A jamming device? I never heard of such a
th100100100100111001100101101010101010010110110101011011011011011011101
Regards,
Alan Brewster
Senior Systems Safety Engineer
--
From: Lucian [SMTP:y...@ht.rol.cn.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:27 AM
I believe what Ing. Gremmen described is the true spirit of immunity testing
- you must tailor the test technique to the characteristics of the test
sample. As he noted, however, sometimes you have to modify the method of
assessing compliant behavior in order to accomplish the test in a
Gert Gremmen wrote:
...
prescan with Increase frequency step size ! (watch out for resonances)
Modify equipment to decrease fault response time (low pass filters ;
software )
Build Specifc test features
Write specific test software
.
I am wondering whoelse out there doing these - Is
Seems like the obvious solution is to use a grounded feedthrough connector
at the bulkhead which terminates the shield 360 degrees to the wall. On the
other side a new shield, also grounded to the bulkhead picks up where the
other left off. That should stop all currents on the shield from
If I did know anything about it, I wouldn't be allowed to say so...
--
From: Lucian y...@ht.rol.cn.net
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: information safe
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2002, 7:26 AM
Dear Sirs,
We know it's very important to keep
-Original Message-
From: Lucian [mailto:y...@ht.rol.cn.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:27 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: information safe
Dear Sirs,
We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its
monitor emit signals always. One method to
I read in !emc-pstc that Lucian y...@ht.rol.cn.net wrote (in
001801c26ad8$c3d21340$eef56cca@y7v8g6) about 'information safe' on
Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
Does anybody know any information about the latter method?
Yes, it's illegal in almost all countries.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own
KC,
You should always use the latest version of the FCC Rules. The September 9
date refers to when this change took effect. For now, you have the option
of using the new limits (which are the same as CISPR 22) or the old FCC
limits for power line conducted emissions.
The FCC Rules don't
I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote (in
oleokfnbajjejfkplbbmienmcdaa.g.grem...@cetest.nl) about 'Dwell time
for Immunity under EN55024?' on Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
The test will give you only PRESUMPTION of compliance anyway.
It is extremely misleading to cast continual
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:23 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: preplated steel
I read in !emc-pstc that Ted Rook t...@crestaudio.com wrote (in
sd9b1823@peavey.com) about 'preplated
I read in !emc-pstc that John Barnes jrbar...@iglou.com wrote (in
3d9c46aa.7...@iglou.com) about 'Can a Haefely EM-101 Coupling Clamp
Serve as an Absorbing Clamp?' on Thu, 3 Oct 2002:
John,
You are correct-- The EN 61000-4-6 coupling clamp (EN 61000-4-6 Annex
A, and Figure A.3) is a whole
I want to provide isolation for auxillary equipment while performing
radiated/conducted immunity testing on 100BT LAN. Tests are performed in a
shielded room, and a bulkhead is used. Right now, cables pass right through
the bulkhead (with, of course, split core ferrites of varying materials
John,
You are correct-- The EN 61000-4-6 coupling clamp (EN 61000-4-6 Annex
A, and Figure A.3) is a whole different beast than an EN 55014-1
absorbing clamp (CISPR 16-1:1993 Annex K, Figure 38, and Figure 39).
I'll look around some more.
The *goal* of the EN 55014-1 30-300MHz
Dear Sirs,
We know it's very important to keep information safe, while PC and its monitor
emit signals always. One method to deal with it is shielding, another method is
to place an emitter besides PC emitting signals to interfere with PC's signals.
Does anybody know any information about the
John,
Sharp edges of pre-plate can be a real problem. And
deburring can cause the pre-plate to rust. I'm told you
can't run a deburring process on pre-plate - for that reason.
I've also been told that a sharp tool will leave less sharp
edges on the finished piece, and I'm not only
Hi Paul,
By reading your explanation it seems as if you miss the point
of what immunity testing is about.
Testing Immunity !
Your explanation makes me think you want to exercise the standard to the
letter.
That's probably not the case, but one should also take the following into
account:
To all interested parties:
The RMCEMC Society's October meeting will be:
Computer Simulation for System Level EMC Design by Dr Fred German of
Flomerics.
Go to our website: http://www.ieee.org/rmcemc for full details
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Vice-Chair
Hi all
I know that FCC has changed the conducted emission limits for FCC part 15 and
18, and I do see changes in the latest FCC part 15. The copy I have is as of
July 22 2002. In section 15.37(j), as follows.
All radio frequency devices that are authorized under the certification,
Greetings,
Problem: What is the correct dwell time to be used for radiated and
conducted immunity for 61000-4-3/61000-4-6 under EN55024?
My thoughts;
Section 8 of IEC 61000-4-3 (I have 1995): The rate of sweep shall not
exceed 1.5 x 10 -3 decades/s. I understand we shall not exceed a 1 % step
I read in !emc-pstc that Ted Rook t...@crestaudio.com wrote (in
sd9b1823@peavey.com) about 'preplated steel' on Wed, 2 Oct 2002:
I believe that if you want edges that don't corrode you can get the right
material by coordination between your engineers and purchasing people.
The stuff that
Joe,
In effect, nothing changed. To comply with the RTTE directive, you must
meet Safety EN 60950 and EMC standards in the OJ. The same is true to meet
the EMC and LVD directives. However, if the RTTE directive does not apply
to your equipment and it's source power is 60VDC or lower, then you
All,
Below is a response from Mark Bogers reinforcing my, as well as
other's, position on the applicability of Network Equipment under the RTTE
Directive. Based on this response, it is clear that the intent of the
directive was not to include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
Paul,
I agree with your statements below. I also agree that test reports
to the applicable interface standards may be required in other countries. I
further agree that certain network operators within the European Union may
require said test reports as part of their procurement
Alain et al,
Looking on this web site (http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/index.html) I found the
following exception:
Equipment exempt from certification according to Article 4 of the Regulations
for certification of information and communication equipment and Article 2 of
the Enforcement
Hi Colin,
I'd try another test lab, and if possible, ask your customer (they may want
it to make them feel good).
I did not do any telco testing on our E1 boards that use SS7 (C.O.
location) and did not have a problem with the RRL.
You will still need to do EMC and safety .
Of course, rules
Dear Colin,
TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry
decree:
1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone
communication network.
2- Equipment not directly connected to a demarcation point of backbone
communication
Colin,
You have to be carefull about what Korea RRL is stating by telecom type
approval.
We have experience with VPN product without connections to the Public Network
and they have requested telecom approval tests.
Mainly the tests consist of EMI/EMC tests
I hope this help
Pierre-Marie
Hi All,
I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use
within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope
of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom
type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech
28 matches
Mail list logo
