Hi Barry:
Thanks for the URL.
An even better paper at the FCC web site is:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56
OET Bulletin Number 56 (Fourth Edition August 1999)
Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and
Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency
I'd love to see how they performed that measurement. At a typical user to
antenna distance, one is pretty close to the near field / far field
boundary. The measurement method must have been interesting.
Ghery
-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz)
Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed
some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone
at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!!
-Original Message-
From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM
To:
Does anyone know about how much of the Ground Fault Circuit Interrupt
(GFCI) market share each of these companies have?
1. Eagle
2. Arrow Hart
3. Hubble
3a. Bryant (made by Hubble?)
4. Leviton
5. Square D
Interestingly enough, today on one of the independent radio
networks, a commentator interviewed numerous persons associated with the
investigation of radiation on the human body from Cell phones. One professor
from the University of Washington (Seattle) claims to have evidence
Hi,
Introduced by our local EMC chapter (SCVemc.org), I visited
http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/ and surfed to FCC OET Bulletin 65
Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to RF
Electromagnetic Fields from there. Those who are concerned may go there.
Barry Ma
Anritsu
George,
This is an excellent idea;-- however, knowing how litigious this country is,
what are the liability risks for IEEE - EMC/PSTC, etc. when posting such a
message under their banner! Inversely, would it do the rest of us any
good, or would some lawyer come after the unfortunate individual
Go ahead and put it on the pwb. We do it anf
it works very well. There is a caveat though -
pay a lot of attention to the layout and final
installation.
-Original Message-
From: POWELL, DOUG [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail);
Robert,
You raise a good point, one worth airing over the server.
1. I view inputs from subscribers of the listserver like pages from a book.
The
book may have disclaimers at the beginning. If one copies a page without
the disclaimers, and this subsequently creates a problem for the
Hi Doug!
Ignoring the EMC questions (as I can safely do, being
a product safety division engineer at TUV!) the
enclosure of the open frame supply would have to meet
the same safety requirements as any other enclosure
around a hazardous voltage circuit. The creepage and
clearance distances
Doug:
It would seem logical that the shield will guarantee a high degree of
immunity to local radiated fields. If the filter is a commerical one its
specs are probably dependent on the shield being in situ. Even though it
may meet the EMC test requirement, there is an added degree of safety
Joe,
To the best of my knowledge, the implementation of RTTE differs from all
previous telecoms
directives as *all* Member States *must* start using it on April 8, 2000. The
current TTE
Directive is valid until April 7, 2000. As you know, the current Directive
took much too long
to implement
The situation is simple,
The European Commission has stated that the RTTE directive will come
effectively in force on the 8th of April 2000 for all EU countries.
Therefore all member countries are obliged to transpose it into their
national regulation before that date.
All member countries shall
Hi Jim,
This thread takes me 'back to the eighties' (when I first entered the c-a
field and was working with UL 478: You are correct with your comments
regarding the perceived flammability of line filter caps.
The scenerio is/was that live parts are required to be enclosed (in the
US, per the
We obtained an electronic copy from our European based safety agency. Ask
them.
Richard Woods
--
From: teck...@apcc.com [SMTP:teck...@apcc.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 9:23 AM
To: rbus...@es.com
Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:
You do not need a metal case for an EMI filter. It is perfectly acceptable
to put a pair of Y capacitors, a common mode choke and an X cap on a
circuit board to form a basic line filter. (Be careful; if you use Y1
capacitors, a single capacitor may be used between line and earth. If you
use Y2
The Regulatory Compliance Information Center web site has ECMA TR-39,
Compliance Verification Report, available on-line.
http://www.rcic.com/reg/tr39page.cfm?p=1d=content
The information is not in a form that can be downloaded, but it does give
you a general idea of what is available from ECMA.
Richard,
Be careful . . . UL 1950 3rd Ed, Section 4.3.12, Equipment that can
generate ionizing radiation or ultraviolet light, or that uses a laser . .
. does make a reference to IEC 825-1 BUT it is
has a line through it. It is a D1 deviation. You are then refered to Annex
NAE where 4.3.12 now
Hello Rick,
If you visit the CB Scheme website you can find a section that offers Test
Report Forms (TRFs) for a number of IEC and EN Standards. After paying
the associated fee with your credit card, the TRFs can immediately be
downloaded from the site.
Easily accessed from the Safety Link
Greetings:
May I suggest that you look first on the LED output and what restrictions
apply to a laser of that power, considering accessibility etc. This will give
you an indications of the major problems. Apply EN60950 and EN60825 and do not
use the supply with 24 V as an excuse - sorry, I should
20 matches
Mail list logo
