Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
It is interesting, nonetheless, to note that the disaster occurred in July 1967, and in September of that year, MIL-E-6051C, EMC Requirements, Systems, was updated to the D revision, which for the first time required 20 dB safety margin demonstrations for EEDs. Coincidence? Perhaps... Ken Javor on 3/27/03 1:20 PM, boconn...@t-yuden.com at boconn...@t-yuden.com wrote: Sir I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in the U.S. Navy USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew. The aircraft in question was stationary in the flight deck; it was not in the landing phase. The failure mode was a faulty connector. One of the major changes invoked by this disaster was the extensiion/formalization of enviromental stress testing (shock. vibration, thermal). EMC was not, IMO, considered part of the root cause. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: King, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:18 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think about it for a while, you will see why. Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if the EMI were not present. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. -- Ken Javor EMC Compliance Huntsville, Alabama 256/650-5261
Calibrating police radar guns
Hi Forum I can recall back in November 2000 there was some discussions here in this group on how to fight speeding tickets and many of you had good advices. I'm about to start on a project which includes calibrating and repairing police radar guns. This will probably involve setting up a semi-anechoic chamber or OATS. I have access to a room which can be used to set-up a chamber and want to restrict the set-up to the radar freq. around 25 and 35 GHz. I would appreciate if you could give some advice and direct me to the right websites to get information. I need both test equipment and material for the chamber. The budget is low so second hand equipment is my goal. Anyone selling his set-up ?. Thank you kindly, Hjalmar Arnason Reykjavik Iceland hjal...@mi.is 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
Derek wrote: the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... FWIW, in the 1980's I worked in an audit lab where we tested samples of shipped equipment for FCC, vibration, heat, humidity, temperature, TEMPEST... it was not uncommon for equipment to do BETTER in EMC tests after it had been subjected to vibration testing. With oils, oxides and so on having been abraded, metal parts made better contact with each other. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
Sir I must concur with Mr Woodgate. This particular instance in (very) infamous in the U.S. Navy USMC, but mostly for shipboard fire-fighting instruction and damage control protocol. The flight-deck videos of this are still shown to students of the fire-fighting school for carrier crew. The aircraft in question was stationary in the flight deck; it was not in the landing phase. The failure mode was a faulty connector. One of the major changes invoked by this disaster was the extensiion/formalization of enviromental stress testing (shock. vibration, thermal). EMC was not, IMO, considered part of the root cause. R/S, Brian -Original Message- From: King, Richard Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:18 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think about it for a while, you will see why. Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if the EMI were not present. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
RE: NEC-2 simulations
CEM = Computation ElectroMagnetics. There are a number of us around using CEM for EMC design and anyalysis where appropriate. The ACES group (Applied Computation Electromagnetics Society) have a session dedicated to EMC at their annual conference in Monterey, CA. (It's next week - if you hurry you'll make it!) Not a huge interest but one that is very much alive and well. Also at the various IEEE Symposium you'll find a number of papers applying CEM techniques to EMC issues. In the past I have written a column for the IEEE EMCS newsletter on CEM and more recently a column on EMC for the ACES newsletter. This was done with idea of more closely tying these two fields together. The response was not deafening :-). As co-author of a book on Computational EMC Modeling I can atest to at least a few hundred people around the world that have at least looked into this arena. cheers, Colin.. From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:01 AM To: 'Wan Juang Foo'; drcuthbert; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NEC-2 simulations Tim, what is CEM? Dave Cuthbert From: Wan Juang Foo [mailto:f...@np.edu.sg] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:34 AM To: drcuthbert; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: NEC-2 simulations I use NEC-2 in a limited way. Good to hear that there are others on the PSTC list that does that. :-) BTW, are there any guys out there that work with CEM? Tim Foo 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Is Authorised Representative in EU Required?
Hi, Yes it is required for some of the directives. For the MDD, the requirement is in Article 14, paragraph 2. For the IVDD it is in Article 10, paragraph 3. If you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ned Devine Entela, Inc. 3033 Madison Ave. SE Grand Rapids, MI 49548 Phone: 616 248 9671 Fax: 616 574 9752 e-mail: ndev...@entela.com www.entela.com Entela, Inc. A Certified Woman Owned Business From: Joe P Martin [mailto:marti...@appliedbiosystems.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:31 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Is Authorised Representative in EU Required? Greetings, In order to meet the requirements of European Union Directives, if the manufacturer is not established in the Community, is it required to have an Authorised Representative established in the Community? Is the requirement, or non-requirement, the same for all Directives? I am mostly concerned with In-Vitro Diagnostics, EMC, Low Voltage, Machinery and Medical Directives. If you have available, please provide specific Article(s) where this is specified in the Directives or the Directive Guidelines. As always, your responses are greatly appreciated. Regards Joe Martin Applied Biosystems marti...@appliedbiosystems.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: high immunity
Robert, I figured 5 kV/m for a distance of 100 meters, over ground. Using commonly available lab items (and a 100 kV power supply) I should be able to generate 5 kV/m at 3 meters during a 1 ns pulse width. Wonder what this would do to a cell phone? Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology From: robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:02 PM To: drcuthbert; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Re: high immunity If GW, wouldn't that voltage be more like 600KV/m, or at least 30KV/m? - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 101 E San Fernando, Suite 402 San Jose, CA 95112 On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:30:14 -0700 drcuthbert drcuthb...@micron.com wrote: With the advent of E-weapons we might need some new immunity specs. I read that they can output several GW. Testing for equipment survival at over 5000 V/m should be fun (and profitable to some). Dave Cuthbert Micron Technology 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/27/2003 8:34:58 AM Central Standard Time, rsto...@lucent.com writes: Mark mentioned reports, a paper trail...or is it? Vendors doing the EMC/EMI ?, who might a vendor be for say IBM or Dell? would think the mfr'r would have an associate there during testing like most of us do. Seems it would be easy to look at the report, from which test lab did it, are they accredited? if yes, then there shouldnt be any questions.. only thing I see, maybe Disparity, as readings can be differnet from lab to lab. these days its ship now...or not at all.. and barely passing for PC's, since its class B may be enough for the PC companies. Richard, Hi Richard, you hit some key points.. There should be records... and it should show how a manufacturer guarantees that all products ship will pass, not just one, one a good day, with the wind behind it And, I hasten to add... the EUT should have been exposed to simulated shipping and installation by a user... not a nursemaid ( don't mean to be sexist ). And also, the report should cover how the EUT still passes once the user has done something to it ( that is expected to happen ) I would imagine that a big company would do their own EMI. If things are getting lax, then perhaps a couple of huge fines are in order to make folks take notice. I'm sure that that would help the EMI guy in a company trying to stand behind why those expensive components really are required. Lab to lab variation is getting very small. Interlab studies have helped that. I think the pressure to ship... at the lowest cost is a key factor... Cheers, Derek.
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I should reiterate from my original message that the text I posted is the introduction to an article, not a complete article. The example was included to engage the reader from the start; demonstrate that electromagnetic compatibility between systems is a real-world issue; and show that a lack of EMC can have severe consequences. It highlights the importance of compatibility between systems in their operating environment, not the importance of compliance with standards in a laboratory, which I agree is often a separate matter. Any other examples that illustrate these points would be gratefully received. Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [SMTP:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:54 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists I read in !emc-pstc that King, Richard richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com wrote (in C02943801230D611919D00508BDF0C246EB61A@RTWEXCH) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think about it for a while, you will see why. Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if the EMI were not present. -- 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! Thales Defence (Wells) DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Crossed out wheelie bin symbol (WEEE Directive)
Anyone know if there is a size requirement for this symbol? i.e. not less than a certain height as applies to the CE mark which must be at least 5mm tall. Regards, Chris ___ Chris James Engineering Services Manager Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (UK) This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not the intended recipient, delete this message. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited. 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Demonstrating compliance with Human Exposure to EMF requireme nts
If you are going to claim compliance to EN50385, you will have to make the assessment according to the standard. Otherwise, you have the following choices: Claim safety conformity to the procedures of the RTTE Directive and create a Technical Construction File and consult with a Notified Body as to the assessment method. Claim safety conformity to the procedures of the LVD (the RTTE Directive allows this)and build a TCF. Under the LVD the use of a Notified Body is not required if harmonized standards are not applied. Obviously, this process has risks since a harmonized standard does exist. In case of challenge, conformity may be difficult to prove without the opinion of a NB. However, I did use this route myself when the the EMF standard I use was in draft form. In your case you should probably use one of the first two choices. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: Charles Blackham [mailto:cblac...@airspan.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:49 AM To: emc-pstc Subject: Demonstrating compliance with Human Exposure to EMF requirements All I'm attempting to demonstrate the compliance of our fixed wireless access system with the human exposure to EMF requirements of Article 3.1a of the RTTE directive: The applicable standard, EN50385, requires the field strengths to be measured/calculated according to EN50383 against the limits detailed in 1999/519/EC. My reading of 1999/519/EC is that the maximum allow E-filed is 61 V/m for 2-300 GHz. I calculate that our subscriber equipment is generating a field of 10 V/m at 0.5m distance. So, so save measuring/calculating near field values, can I just add to the user manual that you should not stand within 0.5m of the front of the equipment? (The antenna wouldn't work so well if you did, and it would be difficult to anyway as it typically pole/chimney mounted) regards Charlie Blackham Approvals Manager Airspan Communications 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: EN61000-4-3 Radiated Immnuity Product Monitoring
Alex, we used a standard camera with a good zoom with remote control, mounted it to the ceiling in the upper corner of the room behind the antenna with the wires running out a small hole and covered it in a screened enclosure. Before we did that we verified that the enclosure did not perturb the calibrated field. It works great up to 10V/m. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: Alex McNeil [mailto:alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:34 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: EN61000-4-3 Radiated Immnuity Product Monitoring Hi Forum, I have a EN61000-4-3 compliance test set up in a Chamber. Some of our products have LCD displays 2cm X 8cm. My problem is I bought a Teseo RF proofed camera that cannot zoom in on the display at a distance of 2m (from the corner of the chamber). I can obviously see the display if I place the camera next to the product. However, it seems that the camera must be positioned outwith the 1.5Msq calibrated field area? I heard that there are fibre optic probes that can be positioned at the display and fed back into the camera lense via an adaptor? Has anyone heard of this method? Has anyone any idea of overcoming my problem without the need to purchase a £5K camera? How near am I allowed to place the camera? Thanks in advance for your kind comments. Kind Regards Alex McNeil Principal Engineer Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Adrian F Davies davies...@virgin.net wrote (in dbegllgahbjcdoanbfjbgegccdaa.davies...@virgin.net) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: this is not quite the case in the UK. EMC issues are policed by local Trading Standards Officers. There have been several successful prosecutions in the South Wales area. MISLEADING! The main recent prosecutions, regarding household appliances, were for safety standard violations. The EMC issue involved introduced serious doubts about the adequacy of the relevant standard, CISPR 14-1/EN 55014-1, which are still being studied. Experience has shown that a CE marked CPU unit will be close to the limit. However, plug another CE marked unit in - printer or monitor or mouse and .. CISPR 22/EN 55022 requires testing of products with typical peripherals connected. -- 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Demonstrating compliance with Human Exposure to EMF requirements
All I'm attempting to demonstrate the compliance of our fixed wireless access system with the human exposure to EMF requirements of Article 3.1a of the RTTE directive: The applicable standard, EN50385, requires the field strengths to be measured/calculated according to EN50383 against the limits detailed in 1999/519/EC. My reading of 1999/519/EC is that the maximum allow E-filed is 61 V/m for 2-300 GHz. I calculate that our subscriber equipment is generating a field of 10 V/m at 0.5m distance. So, so save measuring/calculating near field values, can I just add to the user manual that you should not stand within 0.5m of the front of the equipment? (The antenna wouldn't work so well if you did, and it would be difficult to anyway as it typically pole/chimney mounted) regards Charlie Blackham Approvals Manager Airspan Communications 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: PC EMI
Derek, While I have never seen the extent of failure (amplitude) you're talking about I have run into a tower or two that didn't comply. It was some few dB out hither and yon. (The monitor was the next biggest concern but I had few troubles with those, although Gateway went through a bad period for awhile some years ago). I was able to take care of it in these few cases by cleaning all of the mating surfaces, resetting all the cards in the bus, and tightening the enclosure fasteners. Given everything else you've been through I suspect your tried that already and I suppose there is no reason you should have to do that. But one of the things that isn't addressed is how well these things travel when shipped or when people add internal cards etc. Joints loosen etc. Obviously, that's not the complete answer by any stretch, but it got me what I needed - a system that met class B. Then I left the unit at the test lab, and spent a little time refurbishing it every so often. Design wise, I've always found the I/O card slots to be the most problematic. They really aren't designed very well from an attachment perspective. I've usually had a couple of small indents added to the card face plate, in the center of the face plate to provide a little positive contact. Typically they hook into a slot on one end and have no real contact force from that end to the end which screws into the chassis. If the face plate, or the chassis sheetmetal has a bow into a relatively large seem is left open. I was dealing with gigabit network interface cards (GNICs) at that point and they have some high frequency stuff very close to this interface. Basically even a good chassis can go bad if it isn't maintained over time or after shipping. I'm not suggesting this is the overall solution to the problem that has your snuggies in an uproar, :) but it may help on the onsey-twosey case for your clients in the lab. Gary The note below is probably better and worth 2 cents so this must then be the 1 cent version. From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:59 PM To: randall.flind...@emulex.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: PC EMI In a message dated 3/25/2003 5:10:12 PM Central Standard Time, randall.flind...@emulex.com writes: I am sure you also addressed this but since I have 2 cents to add... A front-end overload condition on the receiver/analyzer, or an overload at the pre-amplifier, can cause errors in measurement that may seem transparent. A local transmitter could be overloading your measurement system and increasing your emissions readings Again, take it at what it is worth! (2 cents) Hi Randy, Where I live, lucky to have electricity :-) When I set my software up, I played with attenuators to make sure that with my signal path, I have at least 20 dB over the Class A limit before I get into any of the signal measurement chain elements either going into compression or saturation. When ever I get an outage like this, I always add 10 dB in the signal path and remeasure... Just to make sure the two curves track. Cheers, Derek.
Re: CCC - is this a current description of IT equipment
Hi Gary, The definitive list of what requires the compulsory certification in China is based on a list of Harmonized System (HS) codes issued by CNCA. HS codes are internationally harmonized commodity codes. I've only seen the full list in Chinese, but on it commodity descriptions like those below are matched up with HS code categories requiring the certification. The key is the codes themselves. Rather than relying on the commodity description, your best bet is to find out what HS code your shipping folks plan to ship the product under. On import, customs officials will be comparing that code to the CNCA list. Hope this helps. -Fred Borda Compliance International www.typeapproval.com At PM 12:17 03/24/03 -0800, Gary McInturff wrote: Information Technology Equipment (IT) (12 categories) Personal computers (PC), Portable personal computers, Display units connected with computer, Printers connected with computer, Multiplying printer coping machines, Scanners, Switching power supply units for computer and adapters, Chargers, Computer game players, Learning machine, Duplicators, Servers, Finance and trade settlement equipment. And if inappropriately listed under Telecommunications Equipment Data Terminal: Storing/Transmitting Fax/Voice card, POS terminal, Interface Transformer, Network Hub, Other Data Terminal. I don't necessarily see LAN equipment under either - although Network Hub could be, depending on the full definition. Is Ethernet/LAN equipment required under the current CCC list to be evaluated? Thanks 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Fred Borda Director Marketing Business Development Compliance International www.typeapproval.com The experts in telecommunications equipment type approval across the Asia-Pacific region 4713 First Street, Suite 280 Pleasanton, California 94566-7362 USA Tel +1.925.417.5571 (direct) Fax +1.925.417.5574 Mobile +1.650.740.5762 fbo...@typeapproval.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
I read in !emc-pstc that Garnier, David S (MED) david.garn...@med.ge.com wrote (in D4DBD8568F05D511A1C20002A55C008CA2 d...@uswaumsx03medge.med.ge.com) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Wed, 26 Mar 2003: I discovered the our product's worst conducted emissions occured when our product was off and the UPS was trickle charging its batteries. I don't like surprises like this that end up add extra modes of operation for product testing. It's an effect that has been flagged up to CISPR and CENELEC, too (SMPS r.f. emissions on light load). So extra tests may well become 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Evaluation Unit Safety and EMC?
Dear group members, I would appreciate if anyone can shed some light on the following: What would be the MINIMUM LEGAL Safety and EMC requirements (i.e. tests, reports, certifications, labeling) in the following two scenarios? 1) A company designs printed circuit boards that are used by their customers for evaluation. The evaluation boards have no enclosure, and are meant to be powered by some sort of a DC power supply (not a part of the evaluation board). 2) “Reference designs” are built, which look more like the end-products that potential customers may design. The reference designs have enclosures and power supplies (AC/DC and/or DC/DC, bought from some of the power-supply vendors/manufacturers). The idea is to let the customer more-less copy the reference design if they wish so. Both of these are: a) Manufactured in very limited quantities, available just for evaluation. b) May contain LAN and WAN interfaces of many different flavors, fiberoptic transceivers (laser) and telco 48V (isolated) power. c) Mainly used in the customers’ labs, but the reference designs may be also temporarily deployed in a real-life environment for more testing (mostly not in a central office though - which would be a different subject). d) SOLD to the customers worldwide (but probably not “placed on the marked”, as they are sold directly and in very limited quantities, not for any resale etc.). Side-note - the customers usually open the reference designs (may contain AC power !!) and leave them open. Thank you very much, Neven 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: surge Z?
It is always a good idea to have a copy of the standard. If it is DC/DC converter, you might find some of the footnotes in the generic immunity standards such as EN 61000-6-2 useful. Example [paraphrased]: Apparatus with a d.c. power input port intended for use with an ac-dc power adaptor shall be tested on the ac power input of the power adaptor specified by the manufacturer, or where none is so specified, using a typical ac-dc power adaptor. The surge test is not applicable to dc power input ports intended to be permanently connected to cables less than 10m There are other notes addressing testing of signal lines. Regards - Chris Chileshe (own views etc etc) From: drcuthbert [SMTP:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:15 PM To: 'jrbar...@iglou.com'; drcuthbert; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: surge Z? Thanks to everyone for the numbers. To clarify, the device is a DC/DC converter. We will be applying the surge to the DC input and to the DC output. I have ordered EN 61000-4-5 to get the details. Dave From: John Barnes [mailto:jrbar...@iglou.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:45 AM To: drcuthbert; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: surge Z? Dave, Section 6.1 of EN 61000-4-5:1995 says the generator has an effective output impedance of 2 ohms. John Barnes KS4GL, PE, NCE, ESDC Eng., SM IEEE dBi Corporation http://www.dbicorporation.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Northeast Product Safety Society Meeting Tomorrow, Wednesday March 26
All, There will be a Northeast Product Safety Society meeting on Wednesday, March 26th, at EMC Corporation's Customer Briefing Center at 42 South Street in Hopkinton, MA. A social hour with light refreshments will begin at 7:00 PM and the technical meeting will start at 7:30 PM. There will be two topics at this month’s meeting. The first topic, presented by Glyn Garside of TUV, concerns the SEMI S2 safety guideline. The second topic, presented by Joe Kostecki of Firetrace International, will cover the Firetrace approach to “Micro Environment Fire Suppression”. Joe Kostecki‘s presentation will cover the Firetrace approach to “Micro Environment Fire Suppression”. This is a new technology that utilizes Linear Pneumatic Heat Detection Tubing that is ideal for in-cabinet protection of critical equipment. Joe is the Northeast Regional Manager for Firetrace International. Glyn Garside’s SEMI S2 safety guideline presentation will provide an introduction to SEMI S2 and concern issues such as: - Is a guideline the same as a standard? - Is it mandatory? - Why are there no shall statements in the standard? - Scope and key requirements - Key differences between 0200, 0302, 1102 and 0303 editions - and what's next? - Related standards and additional requirements - How to demonstrate compliance Glyn Garside is a Senior Engineer with TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. Specializing in Functional Safety assessment (SIL rating) and Machinery and Electrical safety. Glyn is a member of several safety-standards technical committees, including ANSI/NFPA 79 (Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery), ANSI/RIA R15.06 (Industrial Robots Safety Requirements), and UL 1998. He is a member of the IEE and the IEEE and a past vice-chairman of the IEEE Product Safety Technical Committee, Santa Clara Valley chapter. Due to other commitments, Advanced Safety Systems Bill MacKay will not be presenting Firetrace’s SHAPE program at this month’s meeting as listed in the first notice. Bill will return at a later date to present the Firetrace “Special Hazards Awareness, Promotion and Education” or SHAPE program. The 2003 NPSS meeting schedule is available on the NPSS website at http://www.nepss.org/meetings/NPSS2003Calendar.htm. 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/officers03.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
I read in !emc-pstc that King, Richard richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com wrote (in C02943801230D611919D00508BDF0C246EB61A@RTWEXCH) about 'Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003: In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This is an appallingly bad example, insofar as it was caused by a **fault condition**. EMC standards, and the testing itself, do not take fault conditions into account. There is a separate subject 'EMC and functional safety', which is incredibly complicated. If you just think about it for a while, you will see why. Don't let your audience think that EMI occurs only when source or victim is faulty. EMI occurs when both would be working perfectly normally if the EMI were not present. -- 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
OK, what's going on?
Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
RE: OK, what's going on?
... BB conducted emissions from a battery charger... The last product that I cert'ed was a PC based product, its ATX supply was a special model which contained a UPS. During product certification I discovered the our product's worst conducted emissions occured when our product was off and the UPS was trickle charging its batteries. I don't like surprises like this that end up add extra modes of operation for product testing. dave garnier David Garnier e GE Medical Systems ___ David S. Garnier Senior Technician PET Engineering 3000 N. Grandview Ave - M/S W-1250 Waukesha, Wi. 53188 Tel: 262.312.7246 From: Doug Smith [mailto:d...@emcesd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:38 AM To: Grasso, Charles Cc: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: OK, what's going on? Hi All, Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. The same thing may be happening in Mil-spec testing. Recently, I was at a client's site for a purpose unrelated to this story. I noticed interference to the measurement I was trying to make on a piece of equipment. The equipment had enough common mode current on its leads to fail emissions, even though it was turned off! There was a military battery charger for small batteries on their bench so I connected my current probe to its power cord and noticed enough common mode current to cause a 30 dB+ failure of emissions over a broad frequency range. I would suppose the battery charger had been tested to mil-specs. If so there is a problem here, even accounting for the repeatability problems in mil-spec testing. Doug Grasso, Charles wrote: Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org mailto:chasgra...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. .. -- ___ _ Doug Smith \ / ) P.O. Box 1457 = Los Gatos, CA 95031-1457 _ / \ / \ _ TEL/FAX: 408-356-4186/358-3799 / /\ \ ] / /\ \ Mobile: 408-858-4528 | q-( ) | o |Email: d...@dsmith.org \ _ /]\ _ / Website: http://www.dsmith.org 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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:
RE: OK, what's going on?
Good morning all, this is not quite the case in the UK. EMC issues are policed by local Trading Standards Officers. There have been several successful prosecutions in the South Wales area. Experience has shown that a CE marked CPU unit will be close to the limit. However, plug another CE marked unit in - printer or monitor or mouse and .. Adrian F Davies C.Eng FIEE Tel: 029 2075 4250 Mob: 07770 894050 Email: afdav...@iee.org 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: NEC-2 simulations
I use NEC-2 in a limited way. Good to hear that there are others on the PSTC list that does that. :-) BTW, are there any guys out there that work with CEM? Tim Foo 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
-Original Message- From: King, Richard [mailto:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists Dear all, I am working on an article about EMC for an internal newsletter. The aim is to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my colleagues and I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and hardware), managers and support staff. To put the piece in context I would like to succinctly describe what EMC is in an opening couple of paragraphs. However I am struggling to do so in language that is easy to read and not full of techno-jargon. My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of producing similar material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people producing similar text? Are there any examples of good summaries available, on the web or elsewhere, that people in my position can draw upon for inspiration? My current draft is copied after my signature. Comments or alterations, either by direct e-mail or to the list, will be gratefully received. Thanks in advance, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK. I pitch it low and slow: The whole idea of Electromagnetic Compatibility is to produce a product that operates in complete electronic harmony with its environment. Ideally, our product will cause no harm to any existing electronic system. We don't want our product to accidentally retract the landing gear or crash the payroll computer. And just as importantly, our equipment will continue to work reliably, shrugging off RF fields and powerline noise. That's all you need for the executive level description. If you want to go to the next level, then loop through: We ensure the compatibility of our product by creating a model of the real electronic environment, either from an established standard or by analysis. We use this model to define a set of electronic environmental tests. When our product is made to operate successfully in these model environments, we maximize the probability that our product will operate harmoniously in its market environment. If they want even more information, see if they might like a summer intern job in your lab. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EN61000-4-3 Radiated Immnuity Product Monitoring
Hi Forum, I have a EN61000-4-3 compliance test set up in a Chamber. Some of our products have LCD displays 2cm X 8cm. My problem is I bought a Teseo RF proofed camera that cannot zoom in on the display at a distance of 2m (from the corner of the chamber). I can obviously see the display if I place the camera next to the product. However, it seems that the camera must be positioned outwith the 1.5Msq calibrated field area? I heard that there are fibre optic probes that can be positioned at the display and fed back into the camera lense via an adaptor? Has anyone heard of this method? Has anyone any idea of overcoming my problem without the need to purchase a £5K camera? How near am I allowed to place the camera? Thanks in advance for your kind comments. Kind Regards Alex McNeil Principal Engineer Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375 Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321 email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
Dear All, Many thanks for your collective help with this question. I attach my final text below in case others on the list have a use for it. Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) In 1967 off the coast of Vietnam, a jet landing on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal was briefly illuminated by carrier-based radar. This is quite a normal event, however the energy from the radar caused a stray electrical signal to be sent to the jet weapon systems. The result was an uncommanded release of munitions that struck a fully armed and fuelled fighter on deck. The subsequent explosions killed 134 sailors and caused severe damage to the carrier and aircraft. This article briefly describes the problems caused by Electromagnetic Interference, what must be done to control it, and the relevance it has to our work. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) is caused by equipment that emits radio frequency energy, either deliberately or as a by-product. If this energy gets into nearby equipment it can degrade or even prevent its normal operation. This is an important factor in hardware design. Products cannot be allowed to accidentally cause an aircraft's landing gear to retract, or crash a nearby life-support machine for example. Just as importantly, equipment must continue to work reliably when stray energy is present, shrugging off interference from nearby noisy devices (such as the U.S.S. Forrestal's radar system). Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) is the science of non-interference. If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same environment without the loss of function or performance in either, they are said to be (mutually) Electromagnetically Compatible. To ensure this compatibility for our systems, equipment must be designed to control its susceptibility to, and its emission of, electromagnetic interference. This can only be achieved through an engineering planned process applied over the whole product lifecycle. Careful consideration of design, procurement, production, site selection, installation, operation, and maintenance is required. ... Best regards, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK, -Original Message- From: King, Richard [SMTP:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists Dear all, I am working on an article about EMC for an internal newsletter. The aim is to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my colleagues and I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and hardware), managers and support staff. To put the piece in context I would like to succinctly describe what EMC is in an opening couple of paragraphs. However I am struggling to do so in language that is easy to read and not full of techno-jargon. My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of producing similar material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people producing similar text? Are there any examples of good summaries available, on the web or elsewhere, that people in my position can draw upon for inspiration? My current draft is copied after my signature. Comments or alterations, either by direct e-mail or to the list, will be gratefully received. Thanks in advance, Richard King Systems Engineer Thales Communications UK. Begin Draft Subject Description = EMC is two things: - The resistance of a piece of equipment to external Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) - The control of a piece of equipment's production of EMI. If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same Electromagnetic Environment (EME) without degradation in the performance or function of either, they are said to be mutually Electromagnetically Compatible. To ensure Compatibility it is necessary to carefully design equipment such that both its susceptibility to, and its emission of EMI is controlled. Standards exist that define limits for both these aspects. Examples you may have heard of are the European EMC Directive, which is mandatory for all electrical hardware sold in the European Union; and the Defence Standard DEF-STAN 59-41, which many of our contracts refer to. In addition to the distinction between emissions and susceptibility, EMI can be further classified as either conducted or radiated. The former is energy transferred via wires or other conductors; and the latter refers to electromagnetic waves propagating through free space. EMC is a necessary consideration for projects that deliver hardware. Furthermore, many of the requirements for EMC are common between projects. This commonality can be exploited to increase efficiency for individual projects and across sites. End Draft Subject Description = Thales Defence (Wells) DISCLAIMER: The
RE: OK, what's going on?
Amen! I had 15 years of computer EMC when I left the PC sector this year. This was a never ending source of frustration. I won't even get into the shortcomings of the measurement standards. The emigration of PC manufacturing to the PAC rim is being followed by emigration of the design and validation teams also. Many PC manufacturers have completely outsourced their EMC testing to the OEM PC manufacturers even when they own several 10 meter semi anechoic chambers. This is akin to having the fox watch over the hen house. Management says it is more economical that way. When every test is compliant and product passes the first time every time then I guess it is. Besides, it isn't compliance that anyone is really after anymore but rather a piece of paper that says it is compliant. (Neville Chamberlain effect) Maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Most customers don't care if it meets EMC requirements. Most only relate features to price and EMC is not a feature they would pay for. An EMC engineer can't tell whether a PC passes or fails without an expensive test site chock full of equipment so how is a consumer supposed to tell? A few commercial and government customers perform audit tests before entering into contracts but most don't seem to care. I seem to remember an FCC employee speaking at a conference somewhere stating that they don't get computer interference complaints. Mostly telephone interference complaints but never computer interference. Most of the field complaints I worked on were immunity related. Customers care and complain about that. In today's computer industry the companies that aggressively pursue EMC are penalized by adding more cost while the companies that ignore it are able to produce a more inexpensive product. The vigilant companies will not be able to compete. I agree, enforce the emissions standards or drop them. Earl Morse ex-Major PC Company EMC guru -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:38 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: OK, what's going on? Hi Derek - Go Reds!! This is not a surprise to me. I have railed at much length a couple of years ago as to the latest FCC changes to the emissions qualification. I am sure you are familiar with it so I won't belabour the point. Fundementally the FCC PC emissions procedure has rendered the EMC discipline almost irrelevent. The new procedures coupled with the lack of enfocement makes it difficult to justify the increased costs of EMC design test. It also makes the whole measurement uncertainty push ridiculous. After all if the procedures allow for prodcut that 20dB out of spec why bother with a couple of dB of error?? Lets give the emissions standards some teeth or eliminate it all together. Best Regards Charles Grasso Senior Compliance Engineer Echostar Communications Corp. Tel: 303-706-5467 Fax: 303-799-6222 Cell: 303-204-2974 Email: charles.gra...@echostar.com; mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com; Email Alternate: chasgra...@ieee.org From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that
RE: OK, what's going on?
Derek, doesnt say whether you took the uncompliant equipment straight from your lab to another without making any changes... be interesting to see what the data is, since PC's are listed to class B... you may have something.. but its always good to get a second result from lab B. Richard, From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
RE: PC EMI
I am sure you also addressed this but since I have 2 cents to add... A front-end overload condition on the receiver/analyzer, or an overload at the pre-amplifier, can cause errors in measurement that may seem transparent. A local transmitter could be overloading your measurement system and increasing your emissions readings Again, take it at what it is worth! (2 cents) Randy Flinders Senior Compliance Engineer Emulex Corporation - We Network Storage 3535 Harbor Blvd. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Direct: (714) 513-8012 Fax: (714) 513-8265 Email: randall.flind...@emulex.com mailto:randall.flind...@emulex.com Web: http://www.emulex.com From: drcuthbert [mailto:drcuthb...@micron.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:31 PM To: 'lfresea...@aol.com'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: PC EMI Derrick, I'm sure you used the antenna factors correctly but I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway. Were the AF's used correctly? You need the TX AF and the RX AF. If the receive antenna factor was used as the transmit antenna factor that will skew the calibration. Dave Cuthbert 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-special ists
To me, all this regulation can be synopsized: Electronics shall not put out stuff - conducted or radiated Electronics shall not be upset when stuff comes in - susceptibility to conducted or radiated. Difference in attitude between US and elsewhere: It is my understanding that in the US the FCC thought not to complicate the manufacturing process by adding susceptibility tests to product testing, but rather have the consumer simply modify their behaviour. If a product does not work well because it is easily upset by stuff coming in, the consumer will buy a different product and/or complain to the manufacturer, thus automatic control without FCC intervention. But in the EC and elsewhere, they thought to add tests ahead of time in order to establish a minimum quality standard of performance for the consumer, like prescreen for the consumer. Which is better control? Arguments go both ways. - Robert - Robert A. Macy, PEm...@california.com 408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121 AJM International Electronics Consultants 101 E San Fernando, Suite 402 San Jose, CA 95112 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
EMC Technician
EMC Technician looking for work. I have 5+ years of experience with FCC, CISPR and Belcore. Currently living in MN. Willing to relocate. _ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum http://rd.yahoo.com/pl tinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop ht p://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html !
Re: CCC - is this a current description of IT equipment
Gary, All, Office networking equipment (ethernet/network hubs, switches, Ethernet PCI Cards, etc) are included in the definition. I attended a US Dept. of Commerce seminar with a delegation from the CNCA and that was one of the questions raised and answered - so it's strainght out of the horses mouth, so to speak. On the other hand, Central Office type equipment does not need approval under the CCC - but it does need a Network License so you still have to go through all the testing anyway, just with a different agency. Best Regards, Dave Heald Gary McInturff wrote: Information Technology Equipment (IT) (12 categories) Personal computers (PC), Portable personal computers, Display units connected with computer, Printers connected with computer, Multiplying printer coping machines, Scanners, Switching power supply units for computer and adapters, Chargers, Computer game players, Learning machine, Duplicators, Servers, Finance and trade settlement equipment. And if inappropriately listed under Telecommunications Equipment Data Terminal: Storing/Transmitting Fax/Voice card, POS terminal, Interface Transformer, Network Hub, Other Data Terminal. I don't necessarily see LAN equipment under either - although Network Hub could be, depending on the full definition. Is Ethernet/LAN equipment required under the current CCC list to be evaluated? Thanks 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists
Richard asks.. My questions to the list are: What are your experiences of producing similar material? How well was it received and what is your advice for people producing similar text? Always a difficult (but absolutely essential) task I find. You may have to stand in front of the audience with visual aids and an adequate supply of examples of EMC horrors to keep their attention. If the marketing manager's attention begins to fail them, mention litigation. If you must explain the certification process, list the various (numerous) tests that go into the process, distinguishing between them and the severity levels used (e.g. V/m for RI, kV for ESD etc) It always helps to explain clearly that mitigation usually requires a combination of electrical and mechanical measures. This makes the mechanical engineers sit up. Once you have taken them through it, you will find they are better disposed to read and understand the written work. Try not to be too simplistic, otherwise you will despair when after a seemingly successful presentation, you start hearing phrases like EMC rating of 30V/m. You may have to patiently point out that the unit V/m does not refer to all EMC tests. You might want to make a note of repeat offenders at this stage and run a 3-strikes and you're out policy, ably implemented with an ESD gun and strategically located ground plane. Should you run such a policy, beware of any fluid dynamics presentations to which the repeat offenders might invite you! Good luck, and remember, it is a worthwhile undertaking! Best regards - Chris Chileshe From: King, Richard [SMTP:richard.k...@uk.thalesgroup.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:07 AM To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists Dear all, I am working on an article about EMC for an internal newsletter. The aim is to increase awareness of the EMC related projects on which my colleagues and I are currently engaged. The target audience is largely composed of engineers specialising in other subject areas (software, systems and hardware), managers and support staff. snip 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
IEC60950 (1992) 2nd edition
If you have a Power supply unit tested according to IEC60950 (1992) 2nd edition, will it fulfil UL 1950 3rd ed ? In other words, is IEC60950 (1992) 2nd edition still valid for UL approval ? Amund Oslo / Norway 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Hi-pot test requirement for circuit packs
Hi Group, do you know if any specs or standards exist for Hi-Pot testing on circuit packs (boards)? Let's say the boards have -48VDC input, than DC-DC converters, no TNV circuits, intended to be installed in Central Office as part of the bigger system (chassis). I know we suppose to do Hi-Pot tests for chassis level in production, but should we do it separately on the boards? Thanks for any comments, Mark Gandler Ciena 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: Help wanted with succinct subject description for non-specialists
For non-technical people ... in other words KISS. EMC is two things: I respectfully disagree. Here's what I'd say. Take it as you wish. EMC or Electromagnetic Compatibility is the products ability to pass a variety of electromagnetic product testing requirements demanded by different countries or customers. The requirements may vary greatly from country to country. These requirements may involve electromagnetic emission that the product produces internally, or in addition may involve exposing the product to a variety of aggressive extrenal electromagnetic environments. It is important to note that the compatibility of a product to testing is completely dependent upon the construction and performance of the product at the time of the testing. Any change to construction or performance after testing may compromise the products compatibility with those tests. If two pieces of equipment can operate in the same Electromagnetic Environment (EME) without degradation in the performance or function of either, they are said to be mutually Electromagnetically Compatible. Okay, I'll go along with that, although my amateur legal hat bugs me to add for that specific EME . Regards, Doug McKean _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: OK, what's going on?
In a message dated 3/25/2003 4:11:56 PM Central Standard Time, drcuthb...@micron.com writes: most interesting data. I have two questions: What software are you exercising the PC's with and is the spread spectrum enabled? I assume you are using an RBW of 120 kHz and using Quasi-peak detection. Hi Dave, the PC's are not Spread Spectrum based. What makes me say this is that in real time, the discrete frequencies are rock solid. I don't see the modulation that an SS clock would show. The RBW is 120 kHz. The PC's were tested first with a DOS based SW, that was written by my client to excercise his card ( It's a 100 base T Ethernet card. Then, once I'd pulled his card, the PC's were booted to windows, and I left them at the desktop. I did not bother with scrolling H's. I have friends at Matrox and Nvidea that have suggested that is a bit bogus therse days, so I really have not used that. Besides, pulling the CRT ( LCD and CRT ) didn't make a huge difference. The LCD though I believe is a better monitor ( my back likes it better ), and is usually quieter if I use it as a second monitor on a laptop. In my limited experience I have found that the software that is exercising the PC can make quite a difference. It is my understanding that many PC's are tested with H's printing to the screen. When running a game such as Doom the emissions will go up several dB. And if the spread spectrum is not enabled there will be an increase of 8 dB or so. I'm curious as to what the failing frequencies are. The 2 mainstream PC's had emissions from 30 MHz to 50 MHz. I attributed this to the power supply, it looked just like BB noise from reverse recovery times. These two PC's looked good over 100 MHz The clones touched the spec line to about 150 MHz, then, discrete spurs could be seen all the way past 1000 MHz. I stopped at 1 GHz. From memory I don't recall wht they were, but a quick guess would be about 30 MHz spacing. Don't hold me to that. Cheers, Derek.
Re: EN61000-4-3 Radiated Immnuity Product Monitoring
Hi Alex, talk to Sensormatic, the are in Florida, but great folks to deal with. Don Umbdenstock would be the chap. djumbdenst...@tycoint.com They have a remarkable camera that can sit in the roof and zoom quite hi. While I was at his lab, I didn't see it respond to fields up to 10 v/m. The zoom is remote controlled too. If you were looking for point of use cameras, I have a fibre optic version just a bit bigger than a cigarette case for under $2000. The lenses are C-type, they can be what ever you want. . Cheers, Derek.
RE: OK, what's going on?
I support contacting the FCC to look into it. Provide supporting documentation. Otherwise we're all wasting our time and money making striving for compliant product. This is my personal opinion, which may not necessarily reflect that of my employer. John A. Juhasz GE Interlogix Fiber Options Div. Bohemia, NY From: lfresea...@aol.com [mailto:lfresea...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:05 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: OK, what's going on? Hi all, This e-mail has been prompted because of a number of things that have all come together. This may take a little reading, but please stick with it. Last note... this is not intended to pick on any individuals, or organization, but I do want to stir the pot. I operate an engineering lab, helping clients harden their designs to meet EMC requirements. In this particular instance, I was working for a small client, on a card that goes in the PC . In order to test I need a host PC. So, to save money, the card maker supplies 2 clones. Neither of the two PCs passed emissions testing with the card, in fact, above 100 MHz, they fail even the Class A limit: badly! So, before calling my client, I pull his card, the PC is no different, I pull the monitor, then the keyboard, then the mouse... No different. I test just the PC chassis one at a time. On their own, booted and then the peripherals removed. Not even close to passing. Disgruntled, I get my office PC... Fail. I get my kids PC.. over 20 dB over the limit! So, I think so much for clones... I buy 2 Dell ( sorry, no point trying to hide names... ) desktops, both fail, quite badly. However, they have very similar noise profiles... Can 5 PC's all fail? I think my measuring system is set -up wrong. So I verify this. I am within 1 dB of what I expect when I inject a signal from a signal generator and account for antenna factors. Here lies the question: why can I not find a PC that passes? Worse, since they don't pass, who is chasing them down to enforce the requirements? I'm unhappy, because I am taking a clients money to make him meet the requirements, when it seems no one else is. Now, what's making this worse for me, is that I am an EMC Lab assessor. So, I go to labs and make them jump through hoops so that they produce, as consistently as possible, data the characterizes a product. Exercises, like those performed by USCEL, show that labs can have very consistent results. Anyone that stands up and says EMC is not a field where consistency can be achieved, should not be in the compliance business: please close your lab. So if the test are consistent, why the HUGE variations? In the 20+ labs I have assessed, I feel that almost every one had an ethical approach. Ironically, I felt that the bigger companies I visited like HP and Intel were exceptional: both ethically and technically. The rest of the labs were between good to very good. So cheating is unlikely.. I have now spent about 60 man-hours looking for a PC that passes FCC Class B emissions. Something that I should just be able to go to the store and get. As yet, I have no PC. Our field, it appears, is not a level playing field. It appears more like a rugby game in which we have no referee! So why are there no fines being levied? Especially since it seems I can find non-compliant products everywhere! Is the self policing approach out of control? I intend to take this up with the FCC. Is there anyone out there that is supportive of this action ( which means you must be doing things right.. )? Am I wasting my time ( in which case if this is all lip service... why should we even test )? Or am I missing something ( I listen to 2 by 4's )? Derek Walton Owner of an EMC Lab EMC Lab Assessor NARTE EMC Engineer 30 years of EMC experience
PC EMI
Derrick, I'm sure you used the antenna factors correctly but I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway. Were the AF's used correctly? You need the TX AF and the RX AF. If the receive antenna factor was used as the transmit antenna factor that will skew the calibration. Dave Cuthbert 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Fwd: requirements for lab use (primarily) equipment
I read in !emc-pstc that David Heald davehe...@attbi.com wrote (in 3e826b48.8060...@attbi.com) about 'Fwd: requirements for lab use (primarily) equipment' on Wed, 26 Mar 2003: Forwarded for Neven Pischl... Please respond to Neven (cc'ed on this message). - Dave I already replied to this once, on 25 March. Didn't you see it? QUOTE I read in !emc-pstc that neve...@attbi.com wrote (in 200303252039.h2PKd l906...@orion2.ieee.org) about 'Evaluation Unit Safety and EMC?' on Tue, 25 Mar 2003: What would be the MINIMUM LEGAL Safety and EMC requirements (i.e. tests, reports, certifications, labeling) in the following two scenarios? You are asking unanswerable questions. The EU Directives do not take account of such special products. Opinions of authorities in different EU countries may differ. It won't be much help, but for safety, apply the General Product Safety Directive. For EMC, don't violate Article 4 of the Directive. I am a consultant and I make one-offs similar to the things you describe, test products for safety under high stress and modify existing products to solve problems. I have a label to apply to such objects, which says, 'This product has been heavily stressed in testing and/or has been modified. It must be confined to a technical area.' That disclaimer hasn't been tested in court, but the implication is that in 'technical areas', skills exist that moderate the normal criteria for safety and EMC, because only skilled and instructed persons come in contact with the product. Frankly, I don't see any other possibility. For an example of utter stupidity, some years ago I obtained an experimental licence from the UK DTI to do development work on radio microphones. This allowed me to emit ***1 dB less*** than a normal operational licence! I wasn't even allowed to operate an unmodified, approved product! ENDQUOTE -- 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 Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
