Hello emc-pstc,
I hope this is not against the rules, many apologies if so. I said I would
pass this job oportunity on to the group.
Best regards,
John C. Reynolds
Compliance Engineer
Com21, Inc.
750 Tasman Drive
Milpitas, California 95035-7456
United States
Voice: +408 953 9751
Fax: +408
Hi George
To start with the last remarks:
I don't think the EC will be considered with the availability of
test equipment. Of course a transition period will be available: it
will be 2 years. Chances of acceptance are not bad, since the requirements
are much lighter for most equipment, and as
As you may know, there are several CENELEC performance standards for
components of Alarm Systems and more in the works. For example, EN 50132-2-1
is for black and white cameras for CCTV surveillance systems for use in
security applications. The Alarm Systems immunity standard, EN 50130-4,
makes
Ah, funny you should ask. I am company B and have been working for over a
year to figure out exactly what has to happen. I have consulted with most
of the regulatory body's in Europe and have reached the following
conclusions.
1) Anything sold prior to the effective date, an EC type
Charles, we probably don't disagree as much as you think.
First of all let me clear up one point. I am not implying by any stretch of
the imagination not to work with you test house. In 95% percent of the cases
that will suit you very well, and they have in the past saved me some
headaches. I
Just a quick comment,
the relationship between AF(dB/m) and G(dB) is
AF(dB/m)=20*log(f_MHz)-G(dB)-29.79
As you can see, if you have an antenna with a constant gain, it is a
physical law that the AF goes up with frequency. Now, of course you can
design an antenna with a extremely large gain
Derek,
With regard to the 3m cable limit. We also test to EN61326-1. In my eyes,
the spirit of the standard is such that we can only take the exemption if
the cable in question can be specified to a customer as less than 3m without
restricting thier usage of your product. I have used this
Gary - You make a compelling argument but I must disagree.
I belive that BOTH the user and the testlab need to cooperate
fully with good faith.
The testlab is afterall the defacto expert in testing test standards,
the user knows the product intimately (one hopes!) One or other
cannot be fully
Interesting problems Derek..
Some comments:
1. Testing the device on a table. I'm not sure it is a stupid thing to do.
As I see it this is
a similar problem to rack qualifications. If the EUT does NOT require the
metal support
for any EMC performance (shielding/filter grounding) then testing
Gert:
You are predicting the future. The committee drafts are the way you say but
they have not been approved. Approval or rejection is anticipated sometime
in the fourth quarter 2000. This a estimated schedule. If it is approved
there is always a grand fathering period. This is helpful since
Hi all,
I don't know if this is customary. If it isn't, then I'll start the custom
myself. This is simply a message to introduce myself and the standards that
I'm familiar with.
My name is Chris Maxwell, I work for GN Nettest in Utica, New York, USA. We
are a manufacturer of equipment for
Derek,
I would like to add to Scott's comment. You are probably not going to
experience any benefits from the large metallic structure. If anything, it
will act as an antenna, increasing your radiated emissions and decreasing
your immunity. Your concerns regarding installation are valid and
Derek,
I think I have said this before, but the ultimate responsibility for
compliance is yours not the test house. Their responsibility is to have
equipment, staff, and procedures that allow them to make reliable and
repeatable tests, in accordance with the test certification documents.
I agree with Derek that simulation of 'actual use'/'actual installation' of
the EUT to the best of your ability is clearly the best way to test the
equipment. Anything short of that isn't clearly representative.
You note that It is important to have this metal, or a
simulation of it present,
Derek,
I run into the less than x feet issue all the time with my customers.
They purposely make their cable just under this length to get out of testing
for certain requirements.
We tell them that is not the intent of the requirement, but that it only
applies to lengths of cables that are
All -
There is a Product Safety School...It goes by the name of Underwriters
Laboratories in the United States. It is a two to three year apprenticeship
following a basic BS in Engineering.
The school offers training seminars about 1-2 times a month during the first
two years and private
Derek,
Someone once said, Customer is always right.
You are the customer. I would find another lab.
As long as your customers (people who buy your equipment and the
people who enforce thr rules) are happy...
From the logic you presented, I
Would it be appropriate to apply the TCF approach (EMC Direcitve
definition) for your compliance statement?
Exerpted from Article 10:
2. In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has not
applied, or has applied only in part, the standards referred to in
Howdy all,
I agree, there needs to be a curriculum available to teach product safety
basics at the University level. However, to truly look at product safety the
curriculum needs to focus on the application of engineering fundamentals to
the design and analysis of provably safe products, not a
Derek,
The points you make are extremely valid. Product testing should not be
merely a paper chase, with a certificate as the only goal. I agree that if
your product always gets bolted to a large metal structure, it should be
tested in a simulated condition. However, and I am guessing here, if
Folks,
the testing of a product at a MAJOR Compliance lab has me concerned. I have
two main concerns, they are:
1) The test item is designed to be bolted to a large metallic structure
which cannot be part of my set-up, it costs way to much ( $2,000,000 each ).
So I have a fixture, which
Derek:
Excellent comments on horns from Robert.
I have a couple of EMCO 3115 Double-ridged horns. This design sacrifices
efficiency for bandwidth, which means time saved not swapping antennas.
Although the design is rated to 18 GHz, I found the antenna factor became
intolerably high (for my
A transmitter is manufactured and sold in the EU today by company A. It is
subject to the EMC Directive today and to the RTTE Directive on 8 April
2001. Company A also labels the product with the name and unique model
number of company B and company B resells the product.
If the product is first
Years ago when the Product Safety Society was petitioning the IEEE for
Society status, the subject of Safety Professional Certification was
discussed. It was assumed that our alliance with the IEEE would enhance this
move.
Well, 15 years later, we are still petitioning the IEEE for society
We are attempting to complete UL 1950 3rd Edition Listing on a personal
computer with a Listed modem from another vendor. According to UL, the
computer may not be Listed to UL1950 3rd Edition since the other vendors
modem was only approved to UL 1950 2nd Edition. Does this mean after April
Dan,Rich Dick,Dirk and group.
I would also aggree. years ago I served an apprenticeship with a major computer
manufacturer and for my final year and a half chose to work in product safety.
At the end of the apprenticeship I decided that I wanted to go to university and
get a degree and I set out
Hallo Günter J. Maass,
a simple question, did you ever get any answer?
As far as I read the standard it is not written if the limits are peak or
rms. But it is written that the limits are applicable to equipment intended
to be conencted to 220/380 V, 230/400 V and 240/415 V. Written without
I'll not try to write it for you, but parameters you need include
for wire:
- dielectric strength (associated with insulation thickness)
- ampacity
- durability
- flammability
- temperature
- color
- agency approvals (and associated markings)
for connectors:
- creepage, clearance and thickness
Indeed, You better check with TUV Rheinland: (800) 283-5411 and,
particularly, Stefan Braun of San Francisco Office of TUV.
The interest still exists, though, limited. I know of few reputable
companies who are very proud of this TUV mark: Compaq, for instance.
-Original Message-
29 matches
Mail list logo
