Re: MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A DIRECTIONAL COUPLER
Hi John, All, The answer to your question is in my original e-mail on the subject. I said at the end... One error that may creep in, is if the device leg of the T is extended with co-ax or is relatively long (lambda/20) Having dealt with the fundamental of the problem, it is up to the user to determine if the error is too large. If the T piece is in N type - that's, say, 3cm per leg... I would estimate that there would not be a significant error intil the wavelength is greater then 60cm ~ 400MHz. Smaller T pieces could be used - e.g. TNC or SMA. By removing the T piece you would remove one source of error but will gave removed two interfaces - the effect of which is probably not determinable with the existing equipment. I would guess that removing the T piece may be a better IF it is a quality item, but it is probably a case of suck-it-and-see. Thanks for pulling me up on the method though - it shows that somebody understood what I wrote! Anybody out there with another method? Regards Tim --- 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: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
Chris, You state: Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL did the testing, they wanted construction details. The manufacturer that we wanted to use refused to provide them (I have to agree on this one.) This left a very sour taste in my mouth regarding the whole C US dual approval issue. What is the point of UL providing a C US lising if CSA treats it as if it means nothing? Yes, UL and CSA unfortunately are the only organizations who would like to see their country standards covered by their own laboratories. That means CSA will accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to UL standards but will not accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to CSA standards. Same goes for UL; they will acccept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to CSA standards but will not accept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to UL Standards. When I asked noth organizations why they do this: they responded that their MOU covers acceptance of the test results but not the follow-ups. This is why each would ask for the complete construction details so that they can cover the components and make money off follow-ups. Regards 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: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:34 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's Just a couple of notes from experience. We once used an open frame power supply without previous certification. It was done as a custom design because we needed AC or 12VDC operation. We found a small company that would do such a design (very interesting transformer by the way...AC primary, 12VDC primary, two secondaries, a bootstrap) Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control; but it does put the responsibility on the correct shoulders. We take responsibility for the product; and we did the testing. But it is up to the supply manufacturer to ensure that he uses the parts specified in the test reports. Our company paid for the testing and we shared the test report information with the manufacturer. So the only guarantee is the manufacturer's integrity. The main downfall of this approach was that I became the middle-man between the supply manufacturer and our test lab. One benefit of this approach is that it shortened design time. We didn't have to wait for the supply to be designed and tested; then integrate it into our test sample for a re-test. Everything was tested all at once. Some may say that this isn't as good as a supplier who gets audited by UL or CSA; but I would argue that a supplier's integrity along with hipot/ground bond testing on your finished product are the most important aspects of your compliance program. Even if a manufacturer is audited by UL or CSA...they won't go to bat for you if there is a lawsuit.You're still only left with supplier integrity as your defense. Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL did the testing, they wanted construction details. The manufacturer that we wanted to use refused to provide them (I have to agree on this one.) This left a very sour taste in my mouth regarding the whole C US dual approval issue. What is the point of UL providing a C US lising if CSA treats it as if it means nothing? Anyway, that isn't the issue...I wanted to bring out two points 1. There is occasionally an argument for using a power supply that doesn't have previous approvals. 2. Power supplies with previous approvals still don't guarantee a smooth ride through agency testing...especially when you get caught in the middle of a posturing contest between the agencies. If my message doesn't help clear the water; I hope it at least helps you figure out where some of the mud came from :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com | tel +1 315 797 4449 |
RE: EMC Prosecution in UK
Hi Jim, I understand your concerns, but that is exactly why harmonised standards give only PRESUMPTION of Compliance only. and not PROOF of compliance. Definition of presumption: PRESUMPTION - A fact assumed to be true under the law is called a presumption. For example, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecuting attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. read more http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p149.htm It is exactly what has happened in the case of the hair dryers. I agree BTW the the EN 55014 is an outdated standard ; of which the modernisation has been witheld by the hair dryers manufacturers that conveniently use the clamb mathod over a limited part of spectrum to get rid of that EMI hassle. The base problem is that CENELEC ; as being mandated by the EC to produce harmonised standards; is a partially incompetent organisation in the sense that the product committees and voting comittees define and vote standards. Voting committees and product committees are overcrowded by parties of interest (read: manufacturers), and the CENELEC system does not allow for overruling creating an incompetent standard. The EC has on several affairs (f.a DOW dates, and conditional limits) threathened the CENELEC of withdrawing the mandats if they would not comply with their requirements, and that has created some consistence. Instruction reports exists for product committees that explicitly address the situation of essential EMC phenomena that need to be addressed in every harmonized standard; but it is widely ignored. The EC not being idiot, has wisely decided that harmonized standards can therefore give only presumption of compliance. Same is true for EN 55022 and interference above 1 GHz; just the standard is not enough. This is a pitfall especially for USA based manufs as they often look to the letter of a standard, losing the overalll view. This is mainly caused by the former rigid system of FFC and UL approvals, putting to much responsibility with the test house. If I were the manufacturer and had enough money, i'dd sue the product standards committee responsible for creating this standard, and not covering the full spectrum in spite of the EMC directive being in force since 1992. Gert Gremmen ce-test -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: donderdag 26 september 2002 20:17 To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: FW: EMC Prosecution in UK I read this article with some consternation, since in my mind it challenges not the manufacturer or importer, but the concept of Presumption of Conformity (I'll use PofC...). Quote: If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, or is limited in its scope, then full compliance cannot be guaranteed. The products thus failed the essential protection requirements and were incorrectly CE marked. I am in strong disagreement with that statement. If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, then the standard in question does NOT provide PofC and should NOT have been published in the OJ or on the Europa site as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. It is not the manufacturer's fault if the EU incorrectly publishes references in the OJ implying PofC where there are essential requirements not covered. In my mind, the CE Mark was correctly applied by the mfr, and the fault lies with EN55014 (which I have always thought is flawed) and with the EU/CEN for issuing a standard that fails to provide PofC. Am I right or am I delusional, naive, misinformed, an idealist, or all of the above?!?!? At the very least, it seems to me that the EU has an obligation to provide more information. If a standard is listed as applicable to the EMC Directive and does not provide PofC, then the standard's preamble and the Europa listing should say so, and should point out which essential requirements are not addressed, and which standards should be used to cover the missing requirements. I am getting extremely tired of the let the mfr figure it out approach used by the EU. Ok, I'll stop whining now. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: jim.eich...@xantrex.com web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No really. Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -Original Message- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:43 PM To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group
Re: MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A DIRECTIONAL COUPLER
I read in !emc-pstc that tim.hay...@baesystems.com wrote (in 5814071626 092002/A14159/PLANET/1209D4070D00*@MHS) about 'MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A DIRECTIONAL COUPLER' on Thu, 26 Sep 2002: Disconnect the T from the device Sweep 2 across the range in same steps, making amplitude measurements at each step. Record amplitude vs. frequency.(2) Do you disconnect the T entirely, and join the two 20 dB attenuators directly together, or do you leave the T between them, with one port open circuit? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Maxwell chris.maxw...@nettest.com wrote (in 83d652574e7af740873674f9fc12dbaaf7e...@utexh1w2.gnnettest.com) about 'subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's' on Thu, 26 Sep 2002: 1. There is occasionally an argument for using a power supply that doesn't have previous approvals. Indeed, if you are happy to have it 'tested as part of the equipment'. That's the case with ANY part that's normally bought in already tested to appropriate standards, even switches and cables. But often, the cost of doing it that way is prohibitive. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EMC prosecution UK
Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any legal obligation on the test house to advise of other implications or standards. This could be tricky - the Directive place liability on ALL IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN and additional duty of care on THOSE WHO SHOULD BE AWARE OF DANGERS. Hence liability is Joint and Several (meaning anyone involved) BUT THIS IS EU LAW and it is difficult to prosecute a non-EU manufacturer or test lab. I suspect that we will not see a trend because prosecutions are rare the results will be 'inconsistent' because: 1 the courts are ignorant of the technicalities and 2 depending if the manufacturers are UK - EU - and non-EU there may be different outcomes for the instance. and 3 prosecutions represent only the tip of the iceberg of non-compliances. I know of several test houses (UK and US) that had difficulty after their clients had good impounded in the EU. Usually these cases resulted in Safety violations. In the only cases of which I am aware none of the large test houses were involved. The non-EU lab might be involved under EU legislation; I do not see how a US lab could be involved. In any case, proving that the non-compliance and Type Test item were identical would be bad enough. The technical ignorance of the courts and the cost of the lawyers would only make a bad - expensive - mess even worse on ALL THREE COUNTS! The following story might help put this into perspective I had a involvement with an importer of trouser presses some years ago. TS had been to a UK test lab and it had been given a it looks alright to the standard response. It took me all of 30 minutes to list several Electric Shock hazards (including direct operator contact to hazardous voltage over the entire surface of the heating element) - Wiring incorrectly rated and a likely source of fire - incorrect power rating. Flammability hazards within the heating element - and major parts - no fire enclosure - and single pieces of PVC tape (rated 80 °C) used to provide Reinforced insulation at 120 °C. All in all it was a lethal. I believe that the importer got as far as paying import duty and VAT before the 3,000-5,000 items were impounded. The importer was charged storage until he could arrange return shipment. I do not think it would have mattered if the original test lab had given a report - the product was obviously defective - the importer would have placed lives at risk so WELL DONE TSO's. Perhaps the question SHOULD BE what liability do the Test Lab have to VICTIMS of non-compliant products Any takers??? Gregg -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Alan E Hutley Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:53 AM To: Neil Helsby; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC prosecution 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: Class III ID mark?
Class III As its weekend now, i can't look up the standard . I am not fully sure but: Fitted with a ground cord, but not using it : i believe Was meant for luminaire to be used in areas with only grounded outlets , where ungrounded plugs could not be plugged in so required a grounde plug and cord. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: vrijdag 27 september 2002 18:40 To: Product Safety Technical Committee Subject: Class III ID mark? A colleague recently showed me a Class III identification mark. However, he had no further information about the mark. (The Class III mark would be used to identify a Class III product similar to the way the Class II mark square-within-a-square is used to identify a double-insulated product.) Have you seen this mark? If so, can you tell me its origin and provide me with a copy of the mark? Also, can you tell me the standards in which it is identified and requirements for its use? I suspect this mark originated at VDE. Thank you for your help, Rich --- 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
Conclusions: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
Thank you all who responded to this thread. All inputs I got are generally in agreement, and in line with my opinions. Here are the conclusions. They are mainly applicable to custom design, but also extend to COTS equipment available on the market. 1. It is not relevant if subcontracted parts are CE marked or not. What's important is that they are compliant with the standards applicable to the end-product. We, as an integrator of the end-product, have to identify those standards and/or parts of them that are relevant to the purchased component. 2. The requested documentation shall be relevant for the public law (EU Directives/CE Marking) and the civil law (liability issues). 3. The needed documentation, for CE marking (under the public law), as we follow the TCF and/or the Standards route under various Directives, will consist of full copies of test reports/technical analysis/technical descriptions if the manufacturer is able to do all of these (audits might be required). If not, certificates from accredited labs are mandatory, and copies of test reports are needed if possible. 4. To cover eventual liability issues (civil law), the product integrator shall request a private compatibility statement (listing the suitable standards, product detailed description), and completed with additional purchase requirements, such as not allowing modification of the part in such a way that it might impact the compliance of the end product (or at least not allow to do that without notice). Alexandru Guidea CAE Inc. Montreal, CANADA Our company purchases power distribution equipment designed per our specs. This equipment is not put on the market, but integrated in our products, and does safety/EMC functions(EMI filtering, protection, emergency stop) among other things, in accordance to the EC Directives applicable to our product. We believe there is no point to have it CE marked but only compliant with the standards we need. The text of the EMC Directive reads the manufacturer may subcontract certain operations, e.g., apparatus design or production, provided that he retains overall control and responsibility for the apparatus as a whole. By the same token, he may use ready-made items or components, CE marked or not, to produce the apparatus without losing his status as a manufacturer. We follow the Technical Construction File route for CE marking. What's the documentation required from our sub-contractors that proves compliance with the EN standards we indicate? Do we need complete copies of test reports, technical description, analysis, or just a statement of compliance would do the job? What's the legal value of such a paper in North-America? As we don't control their production (parts, quality, etc,) what's the documentation we shall request to ensure all production units are compliant? What's the industry/your practice in this case? --- 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 III ID mark?
A colleague recently showed me a Class III identification mark. However, he had no further information about the mark. (The Class III mark would be used to identify a Class III product similar to the way the Class II mark square-within-a-square is used to identify a double-insulated product.) Have you seen this mark? If so, can you tell me its origin and provide me with a copy of the mark? Also, can you tell me the standards in which it is identified and requirements for its use? I suspect this mark originated at VDE. Thank you for your help, Rich --- 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: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
In a message dated 9/27/02 3:38:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pmerguer...@itl.co.il writes: .Yes, UL and CSA unfortunately are the only organizations who would like to see their country standards covered by their own laboratories. That means CSA will accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to UL standards but will not accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to CSA standards. Same goes for UL; they will acccept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to CSA standards but will not accept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to UL Standards. In fairness to the certifiers on the component issue - there is no obligation on any certification agency to accept the mark of another certification agency as grounds to apply their own mark. If you're a certifier, your entire business depends on your ability to control the quality of your mark, and it's a risky business practice to offer blanket acceptance on another agency's certification marks. So from the manufacturer's perspective, any degree of acceptance you get in this regard is a perc. When I asked noth organizations why they do this: they responded that their MOU covers acceptance of the test results but not the follow-ups. This is why each would ask for the complete construction details so that they can cover the components and make money off follow-ups. The supposed MOU between UL and CSA is an imaginary beast, invoked sometimes by one side or the other when it behooves them, but ignored systematically by both. Neither agency formally honors the MOU, which was signed over 15 years ago and promptly forgotton the day CSA applied for NRTL accreditation in the US. There is no mutual quality auditing going on between the two agencies, as would normally be specified under an MOU. Never has been. To my knowledge, UL assessors have never once set foot in a CSA lab facility and vice versa. The two agencies accept or don't accept each other's certifications based onwell, let's say based on other less quantitative factors.
RE: EMC Prosecution in UK - Safety??? Saving money on Enforcement
There have been many good issues raised in this thread in particular the issue of bad case-law being set. I remember a very good UK lawyer friend of mine predicting that initial case-law would be suspect and based upon incomplete knowledge and understanding of the issues. And that until cases were taken to the High Court where a knowledgeable technical defense was made the law would remain unsound. HOWEVER. If the product failed EMC I would bet a dollar to a doughnut that it would also fail safety! I also know that in some countries there are few resources for training Enforcement Officer and therefore I will offer to make a short multimedia-training program available (free of charge) to ANY Eu Enforcement Officer that contacts me directly. EMC requires expensive testing equipment BUT most Product Safety non-compliances can be identified with a physical inspection. Hence this is an opportunity for the enforcement services to save money. Best regards Gregg Gregg Kervill DipIM, MIMgt, MIEEE mailto:gr...@test4safety.com?subject=Valid%20Reply VP Engineering Test4Safety.com Inc PO Box 310, Reedville, VA 22539. USA mailto:gr...@test4safety.com?subject=Valid%20Reply Phone ( 804) 453-3141 Fax(804) 453-9039 mailto:gr...@test4safety.com?subject=Valid%20Reply http://www.test4safety.com/ mailto:gr...@test4safety.com?subject=Valid%20Reply
EMC prosecution
2c in addition to the rights and wrongs of the technical issue is the quesion of a level playing field for all manufacturers that compete for the UK market with a given product, like our hair dryer example. EMC directive and regulations for domestic products gives teeth to the trading standards authority when someone attempts to import a cheap and cheerful version that undercuts local quality and performance standards. It also gives the local manufacturer an opportunity to hold up importation of the 'rogue' while they purchase a few, take them apart and find out if any technological advances can be discovered :-) Hey, it has to works both ways. Korea makes us go through the hoops before they'll let us import a few thousand dollars worth of professional audio gear into their country. I'm glad to hear that the boot can also be worn on the other foot. An Englishman In New York Best Regards Ted Rook, Console Engineering, ext 4659 Please note our new location and phone numbers: Crest Audio Inc, 16-00 Pollitt Drive Fair Lawn, NJ 07410 USA 201 475 4600 telephone receptionist, 8.30 - 5 pm EST. 201 475 4659 direct line w/voice mail, 24 hrs. 201 475 4677 fax, 24 hrs. --- 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: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
Hi Gordon (and John) This is a good example of a recent standard created by IEC with stupid mistakes in it and voted by CENELEC without thinking. While for conducted immunity the frequency boundaries are defined (6.2 4th par) , for radiated immunity they are not. One may argue that the this way one should comply with a defined range in EN 61000-4-3 (most recentversion : as undated in table 1) and automatically cover extended frequency ranges as the standard updates, but EN 6100-4-3 is not harmonized (basic standard)! It's the product standard (so EN 61326) that should list frequency ranges, and corresponding limits. Limits without frequencies are without meaning. (By absence of defined boundaries one should fall back to the Directives text, and the EMC directive covers the range 0 - 400 Ghz. So now we should take the measurement set up from 6100-4-3 and measure up to 400 GHz. Ridiculous) This standard was voted upon and no-one noticed the omission. I must admit that it has passed my desk, without me noticing either. I suggest that you use your common sense, and perform the test as defined in the EN 50082-1:1997 (generic standard; harmonized) UNLESS you have the feeling that your product might fail in proximity of DEC and GSM signal at 1800 Mhz or other suitable signal sources above 1 Gig. Due diligence: you know ? Another stupid point: While stating that the product must remain safe as a result of applying the standard, it does not require that it is safe during the application of the test. (page 23) In additon to that a new environment has been defined (page 35) Controlled EM environment. Stupid as i am I was thinking that it means that some shielding might be present. No, it means that cellulars are prohibited. Who knows such a test lab ? And who would comply ! Several limits have been relaxed because engineers are used to interpret deviant behavior of equipment when using the cellular ! No word about safety: engineers are used to dangerously operating test equipment and are resistant to electrical shocks and other hazards. Table B1 is allowed for any laboratory, including f.a. biomedical where no-one has read the electrical code...! To my so humble opinion, this table is there just as an escape route for non compliant equipment. Who cares about immunity anyway ! Gert Gremmen ce-test -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gordon,Ian Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 1:47 PM To: 'IEEE EMC SAFETY PSTC' Subject: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz Everybody Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements? The products concerned are not telecom or IT devices. The standard refers to IEC 61000-4-3 for this testing which includes tests above 1GHz at various mobile telephone frequencies. I believe the generic standard EN61000-6-2 refers to testing using pulsed modulation at 900MHz only. Thanks Ian Gordon _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.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
Intentional Radiator or not?
I have a black box device that takes in an RF video feed via a coax cable and then translates that to light energy for transmission. Its bi-direction, meaning that, I can also pump light into it and get the RF signal back for distribution down the coax cable. My opinion, for the moment is that it is not an intentional radiator, simple a cable connected device that happens to have RF signals present to perform is function of data transmission. Any disagreements, and why? Thanks for your thoughts Gary --- 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: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
I have BS EN61326:1998 which references IEC 61000-4-3:1995 which I believe has no test method above 1.0 GHz. I don't actually have the 1995 version to verify this. I have the IEC 61000-4-3:1998 which does describe test methods from 1.4 to 2.4 GHz. Therefore, for BS EN61326:1998, there are no requirements to test above 1.0 GHz. However I do it anyways (at 10V/m with 80% AM modulation). I have seen real world interference problems from transmitters above 1.0 GHz. I also perform the 900 MHz pulse modulation test at 10V/m - although I have never see a problem with this. regards, Chris Poore -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gordon,Ian Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:47 AM To: 'IEEE EMC SAFETY PSTC' Subject: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz Everybody Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements? The products concerned are not telecom or IT devices. The standard refers to IEC 61000-4-3 for this testing which includes tests above 1GHz at various mobile telephone frequencies. I believe the generic standard EN61000-6-2 refers to testing using pulsed modulation at 900MHz only. Thanks Ian Gordon _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.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: Automotive EMC Standards
Hi Robert, I think you will find ISO 7932 gives general guidance for the enumeration of Bacillus cereus i.e. microbiology. Only a typo I know, but what a difference it can make when you actually order the standard! I believe you meant ISO 7637. I have never had to design for a cigarette lighter adapter, so somewhat uncertain about the quality of that supply. The following assumes it is as noisy as the rest of the vehicle supply. First, decide if your ESA ( electronic sub-assembly) is meant for use exclusively in agricultural equipment or in commercial road vehicles. If the former, apply ISO 14982 as the generic EMC standard. If the latter, then apply the automotive directive 95/54/EC. If both, then use the automotive directive making sure that the severity levels applied are at no point lower than the requirements of ISO 14982. THEN, ensure that the additional tests called up by ISO 14982 are included. ISO 7637-3 should address supply transients in both 12 and 24V systems. ISO 7637-1 relates to 12V systems and ISO 7637-2 to 24V systems. These standards cover the vehicle supply system transients, called automotive test pulses, effectively the equivalents of EFTs, surge and voltage dips in generic EMC testing. Take particular note of test pulse 5, the automotive load dump, which is very severe and has a habit of sending prototypes up in smoke. Check early if test pulse 4, the cranking pulse, will affect your equipment. Add to the list ISO TR 10605 for ESD. The levels from when I last checked are 8kV contact, 15kV air discharge for ESA's accessible only from within the vehicle, and 25kV for ESA's that can be accessed from outside the vehicle e.g. through open window. (ISO 11498 may call for lower ESD ratings). Add ISO 11452 for radiated immunity using limits prescribed by customer, ISO 14982 (agricultural equipment) or automotive directive (30V/m) in that order of priority. The test frequencies are nominally 150kHz to 1Ghz but you will find most vehicle manufacturers insist on tests starting at around 10kHz. ISO 11452 is in 7 parts, with a general section and 6 test methods, including part 2: Absorber lined chamber, 3: TEM cell, 4: Bulk current injection, 5: Stripline, 6: Parallel plate antenna and part 7: Direct RF power injection. Each of these has an applicable frequency range in the spectrum 10kHz-18Ghz with overlap of course. SAEJ1113 gives the test setup for coupling of audio-frequency noise and repeats (and quotes) ISO 7637 and ISO TR 10605. I don't think it is required by the automotive directive by most vehicle manufacturers will insist on it. Add CISPR 25 for conducted emissions ( note: not required by automotive directive but again vehicle manufacturers might insist). Add the test method and limits of the automotive directive 95/54/EC for radiated emissions. Safety is covered by the SAE standards. Regards - Chris Chileshe - Ultronics Ltd -Original Message- From: robert.s...@flextronics.com [SMTP:robert.s...@flextronics.com] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 1:17 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Automotive EMC Standards We are developing a device which will have a charging adapter using a 12V cigarette lighter. What EMC standards for emission and immunity cover such devices. We have looked at ISO 7937-2. it seems to cover only 24V commercial vehicles. There is a draft version that we do not have, but the tile mentions 12 and 24 volt system vehicles. Can someone please direct us to the correct standard? Thank you, Robert Seay Flextronics Compliance Labs 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 --- 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
Re: RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
I read in !emc-pstc that Gordon,Ian ian.gor...@edwards.boc.com wrote (in E1BA0362B28ED211A1E80008C71EA306018190CD@EXC_EAS01) about 'RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002: Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements? The products concerned are not telecom or IT devices. The standard refers to IEC 61000-4-3 for this testing which includes tests above 1GHz at various mobile telephone frequencies. Yes, it IS necessary. EN 61326 is a product-family standard and takes precedence over the Generic Standard. In this case, the product-family standard is more stringent than the Generic. I believe the generic standard EN61000-6-2 refers to testing using pulsed modulation at 900MHz only. I can't find any mention of that in EN 61000-6-2. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EMC prosecution UK
I read in !emc-pstc that Alan E Hutley nutwoo...@nutwood.eu.com wrote (in 01a501c26624$cce34f20$0d01a8c0@alan) about 'EMC prosecution UK' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002: Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any legal obligation on the test house to advise of other implications or standards. There is probably no *legal* requirement as such, but the test-house would be putting their professional indemnity insurance at risk if they did not advise the manufacturer with due diligence. Nevertheless, since last year (IIRC), a manufacturer can instruct a test-house to test only to certain clauses of a standard, and the test- house cannot insist on doing all the tests in the standard. It can only decline to accept the partial test work. This is because some test- houses, AIUI, were insisting on repeating tests that the manufacturer has either already done in-house or had determined were not necessary. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
I've never heard this from the compliance engineer of any of my employer's customers. But I have observed an agency engineer question the adequacy of an unit's test data (as delineated in the CB report) for the end-user's particular installation. One instance of this was an engineer from the same agency that issued the CB report! I use TUV, CSA, and UL. I have found them to all be reasonable people (well, most of the time) whose concerns are product safety first, and generating business second. Find another engineer, or agency, if these priorities are reversed. Final note for people building in component power supplies: Conditions of Acceptability and test conditions must be carefully observed in the end-use equipment. If I say use at least 10 cfm air flow when operating at 100% load, locate a fan where the p.s. receives 10cfm. If I say maximum mounting screw penetration is 6mm, do not use a screw 4mm too long. If I say the unit is for Class 1 only, and that the P.E. connection is required, do not assume that you can isolate the p.s. chassis and call it class 2. If I say nothing I say represents much of anybody's opinion, other than my dog's and/or cat's influence. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 1:30 AM To: 'Chris Maxwell'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's Chris, You state: Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL did the testing, they wanted construction details. The manufacturer that we wanted to use refused to provide them (I have to agree on this one.) This left a very sour taste in my mouth regarding the whole C US dual approval issue. What is the point of UL providing a C US lising if CSA treats it as if it means nothing? Yes, UL and CSA unfortunately are the only organizations who would like to see their country standards covered by their own laboratories. That means CSA will accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to UL standards but will not accept a UL Recognized component when they investigate a product to CSA standards. Same goes for UL; they will acccept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to CSA standards but will not accept a CSA Certified component when they investigate a product to UL Standards. When I asked noth organizations why they do this: they responded that their MOU covers acceptance of the test results but not the follow-ups. This is why each would ask for the complete construction details so that they can cover the components and make money off follow-ups. Regards PETER S. MERGUERIAN --- 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
THE 2003 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY (EMC)
THE 2003 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY (EMC) Istanbul Hilton Hotel, Istanbul, Turkey, May 11-16, 2003 Dear colleagues and fellow EMC engineers, Hello from Turkey We take great pleasure in inviting you to participate in the 2003 IEEE International Symposium on EMC, which will be held with the cooperation of our colleagues in Turkey, at the Hilton Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey on May 1116, 2003. Just a friendly reminder that the due date for papers (abstracts and summaries or preliminary manuscripts is October 13, 2002. Please submit your papers using the On-Line submission utility, which can be found on the Symposium website www.ortra.com/emc2003 at the Call for Papers/Instructions for Submissions. The scientific committee is inviting you to contribute to the following specific technical activities, which currently in the process of being formulated: 1. Workshop on EMC Problems and Solutions for Short-range Communication under License-free Regulations (Note 1) · Contribution - Presentation · Chairman - Alan Bensky · Address for contacts - aben...@barak-online.net 2. Educational EMC Session · Contribution - Papers · Chairman - Prof.Heyno Garbe · Address for contacts - ga...@geml.uni-hannover.de 3. Signal Integrity Session · Contribution - Papers · Chairman - Mark Montrose · Address for contacts - mmont...@ix.netcom.com 4.Signal Integrity Analysis and Design (Note 2) · Contribution - Papers · Chairman - Dr. Howard Johnson · Address for contacts - how...@sigcon.com 5.Intentional EMI Threats, Coupling, Effects, Protection and Standards (Note 3) · Contribution - Papers · Chairman - Dr. William Radasky · Address for contacts - wrada...@aol.com SPECIAL CALL FOR SESSIONS: Note 1. ALAN BENSKY is soliciting presentations on the following topics: ** Cohabitation problems with Bluetooth integration in cellular phone handsets ** Coexistence of multiple WLAN standards in a common environment ** Ultra-wideband (UWB) -- a blessing or a curse for short-range communications? ** Telematics -- the challenge of the automotive environment to Bluetooth EMC ** Transmitter and receiver design considerations to meet type approval specifications and avoid susceptibility to electromagnetic interference. Note 2. Dr. HOWARD JOHNSON, author of High-Speed Digital Design: A Handbook of Black Magic, will chair a session on Signal Integrity Analysis and Design (technical session Theme 10, #38). The session will explore regions of common interest between the subjects of EMC and signal integrity. Suggested topics include the control of ringing, cross talk, ground bounce, power supply noise, signal rise time, stray returning signal currents, split ground planes, noise isolation barriers, and the propagation of extremely high-frequency waveforms. The session chair has a special interest in digital systems operating at signaling frequencies in excess of 1 Gb/s. Note 3. DR. WILLIAM RADASKY, the Chairman of TC-5 (High Power Electromagnetics) of the IEEE EMC Society, is organizing a special session Intentional EMI Threats, Coupling, Effects, Protection and Standards. While most scientists and engineers working in the field are familiar with the terminology used above, the term Intentional EMI (IEMI) involves the purposeful production of EM radiated or conducted disturbances with the intention of disturbing electronic equipment. Our interest in this conference is related to civil equipment where hackers, criminals and terrorists may wish to disrupt or damage the ability of a company or a factory to operate normally. In addition, threats to transportation including aircraft, trains and automobiles are certainly included. In terms of the scope of this session, any type of narrowband or wideband (pulse) disturbance can be considered including, for example, high-power microwaves or ultra wideband (UWB) pulses. It is important to recognize that lower frequency disturbances may also be important when they are injected directly into the electrical or telecom wiring of a building. It is understood that papers that deal with the ability to generate intense EM fields or conducted signals using readily available equipment are of interest to establish the threat. Papers that deal with the coupling and interaction of these types of signals are also of interest. Examples of malfunctions and damage of electronics under related test conditions are important along with analyses to establish the main parameters that control the interference probability. Test methods used to establish susceptibility or immunity levels of equipment are also of interest. Protection and monitoring methods tailored to these types of threats and methods to standardize all aspects of these threats, protection methods and test techniques are also within the scope of this session.
RE: EMC prosecution UK
On the other hand There seems to be some question about this recently reported case, and regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the following points need to be remembered. 1)The cost goes far beyond a fine. The TS can prohibit the sale of goods in store until any required corrective action has been taken. That can be a significant cost, especially with consumer products, where it could easily be an order of magnitude greater. 2)To apply the CE mark indicates that all applicable directives have been met. Hence, if the EMC directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the LVD directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the machine directive is applicable... To achieve this, various standards can be applied but it is for the manufacturer to decide which are applicable and if the wrong ones are selected or others should also have been used, he is still responsible. If a product specific standard is inadequate meet the requirements of a Directive, why bother using it? For instance in EN55013 you only measure disturbance power up to 300MHz so what should you do, test up to 1GHz and apply some imaginary limits? So the altenative is to use the TCF route. But if you use this route, you could easily be asked why you didn't apply a standard as there is one specific to your product. It seems like a no win situation. 3)If I were to buy a hair dryer (or any other product) that interfered with television reception, it would go straight back to the shop for a refund or exchange for a product from another supplier. What is the cost of dealing with returned (faulty) goods and the bad reputation it gives me and the friends I tell? I suspect that over 99% of consumers don't even know that EMC testing of products goes on, judging from the blank looks I receive when I tell people what I do for a living. I think most people would accept that their hair drier intefered with their television reception and would only dry their hair during the adverts. Mind you I haven't had to use a comb let alone a hair drier for years :) Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. Important Note: Any typographical, clerical or other error in this communication is subject to correction without any liability on the part of TAG McLaren Audio Limited. Any orders placed shall be subject to acceptance by TAG McLaren Audio Limited on its standard terms and conditions of sale which shall govern the contract for the sale and purchase of the products ordered to the exclusion of any other terms and conditions. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.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: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's
snip Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control; but it does put the responsibility on the correct shoulders. We take responsibility for the product; and we did the testing. But it is up to the supply manufacturer to ensure that he uses the parts specified in the test reports. Our company paid for the testing and we shared the test report information with the manufacturer. So the only guarantee is the manufacturer's integrity. The main downfall of this approach was that I became the middle-man between the supply manufacturer and our test lab. One benefit of this approach is that it shortened design time. We didn't have to wait for the supply to be designed and tested; then integrate it into our test sample for a re-test. Everything was tested all at once. snip Chris, I once ran into a similar situation where we needed a custom supply and time was not on our side. I chose a different approach that was better for my company in the long run. I also had the supply evaluated with our product, but treated it as two separate projects. Project (1) was to evaluate the power supply for our supplier and Project (2) was to evaluate our product. The end result was a Component Recognition on the power supply and a Product Listing on our product. We had our cost, they had theirs. We had our certs, they had theirs. We then had a RC in our listed product and they had the FUS on their power supply. The lead time was relatively identical. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:34 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: subcontracted parts - compliance with EN's Just a couple of notes from experience. We once used an open frame power supply without previous certification. It was done as a custom design because we needed AC or 12VDC operation. We found a small company that would do such a design (very interesting transformer by the way...AC primary, 12VDC primary, two secondaries, a bootstrap) Anyway, we were only interested in CE marking (not UL/CSA) so we simply had the design reviewed and tested with our product. As for continuation, it was a custom part; so we added the compliance requirements to the part specifications. Yes, I know this doesn't give us complete control; but it does put the responsibility on the correct shoulders. We take responsibility for the product; and we did the testing. But it is up to the supply manufacturer to ensure that he uses the parts specified in the test reports. Our company paid for the testing and we shared the test report information with the manufacturer. So the only guarantee is the manufacturer's integrity. The main downfall of this approach was that I became the middle-man between the supply manufacturer and our test lab. One benefit of this approach is that it shortened design time. We didn't have to wait for the supply to be designed and tested; then integrate it into our test sample for a re-test. Everything was tested all at once. Some may say that this isn't as good as a supplier who gets audited by UL or CSA; but I would argue that a supplier's integrity along with hipot/ground bond testing on your finished product are the most important aspects of your compliance program. Even if a manufacturer is audited by UL or CSA...they won't go to bat for you if there is a lawsuit.You're still only left with supplier integrity as your defense. Another point I wanted to bring out we had a product tested to CSA approvals. Inside, we used a power supply that carried a UL listing with C US subscript which said that UL tested it to both UL and CSA standards. A copy of the test report wasn't enough for CSA. Since UL did the testing, they wanted construction details. The manufacturer that we wanted to use refused to provide them (I have to agree on this one.) This left a very sour taste in my mouth regarding the whole C US dual approval issue. What is the point of UL providing a C US lising if CSA treats it as if it means nothing? Anyway, that isn't the issue...I wanted to bring out two points 1. There is occasionally an argument for using a power supply that doesn't have previous approvals. 2. Power supplies with previous approvals still don't guarantee a smooth ride through agency testing...especially when you get caught in the middle of a posturing contest between the agencies. If my message doesn't help clear the water; I hope it at least helps you figure out where some of the mud came from :-) Chris Maxwell | Design Engineer - Optical Division email chris.maxw...@nettest.com | dir +1 315 266 5128 | fax +1 315 797 8024 NetTest | 6 Rhoads Drive, Utica, NY 13502 | USA web www.nettest.com |
Re: EMC prosecution UK
You are right Neil. TS have removed a very large number from stock. And I understand some other models. So whilst the fine was small the total cost was far higher. Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any legal obligation on the test house to advise of other implications or standards. Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance Journal - Original Message - From: Neil Helsby nei...@solid-state-logic.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: EMC prosecution UK There seems to be some question about this recently reported case, and regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the following points need to be remembered. 1) The cost goes far beyond a fine. The TS can prohibit the sale of goods in store until any required corrective action has been taken. That can be a significant cost, especially with consumer products, where it could easily be an order of magnitude greater. 2) To apply the CE mark indicates that all applicable directives have been met. Hence, if the EMC directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the LVD directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the machine directive is applicable... To achieve this, various standards can be applied but it is for the manufacturer to decide which are applicable and if the wrong ones are selected or others should also have been used, he is still responsible. 3) If I were to buy a hair dryer (or any other product) that interfered with television reception, it would go straight back to the shop for a refund or exchange for a product from another supplier. What is the cost of dealing with returned (faulty) goods and the bad reputation it gives me and the friends I tell? Just my thoughts. Neil Helsby ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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
Automotive EMC Standards
We are developing a device which will have a charging adapter using a 12V cigarette lighter. What EMC standards for emission and immunity cover such devices. We have looked at ISO 7937-2. it seems to cover only 24V commercial vehicles. There is a draft version that we do not have, but the tile mentions 12 and 24 volt system vehicles. Can someone please direct us to the correct standard? Thank you, Robert Seay Flextronics Compliance Labs 762 Park Avenue Youngsville, NC 27596 --- 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
RADIATED IMMUNITY TESTING ABOVE 1GHz
Everybody Does anyone know whether it is necessary to perform radiated immunity tests above 1GHz when applying BS EN61326 which is the product standard titled Electrical equipment for measurement, control and laboratory use - EMC requirements? The products concerned are not telecom or IT devices. The standard refers to IEC 61000-4-3 for this testing which includes tests above 1GHz at various mobile telephone frequencies. I believe the generic standard EN61000-6-2 refers to testing using pulsed modulation at 900MHz only. Thanks Ian Gordon _ This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the WorldCom Internet Managed Scanning Service - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit http://www.worldcom.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: MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A DIRECTIONAL COUPLER
I read in !emc-pstc that tim.hay...@baesystems.com wrote (in 2714440827 092002/A03673/PLANET/1209DA2C0D00*@MHS) about 'MEASURING VSWR WITHOUT A DIRECTIONAL COUPLER' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002: The answer to your question is in my original e-mail on the subject. I said at the end... One error that may creep in, is if the device leg of the T is extended with co-ax or is relatively long (lambda/20) Ah, I missed that. Sorry. Having dealt with the fundamental of the problem, it is up to the user to determine if the error is too large. If the T piece is in N type - that's, say, 3cm per leg... I would estimate that there would not be a significant error intil the wavelength is greater then less than? 60cm ~ 400MHz. Smaller T pieces could be used - e.g. TNC or SMA. BNC? Or do you find the contacts a bit unreliable? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EN or IEC 61000-3-12
I read in !emc-pstc that Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org wrote (in nebbihdflagbliikmlbkcelidlaa.kevin.richard...@ieee.org) about 'EN or IEC 61000-3-12' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002: As I thought. Thank you John. Sorry have not had the chance to come back earlier. I have been out of office all week and difficult to get time to read postings etc. Any idea when -12 is likely to be published? My (somewhat informed) guess is late 2003. There is new controversy, even though we thought we had an acceptable CDV text at the beginning of this month. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: EMC Prosecution in UK
I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote (in oleokfnbajjejfkplbbmcelgcdaa.g.grem...@cetest.nl) about 'EMC Prosecution in UK' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002: I understand your concerns, but that is exactly why harmonised standards give only PRESUMPTION of Compliance only. and not PROOF of compliance. Definition of presumption: PRESUMPTION - A fact assumed to be true under the law is called a presumption. For example, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecuting attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. read more http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p149.htm You have no grounds for assuming that the word 'presumption' in an EC Directive has the same meaning as in a particular on-line glossary. If 'presumption' cannot be relied on by a manufacturer who applies the appropriate standard, there is NO POINT in applying the standard. Everyone should use the TCF route and thus divert the responsibility for determining whether the essential requirements have been met to a Notified Body. It is exactly what has happened in the case of the hair dryers. I agree BTW the the EN 55014 is an outdated standard ; of which the modernisation has been witheld by the hair dryers manufacturers that conveniently use the clamb mathod over a limited part of spectrum to get rid of that EMI hassle. What evidence have you for that claim? EN 55014-1 is dated October 2000, and an amendment is dated October 2001. It is derived from the 4th edition of CISPR 14-1, dated March 2000. This is 'out-of-date'? The fact that the basis is a CISPR standard is very important. While part of IEC, CISPR has a different Constitution, under which spectrum management and regulatory authorities can be members, as well as national standard bodies. So it is clear that an approved CISPR standard has satisfied those regulatory authorities who are concerned with it. The base problem is that CENELEC ; as being mandated by the EC to produce harmonised standards; is a partially incompetent organisation in the sense that the product committees and voting comittees define and vote standards. Who else could do so? But all draft standards are published for **public comment** before final voting and usually before first voting. Voting committees and product committees are overcrowded by parties of interest (read: manufacturers), Membership of national committees is open to ALL interested parties. If manufacturers dominate, that's because other organizations choose not to participate. The UK national committee regularly sends representatives of organizations other than manufacturers to regional and international committees. The national and international committees are very often chaired by other than manufacturer representatives. and the CENELEC system does not allow for overruling creating an incompetent standard. Yes it does. Representations are occasionally made to CENELEC Technical Board regarding the suitability or otherwise of a standard. The EC has on several affairs (f.a DOW dates, and conditional limits) threathened the CENELEC of withdrawing the mandats if they would not comply with their requirements, and that has created some consistence. You have evidence of this? There was an argument several years ago about the legal power of CENELEC to set dow dates, but that was resolved long ago. What is a 'conditional limit'? I ask so as to prevent confusion. Instruction reports exists for product committees that explicitly address the situation of essential EMC phenomena that need to be addressed in every harmonized standard; but it is widely ignored. Please give your evidence for this statement. How many times have you, or anyone else, registered an objection with your national committee on the grounds that CENELEC GUIDE 24 or its predecessor R210-001 has not been properly taken into account? The EC not being idiot, has wisely decided that harmonized standards can therefore give only presumption of compliance. Same is true for EN 55022 and interference above 1 GHz; just the standard is not enough. But that is not what the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Directive say. This is a pitfall especially for USA based manufs as they often look to the letter of a standard, losing the overalll view. This is mainly caused by the former rigid system of FFC and UL approvals, putting to much responsibility with the test house. If I were the manufacturer and had enough money, i'dd sue the product standards committee responsible for creating this standard, and not covering the full spectrum in spite of the EMC directive being in force since 1992. You want to sue the members of CISPR/F? I think that would be rather difficult. It's all
RE: EN or IEC 61000-3-12
John, As I thought. Thank you John. Sorry have not had the chance to come back earlier. I have been out of office all week and difficult to get time to read postings etc. Any idea when -12 is likely to be published? Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (including Australian Agent Services) (Legislation/Regulations/Standards) Ph: 02-4329-4070 (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070) Fax: 02-4328-5639 (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639) Mobile: 04-1224-1620 (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620) Email:kevin.richard...@ieee.org This material (this message and the information contained in all attachments to this message) is confidential and/or privileged information and is intended only for the addressee/s named above. Any unauthorised dissemination, copying, use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee/s named above is prohibited. If you receive this material in error, please notify Stanimore Pty Limited and destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this message and all attachments immediately. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Friday, 20 September 2002 6:20 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: EN or IEC 61000-3-12 I read in !emc-pstc that Kevin Richardson kevin.richard...@ieee.org wrote (in nebbihdflagbliikmlbkeejadlaa.kevin.richard...@ieee.org) about 'EN or IEC 61000-3-12' on Fri, 20 Sep 2002: Can anyone shed any light on if this standard is usually used in association with EN 61000-3-11 and indeed if the -12 is even published. The IEC have it listed as CDV. Thank you. IEC 61000-3-12 is not yet published. But it is about a subject (harmonic current emissions) entirely separate from that of -11 (voltage changes). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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
EMC prosecution UK
There seems to be some question about this recently reported case, and regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the following points need to be remembered. 1) The cost goes far beyond a fine. The TS can prohibit the sale of goods in store until any required corrective action has been taken. That can be a significant cost, especially with consumer products, where it could easily be an order of magnitude greater. 2) To apply the CE mark indicates that all applicable directives have been met. Hence, if the EMC directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the LVD directive is applicable, the requirements must be met; if the machine directive is applicable... To achieve this, various standards can be applied but it is for the manufacturer to decide which are applicable and if the wrong ones are selected or others should also have been used, he is still responsible. 3) If I were to buy a hair dryer (or any other product) that interfered with television reception, it would go straight back to the shop for a refund or exchange for a product from another supplier. What is the cost of dealing with returned (faulty) goods and the bad reputation it gives me and the friends I tell? Just my thoughts. Neil Helsby ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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
