager Bose Corporation The Mountain, M.S.-450 Framingham, MA 01701-9168 508-766-1502 Phone 508-766-1145 Fax john_t...@bose.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Environmental question
The Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) have done the most research into this issue, that I am aware of. If you look into the TCO (Swedish Workers Union) website, you can find standards relating to ELF VLF magnetic and electrical fields exposure. http://www.tco.se/eng/ Thanks- Mark M. -Original Message- From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz [mailto:mur...@eel.ufsc.br] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:13 PM To: Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Environmental question Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: ESAs certification to 95/54/EC
More info - very good info I think - at http://www.rfi-wireless.com/pages/press/articles/ART014.htm Regards - Chris -Original Message- From: Fang Han [SMTP:f...@qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 6:45 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:ESAs certification to 95/54/EC Hi Colleagues, It looks like all products for vehicle application, even they have been certified to EMC Directive or RTTE Directive, must be certified to 95/54/EC (vehicle EMC directive) before Oct 1, 2002. It seems to me that the certification route for vehicle EMC directive is different with EMC directive or RTTE directive certification. I am looking for an accredited lab/body that is authorized to certify ESAs products to 95/54/EC. I wonder if all these labs/bodies are located in Europe or there are some in USA. I understand that these labs/bodies should be authorized by the Ministry of Transportation of a EU member state. A certification done by such a lab will be accepted by all other EU member states. I appreciate it very much if someone familiar with this can shed some light. Thanks a lot, Fang This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk File: ATT5.htm This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Environmental question
I remember reading an article about this in New Scientist. After several years of operation they had found the Trees to either side of the antenna were growing taller and stronger than the rest of those in the Forest. Andrew Carson Senior Compliance Engineer Xyratex, UK -Original Message- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:dougl...@naradnetworks.com] Sent: 25 June 2002 13:16 To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz; Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Re: Environmental question Muriel, Don't know if there are any agency type regulations but can remember this issue came up when the government wanted to install a communications antenna in the north woods of Wisconsin. The antenna was to be used to communicate to submarines deep under water using something like 30 Hz or 60 Hz radio waves. The antenna was a long (miles long) cable buried underground. There were many battles between the local citizens, various environmental and animal groups, and the government (US Navy?). If I recall correctly, there were even court cases trying to prevent the antenna from being installed. The concerns were related to what effect the RF would have on the environment to include plants and animals. Don't know for sure, but I believe the antenna was actually installed and was/is operating. Might be worth a look to see what came of that and to see what arguments were made pro/con. Might even be something came out of all that related to what you want to know. Regards, Scott Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com http://www.naradnetworks.com/ At 06:13 PM 6/24/02 -0300, Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel
RE: Class 2 Power Unit
Here is the link to the scope on UL's website. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/1310.html Regards, Alex McKinney Safety Engineer LXE, Inc. Tel: 770-447-4224 x3606 Fax: 770-447-6928 -Original Message- From: Brian McAuliffe [mailto:i...@mcac.ie] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:46 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: Class 2 Power Unit Can anyone define, or point me to a definition of, a Class 2 Power Unit i.e. as covered by UL 1310. I know I could buy the standard to find out but .. Brian McAuliffe MCA Compliance Solutions Ltd Unit 2 Lissane Business Park|Clarecastle|Co.Clare|Ireland w: www.mcac.ie e: i...@mcac.ie t: +353 (0)65 6823452 m: +353 (0)87 2352554 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
SEMI - EN standards cross reference
We've had an enquiry from someone who wants to sell CE marked semiconductor manufacturing plant to a location in the far east. They are hoping that they can find a way of correlating the EN standards which they have already applied for CE marking purposes to the SEMI standards which their customer is demanding. If anyone has experience or relevant documentation for this type of project, please would they get in touch. I would expect to pay an appropriate amount for suitable materials. Regards Nick. Conformance Ltd - Product safety, approvals and CE-marking consultants Tel. + 44 1298 873800, Fax. +44 1298 873801 Registered in England, Company No. 3478646 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: Units, symbols
I don't have a copy, but if we were to refer to ISO 31-0:1992, I'm certain answers to these questions would be revealed. Abstract from the ISO web site: Gives general information about principles concerning physical quantities, equations, quantity and unit symbols, and coherent unit systems, especially the International System of Units, SI, including recommendations for printing symbols and numbers. Annex A includes a guide to terms used in names for physical quantities, Annex B a guide to the rounding of numbers, Annex C international organizations in the field of quantities and units. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Class 2 Power Unit
Can anyone define, or point me to a definition of, a Class 2 Power Unit i.e. as covered by UL 1310. I know I could buy the standard to find out but .. Brian McAuliffe MCA Compliance Solutions Ltd Unit 2 Lissane Business Park|Clarecastle|Co.Clare|Ireland w: www.mcac.ie e: i...@mcac.ie t: +353 (0)65 6823452 m: +353 (0)87 2352554 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Xing, Section 5.2.3 of IEC 60950 (2nd edition) shows how this measurement is made for Class II equipment. This should be the same in China's GB 4943? standard. See the paragraph near the end of 5.2.2 describing that for Class II, accessible conductive parts or metal foil wrapped around the unit are used to measure the current to either phase or neutral. If your adapter is plastic enclosed, with no exposed metal, the leakage should be quite small. You could also use the output pins as the ground side, but these may not qualify as being exposed. George xingwb xingwb%cesi.ac...@interlock.lexmark.com on 06/25/2002 05:56:33 AM Please respond to xingwb xingwb%cesi.ac...@interlock.lexmark.com To: Peter Merguerian pmerguerian%itl.co...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Hi Mr. Peter: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? it depend on test equipment? How to judge How to obtain accurate result? any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-25 17:56 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; Robert Johnson ; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24 ---
RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Xing, Look up Annex D of the IEC 60950 standard. This annex gives you two alternative methods for the measuring instrument (figures D.1 and D.2). Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il/ http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:57 AM To: Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Hi Mr. Peter: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? it depend on test equipment? How to judge How to obtain accurate result? any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-25 17:56 - Original Message - From: Peter mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il Merguerian To: 'xingwb' mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn ; Robert mailto:john...@itesafety.com Johnson ; Peter Merguerian mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il/ http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il Merguerian To: 'xingwb' mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen mailto:ico...@itl.co.il ; Michael G mailto:micha...@itl.co.il ; Shmuel mailto:sgn...@itl.co.il Gnatt ; Sima mailto:si...@itl.co.il Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov mailto:vale...@itl.co.il Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question
Re: Environmental question
Muriel, Don't know if there are any agency type regulations but can remember this issue came up when the government wanted to install a communications antenna in the north woods of Wisconsin. The antenna was to be used to communicate to submarines deep under water using something like 30 Hz or 60 Hz radio waves. The antenna was a long (miles long) cable buried underground. There were many battles between the local citizens, various environmental and animal groups, and the government (US Navy?). If I recall correctly, there were even court cases trying to prevent the antenna from being installed. The concerns were related to what effect the RF would have on the environment to include plants and animals. Don't know for sure, but I believe the antenna was actually installed and was/is operating. Might be worth a look to see what came of that and to see what arguments were made pro/con. Might even be something came out of all that related to what you want to know. Regards, Scott Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 dougl...@naradnetworks.com www.naradnetworks.com At 06:13 PM 6/24/02 -0300, Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel
RE: case of units
Spot on Tom! I have always stuck with lower case k - even when entering values in a database which is all in upper case! Of course, this scientific correctness lasts only a few days before someone spots my wonderful room temperature components, dips them in liquid nitrogen and the next thing I know they are all temperatures in Kelvin (10K)!! I will admit though, to not putting any space between the number and the unit, but I remember the look my physics teacher used to give us if someone had the misfortune to call the unit degrees Kelvin instead of plain Kelvin. For your information http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ has it all. Regards - Chris -Original Message- From: T.Sato [SMTP:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:39 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: case of units On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:17:18 -0700, Robert Macy m...@california.com wrote: Still use KHz For me it's a logical carrier over from small letter = small value capital letter = large value SI units are originally described in The International System of Units (strictly, in French) from BIPM, and it states kilo is k, not K. Although they are very rarely used these days, h (hecto = 10^2) and da (deca = 10^1) are written in small letters, too. Regards, Tom -- Tomonori Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp URL: http://member.nifty.ne.jp/tsato/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il/ http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il Merguerian To: 'xingwb' mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mailto:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen mailto:ico...@itl.co.il ; Michael G mailto:micha...@itl.co.il ; Shmuel Gnatt mailto:sgn...@itl.co.il ; Sima Beloborodov mailto:si...@itl.co.il ; Valery Rodionov mailto:vale...@itl.co.il Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com http://www.i-spec.com/ -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Hi Mr. Peter: Our test lab receive a CB TEST REPORT FOR NATIONAL RECOGNIZATION, the EUT is a class II ac adapter having a bridging capacitor (4700pF)across the reinforced insulation The touch current measured by CB is 0.17mA(4700pF declared) but the value we measure is 0.28mA(4700pF) which one is correct ? it depend on test equipment? How to judge How to obtain accurate result? any comments are appreciated Xing weibing 2002-06-25 17:56 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; Robert Johnson ; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:38 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing, Yes, 0.25mA is very strict for 950. However, I can assure you that depeding on the test lab and uncertainty of the test equipment, you will obtain slightly different results. This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM To: Robert Johnson; Peter Merguerian Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
Re: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
Dear SIRS: Thanks for your e-mail A further question for touch current: Is it (0.25mA) strict for Class II equipment ? 0.28mA rms is OK FOR IEC60065 0.28mA rms is not OK for IEC60950 Any comments are appreciated Best Regards XING WEIBING 2002-06-25 - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian To: 'xingwb' ; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Ilan Cohen ; Michael G ; Shmuel Gnatt ; Sima Beloborodov ; Valery Rodionov Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:00 PM Subject: RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Xing Hello! ake a look at IEC 60990, Methods of measurement of touch current and protective conductor current. The limits in IEC 60 950 are based on this particular standard. Best Regards This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.com -Original Message- From: xingwb [mailto:xin...@cesi.ac.cn] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:57 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24
Reminder - Joint EMC NPSS Meeting Tomorrow, June 26th
All, Our joint NPSS and EMC Society meeting tomorrow, June 26th, features two speakers. Due to the extensive technical program, the social hour with light refreshments will begin at 6:30 PM and the technical meeting will start at 7:00 PM. The joint meeting will be held at EMC Corporation's Customer Briefing Center in Hopkinton, MA. The first technical presentation will start at 7:00 PM with a 45 minute expected duration. Our second technical presentation will start around 7:45 PM or immediately after any questions for our first speaker. Doug Smith, IEEE EMC Society Distinguished Lecturer, will present this months first topic concerning Computer Security for the Engineer, 'The Knock in the Middle of the Night'. What is the worst thing that can happen to your computer? It may be much worse than just losing your files or having them posted on the Internet for all to see. Dougs talk will cover some of the things that can happen and how to avoid them. Screen shots from an attack on Doug's computer will be shown to illustrate some of the things that can happen. The remote diagnosis feature provided by many laptop manufacturers, including Doug's, leaves them wide open to attack from hackers. During a recent trip, that weakness was probed 4 times in 2 hours over a dialup by hackers! Bring your laptop with a modem and check it out real time. As food for thought, a recording of the emissions from Doug's home computer as heard on a short-wave radio will be played to show that different computer activities, such as surfing the Internet and printing, can be identified. Vincent DeGiorgio, Senior Risk Consultant for ArupRisk Consulting will be presenting this months second technical topic concerning the risk assessment process and its application. Risk can be found everywhere such as when you are driving your car, entering your place of work or taking an airplane flight to start your vacation. By definition risk is a measure of the potential for loss in terms of both the likelihood (events/year) of the incident and the consequences (effects/event) of the incident. In order to measure the level of risk, a systemic approach known as the risk assessment process is employed. This process can be used to assess a wide range of risks related to facilities, equipment, seismic, 911, etc. This presentation will examine the risk assessment process and see how it can be applied to address risks that may be of concern to you. The 2002 NPSS meeting schedule is available on the NPSS website at http://www.nepss.org/meetings/npss2002kf.html. Further information about the Northeast Product Safety Society and how to become a member is available at http://www.nepss.org. You can also contact one of the NPSS officers via links at http://www.nepss.org/secretary/officerskf.html. Directions: From Route 495 North or South take exit 21B to South Street. At the first traffic light, turn left (Note: This is on South direction side of Route 495). EMC Corporation is the second driveway on the right. Matt Campanella NPSS Secretary Compliance Engineer Motorola, Inc. Broadband Communications Sector 3 Highwood Drive East Tewksbury, MA 01876 (978) 858-2303 Direct (978) 858-2300 Main (978) 858-2399 Fax matthew.campane...@motorola.com email --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: case of units
Dear all, The capital W is probably a font translation error that was not spotted. I had much heart ache over this whenever I print something in a different computer. I have had much experience with entire documents that have the greek lower case m (micro=u=greak mu) being subsituted for a plain lower case m etc... It is very frustrating. This bring to mind a similar and more widely use practice in marking electrolytic capacitors e.g. 10mfd instead of 10uF. It is oblivious to the experienced engineer, mfd is read as micro Farad knowing that the mili Farad component is probably the size of a chair! I wonder if this will catch any technical types by surprise. :-) Tim Foo Cortland Richmond 72146.373@compuserve. To: Brent DeWitt bdew...@ix.netcom.com, ieee pstc list com emc-p...@ieee.org Sent by: cc: (bcc: Wan Juang Foo/ece/staff/npnet) owner-emc-pstc@majordo Subject: Re: case of units mo.ieee.org 06/25/02 01:53 PM Please respond to Cortland Richmond Another interesting thing -- not the same as this -- is what happens to the upper-case Omega some documents use instead of spelling out ohms; some software turns it into W. I could have SWORN I'd see a 1000 W resistor on a modem card! Cortland --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: case of units
Another interesting thing -- not the same as this -- is what happens to the upper-case Omega some documents use instead of spelling out ohms; some software turns it into W. I could have SWORN I'd see a 1000 W resistor on a modem card! Cortland --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Class 2 Power Unit
Brian, The short answer is that a Class 2 Power Unit is what we would normally call a wall wart or a brick power supply. Clause 1.1 of UL 1310 (August 21, 1992) says: These requirements cover (1) direct plug-in Class 2 power units intended for connection to a 15-ampere nominal 120- or 240-volt ac branch circuit, and (2) cord-connected Class 2 power units intended for connection to a 15- or 20-ampere ac branch circuit with a potential of 150 volts or less to ground. These products utilize an isolating transformer and may incorporate rectifiers and other components to provide a source of alternating- or direct-current supply. These products provide Class 2 power levels in accordance with the National Electrical Code, and are intended primarily to provide power to low voltage, electrically operated devices. Other clauses in the Scope say that UL 1310 does not cover: * Products whose input power could exceed 660W. * Battery chargers for charging engine-starting batteries. * Power supplies for toys. * Products with other than Class 2 outputs. * Battery chargers to charge batteries for wheelchairs and other mobility aids. * Class 2 transformers intended for field connection (i.e. bell transformers). Section 725 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) covers Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 Remote-Control, Signalling, and Power-Limited Circuits. The Scope in 725-1 says that (these) are not an integral part of a device or appliance. The Definition in 725-2 says Due to its power limitations, a Class 2 circuit considers safety from a fire initiation standpoint and provides acceptable protection from electric shock. Chapter 9, Tables 11(a) and 11(b) of the NEC show: * Class 2 ac source is limited to: - For 0 to 20V output, 8A output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 5*Vmax volt-amps and 5.0 Amps. - For 20 to 30V output, 8A output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 100 volt-amps and 100/Vmax Amps. - For 30 to 150V output, 0.005A output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 0.005*Vmax volt-amps and 0.005 Amps. * Class 2 dc source is limited to: - For 0 to 20V output, 8A output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 5*Vmax volt-amps and 5.0 Amps. - For 20 to 30V output, 8A output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 100 volt-amps and 100/Vmax Amps. - For 30 to 60V output, 150/Vmax output under any load conditions, with a nameplate rating 100 volt-amps and 100/Vmax Amps. John Barnes dBi Corporation --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT
The history is lost in committee activities from years ago, but I can provide my own thoughts. The limit for accessible parts on circuits not connected to protective earth is set below the threshold of sensation, since that current is likely to pass through the user in normal use if he touches the part. The limit for hand held equipment is set low enough that if the earth path fails, the resulting shock is not likely to cause someone to drop what they are holding. Note that the higher limits of 3.5 ma for the general case can provide a substantial but not harmful shock under single fault conditions. Bob Johnson ITE http://www.itesafety.com/ Safety -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of xingwb Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 7:57 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Cc: Rich Nute Subject: TOUCH CURRENT LIMIT Dear colleagues I have a question regarding touch current limit of IEC 60950? We can read from table 5A of IEC60950:1999: Touch current limit for accessible parts and circuits not connected to protective earth: 0.25 mA question 1 : How does it (0.25mA) come from and what it is based on? based on IEC479? OR other source why it is not 0.5mA(based on IEC60479) question 2 :for hand-held equipment it is 0.75mA why ? Please shed some light for above questions Any comments are appreciated Best Regards Xing weibing 2002-06-24 attachment: Robert Johnson.vcf
Re: case of units
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:17:18 -0700, Robert Macy m...@california.com wrote: Still use KHz For me it's a logical carrier over from small letter = small value capital letter = large value SI units are originally described in The International System of Units (strictly, in French) from BIPM, and it states kilo is k, not K. Although they are very rarely used these days, h (hecto = 10^2) and da (deca = 10^1) are written in small letters, too. Regards, Tom -- Tomonori Sato vef00...@nifty.ne.jp URL: http://member.nifty.ne.jp/tsato/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Environmental question
Muriel: I know of no such standards or recommendations. Unfortunately, if you could think to ask the question, someone else is eventually going to think that there should be such recommendations or regulations. Considering that the forest, lakes, land are bombarded with 1 kW per square meter of solar radiation, I would think that radiation from cell towers, broadcast towers, etc, is almost totally insignificant in comparison. I think that perhaps the rain forest is more threatened by other factors than by RF. You asked an interesting question, is there some particular reason why you asked? Regards, Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. 65 Crandon Way Rochester, NY 14618 Phone: 585 442 3909 Fax: 585 442 2182 j.schan...@ieee.org - Original Message - From: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz mur...@eel.ufsc.br To: Lista de EMC da IEEE emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:13 PM Subject: Environmental question | | Hello Group, | | We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic | fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any | standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, | animals, etc to RF fields. | | Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject | of RF fields incidence? | | Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) | put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we | have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related | to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). | | Thanks in advance and Regards, | | Muriel | | | | | | | --- | This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety | Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. | | Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ | | 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: | Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com | Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com | | For policy questions, send mail to: | Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org | Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org | | All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: | http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ | Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list | --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: case of units
Don, you're probably right in that it went the other way. My super and I had quite a laugh about it till some poor purchaser told us what was up. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Units, symbols
Hi folks, I'm glad this subject came up, and am glad to offer some help. The subject of these units, notations, etc. has fascinated me for years, and finally I set about to get to the authoritative sources. Over the past couple of years, I've done the research and published the results. Here are two documents that I'm sure will be helpful. There is NO original information here---it's all from well-recognized, world-class authorities. You'll find these conventions followed by most of the international companies that publish respected catalogs and technical brochures, such as Agilent, Tektronix, and others. These companies have obviously looked up the standards, as I have, and put them to practice. Because they are instrument companies, they deal with almost every electrical unit in existence. One important caution: Don't assume that what you see in print (trade press ads, articles, papers, etc.) is correct. Much has been written in ignorance of these standards, simply because the editors aren't aware that international standards exist. The first publication, Units, Symbols and Style Guide, is available from the Power Sources Manufacturers Association. It's a heavy-weight, coated-paper card with index tab and three-hole punch, for use in three-ring binders. See the PSMA Web site, psma.com. You can buy copies, but here's the text---free. The second one, Writing Guide, has not been formally published. I wrote it after realizing that there were some common errors that weren't covered in the Units, Symbols, and Style Guide. Once you are familiar with the units conventions (i.e. Capitalize the symbols such as V, A, Hz and don't capitalize the units in text such as hertz, volts, amperes, even though they are names), the one page Writing Guide is about all you need to hang on your wall. Comments welcome. Chuck Mullett, P.E. Chairman, Power Sources Manufacturers Association --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
