Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
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 Electromagnetic Fields This is an informative bulletin written as a result of increasing interest and concern of the public with respect to this issue. The expanding use of radiofrequency technology has resulted in speculation concerning the alleged electromagnetic pollution of the environment and the potential dangers of exposure to non-ionizing radiation. This publication is designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions. It includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF energy. This document includes a very good and comprehensive description, annotated, of the various health effects of RF energy, including the non-heating effects. It includes information on power output of cell phones and possible health effects. It appears to answer all of the questions brought up here in this discussion. Best regards, Rich - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
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) [mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:34 PM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? 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: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
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: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave engineers understand the risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many times, but I know the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were getting cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. I better quit talking before I get upset. Al Patrick
GFCI suppliers
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 6. Pass and Seymour Any information will help. David Tarnowski Whirlpool Corp. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
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 that radiation in rats has been proven to alter chromosomes. Another claims that no one in the US would test Cell Phones for power output and report on them by brand name. The phones were taken to Europe for testing. Yet another claims that research money was granted to study the issue and then withheld once the evidence started to point towards this destructive chromosome problem. Another man whose wife spent 150 hrs a month on the cell phone believes that her fatal brain tumor was a direct cause of the phone. He claims that the tumor (CAT scan) when held near the antenna was a halo of the antenna itself. He went on to say that the US government had evidence for the risk of radiation published in Mil Hdbk 239. This document was subsequently withdrawn and the replacement document no longer addresses that risk. Who knows... Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
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 __ Open your mind. Close your wallet. Free Internet Access from AltaVista. http://www.altavista.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Boilerplate Disclaimer?
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 and successfully argue him/her into the poor house! Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:09 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Boilerplate Disclaimer? This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the managers of this listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services. Many postings contain some form of disclaimer such as: These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer. Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions? I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc tag which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the writers' employers. This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs. Most, including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal comment. George Alspaugh Lexmark International - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
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); Treg Listserv (E-mail) Subject: Open Frame EMI Filters Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Boilerplate Disclaimer?
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 author(s), it can be legally argued that the text was passed along without the original disclaimers. The burden is on the individual who forwarded the material to preserve any original modifiers. BTW, the forwarder can delete my own macro as easily as the emc-ptsc tag. 2. I do not use macro signatures, as I would need many different versions depending on the nature of the communication, e.g. personal, departmental, corporate, external, etc. As a rule I try to avoid the use of ANY macros that normally add no value to the note. 3. A standard disclaimer attached by the listserver can be adequately vague, e.g. All contents submitted to this listserver are considered to be the opinions of the authors and not that of their employers. The key word is considered. I still vote for a generic disclaimer.. George macy%california@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/09/99 11:48:16 AM Please respond to macy%global.california@interlock.lexmark.com To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: Boilerplate Disclaimer? Good point, but maybe some comment might be official. Since any of one's comments may go elsewhere, wouldn't the responsibillity of a disclaimer lie with the originator, not the one who carries it (distributes it) on? Just add the disclaimer to your macro signature. - Robert - -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com geor...@lexmark.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 8:21 AM Subject: Boilerplate Disclaimer? This is merely a suggestion for consideration by the managers of this listserver, to whom we are all indebted for their services. Many postings contain some form of disclaimer such as: These comments reflect the personal opinions of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the writer's employer. Since this forum is a free exchange of information between professionals with similar interests, aren't ALL comments basically personal opinions? I recommend that some generic disclaimer be added to the present emc-pstc tag which clearly states that all appended comments are considered as personal opinions and are not to be taken as the official position of the writers' employers. This would save us all from typing some caveat with our inputs. Most, including myself, simply do not take the time to add this important legal comment. George Alspaugh Lexmark International - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
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 between the exposed hazardous voltage components and the accessible surfaces in finished product would have to be adaquate. Of course, if you are just producing the filter that is not your concern! Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- POWELL, DOUG doug.pow...@aei.com wrote: Hello once again, I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the components or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product. This is not my question. Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open frame is the passing all applicable EMC tests. This means that the open-frame design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels, without the metallic box. My questions deals more with why is the enclosure required if product passes the tests without it. In the past I have designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control. I compensated for the internal re-radiation problem. Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement. I disagree. -doug === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com,
Re: Open Frame EMI Filters
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 i.e. equipment malfunction) with the filter in place. If there is line voltage appearing on any of the components and they are in areas used by service people then the question of electrical safety is addressed by having a shield. This is only my opinion. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant and Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After Sale) - Original Message - From: POWELL, DOUG doug.pow...@aei.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Treg Listserv (E-mail) t...@world.std.com Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:19 PM Subject: RE: Open Frame EMI Filters Hello once again, I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the components or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product. This is not my question. Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open frame is the passing all applicable EMC tests. This means that the open-frame design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels, without the metallic box. My questions deals more with why is the enclosure required if product passes the tests without it. In the past I have designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control. I compensated for the internal re-radiation problem. Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement. I disagree. -doug === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list
RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
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 in certain countries (no names...) and I guess this is the reason for this unusal approach. Roger Magnuson Manager, Marketing Business Development TGC AB Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden TEL: +46 856250050 (direct) FAX: +46 856250045 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:13 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000? Listmembers: I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with. I'm developing a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000. The exact date is not certain, but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE directive. If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required for the brief period until April 2000. I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member state has transposed it into national law. If so, this suggests that the RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state has transposed it into national law. In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of April 8, 2000. In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of April 8. I do not know what the other member states are planning to do. So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if the product ships prior to April 8, 2000? Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc.
RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
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 start to use the RTTE directive at the 8th of April. Best regards Theo Hildering -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: 08 December 1999 22:13 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject:Using RTTE directive before April 2000? Listmembers: I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with. I'm developing a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000. The exact date is not certain, but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE directive. If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required for the brief period until April 2000. I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member state has transposed it into national law. If so, this suggests that the RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state has transposed it into national law. In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of April 8, 2000. In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of April 8. I do not know what the other member states are planning to do. So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if the product ships prior to April 8, 2000? Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
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 NEC and ANSI/UL standards). All can agree to that, I believe. X-caps were (are still?) available both with a flame-rated potting compound and without. Those not meeting requisite flame-ratings for polymeric enclosures were required to be enclosed (which could be accomodated by properly flame-rate barriers, potting, or the outer enclosure of the device in which they were contained). Also, since standards allow the filter-caps to be wired-in prior to the switch and fuse/s, they are continually at risk for equipment that is plugged-in all the time. Regards, Art Michael Int'l Product Safety News A.E. Michael, Editor 166 Congdon St. East P.O. Box 1561 Middletown CT 06457 U.S.A. Phone : (860) 344-1651 Fax: (860) 346-9066 Email : i...@connix.com Website: http://www.safetylink.com ISSN : 1040-7529 -- On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Jim Eichner wrote: A couple of other thoughts: - Used to be that everyone thought X and Y cap's were hideously fire-hazardous. Perhaps the UL and CSA standards for line filters require a can (ie fire enclosure) around them, even if they are approved and even if the filter goes inside the outer (equipment) enclosure. - Potting will allow you to meet reduced creepage and clearance that may be crucial in obtaining decent high frequency attenuation from the filter. Regards, Jim Eichner Senior Regulatory Compliance Engineer Statpower Technologies Corporation jeich...@statpower.com http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. -Original Message- From: POWELL, DOUG [SMTP:doug.pow...@aei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 2:20 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; Treg Listserv (E-mail) Subject:RE: Open Frame EMI Filters Hello once again, I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the components or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product. This is not my question. Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open frame is the passing all applicable EMC tests. This means that the open-frame design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels, without the metallic box. My questions deals more with why is the enclosure required if product passes the tests without it. In the past I have designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control. I compensated for the internal re-radiation problem. Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement. I disagree. -doug === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com
RE: EN 60950 Checklist
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: Re: EN 60950 Checklist 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. Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC?s official position on any matter. Please respond to rbus...@es.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: rbus...@es.com on 12/08/99 04:47 PM Subject: EN 60950 Checklist File: ATT15638.txt - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Open Frame EMI Filters
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 or Y4 capacitors, you must use two capacitors in series.) The main reason for a metal case is to prevent radiated coupling of noise from one side of the filter to the other. If you have a metal enclosure, use a metal encased bulkhead filter. This is the best situation because it will provide a high level of EMI suppression. If your product is in a non-metallic enclosure, the filter case has less of an effect. Just make sure that the filter is as close to the power entry as possible. If you have a lot of unfiltered power lines around the electronics, noise can radiate around the filter causing problems with conducted emissions. Conversely, noise on the power lines can radiate around the filter and cause problems with susceptibility. The filter will still help, but it will not be as effective as a bulkhead filter with a metal enclosure. Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC’s official position on any matter. Please respond to POWELL, DOUG doug.pow...@aei.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org, Treg Listserv (E-mail) t...@world.std.com cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: POWELL, DOUG doug.pow...@aei.com on 12/08/99 04:19 PM Subject: RE: Open Frame EMI Filters Hello once again, I have already received a number of replies to my query indicating that the metallic enclosure is required for low inductance coupling to the components or to prevent radiation between circuits within the product. This is not my question. Please remember that one of the criteria that I described for the open frame is the passing all applicable EMC tests. This means that the open-frame design that I propose meets both radiated and conducted emissions levels, without the metallic box. My questions deals more with why is the enclosure required if product passes the tests without it. In the past I have designed a few products with a simple PCB for emissions control. I compensated for the internal re-radiation problem. Recently I heard of a commercial EMI Filter company that says the enclosure is required and that the encapsulant is a requirement. I disagree. -doug === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === Hello group, For years I have used off-the-shelf and custom EMI filters with a fully enclosed metal canister. Why is this enclosure required? Are there specific provisions in the standards? My idea is to build up the filter circuit on a printed circuit board and make it an integral part of the power supply. I am currently looking at EN133200 which has certain seal tests but after reviewing these, they all appear to be related to climatic or environmental conditions. If the product passes these tests without the enclosure it would seem that the product has passed, period. Alternatively I have considered removing the nomenclature EMI filter and simply call it an input module, then evaluate it as a part of the overall system. If it passes the EMC and Product Safety requirements, can I call the job complete? Any thoughts? === Douglas E. Powell Regulatory Compliance Engineer Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 1625 Sharp Point Dr. Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 USA m/s: 2018 --- 970-407-6410 (phone) 970-407-5410 (e-fax) 800-446-9167 (toll-free) mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com http://www.advanced-energy.com http://www.advanced-energy.com === - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to
Re: EN 60950 Checklist
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. Ted Eckert Regulatory Compliance Engineer American Power Conversion The items contained in this e-mail reflect the personal opinions of the writer and are only provided for the assistance of the reader. The writer is not speaking in an official capacity for APC nor representing APC’s official position on any matter. Please respond to rbus...@es.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Ted Eckert/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: rbus...@es.com on 12/08/99 04:47 PM Subject: EN 60950 Checklist I have been asked by my engineering department to create or locate a checklist for EN 60950 (or IEC 950) to be used as a guideline. In the past, I remember an ECMA document like this but that was years ago. Does anyone have any recommendations or suggestions? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Products with high power LEDs
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 references for the US (NEC) 21 CFR 1040 (which is eseentially the same as ANSI Z136.1) where LEDs are not required to be evaluated. 21 CFR 1040 is undergoing a revision which harmonizes it with EN 60825. However, the CDRH will not be including LEDs. THere has been no evidence that LEDs have caused injuries. -John Juhasz- Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: wo...@sensormatic.com [mailto:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:43 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Products with high power LEDs Actually, the concern is worldwide. It starts with IEC 60825-1 which covers emissions from lasers and LEDs. IEC 950 has a normative reference to IEC 825 (an earlier revision of IEC 60825-1). IEC950 says that the national members are encouraged to apply the latest revisions of the normative references. UL 1950 references IEC 825-1:1993 which has the same LED requirements as IEC 60825-1. Richard Woods -- From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 12:08 PM To: 'geor...@lexmark.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Products with high power LEDs Can somebody tell me what Europe's concern is with the LED's. I understand the hazards of laser's, wavelength, power, durations et al but I don't know what Europe is trying to protect. If this was just recently discussed please forgive the transgression. I have been sitting in those flying horizontal aluminum tubes for the last week and have been unable to actually read any of these e-mails. Certainly, you can respond to me directly rather than the list. Thanks Gary -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 5:26 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Products with high power LEDs Assume a business product with a high power LED for use in the EU and that it operates at 230V. It will be subject to the Low Voltage Directive, so EN60950 and EN60825-1 would apply. Now assume a similar product but it operates at 24V. The LVD would not apply in this case. What are the legal compliance requirements for the LED output? The Low Voltage Directive is definitely applicable for the 230V configuration. A 24V device is SELV, and has no potential for electric shock. If its input power is limited to under 100VA, it does not require a fire enclosure per EN 60950. So, the only major safety issue remaining is possible exposure to the laser under fault conditions. EN 60825-1 (as I recall) has nothing to do with the voltage required to power the host equipment. So it applies in either case. George Alspaugh Lexmark International - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: EN 60950 Checklist
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 www.safetylink.com, just click on the CB Scheme link. Regards, Art Michael * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * International Product Safety Bookshop * * http://www.safetylink.com/bookshop.html * * * * Now offering BSI's Books Reports* * including, World Electricity Supplies * * * * Another service of the Safety Link* * www.safetylink.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --- On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 rbus...@es.com wrote: I have been asked by my engineering department to create or locate a checklist for EN 60950 (or IEC 950) to be used as a guideline. In the past, I remember an ECMA document like this but that was years ago. Does anyone have any recommendations or suggestions? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Products with high power LEDs
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 say legal leeway - to go for the cheapest approach. Bogdan. wo...@sensormatic.com wrote: Assume a business product with a high power LED for use in the EU and that it operates at 230V. It will be subject to the Low Voltage Directive, so EN60950 and EN60825-1 would apply. Now assume a similar product but it operates at 24V. The LVD would not apply in this case. What are the legal compliance requirements for the LED output? - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
