Safety/Emission/Immunity for peripheral device
Hello, For a peripheral device, which can work as a stand alone device to (like PC Camera) what additional standards applies to besides EN 50081-1, EN50082-1 and EN60950. Thank you for your assistance. Regards, Bharat Shah 5/11/00 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Jay, How could I forget??My Orange Book (Listed and Classified Components) is starring at me from the middle of the top shelf!Thank you Jay for adding to my ramblings. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jay Johansmeier [SMTP:jay_johansme...@mw.3com.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:05 AM To: Ned Devine Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory To Ned and Group, Read it for yourself on the UL homepage. http://www.ul.com/auth/tca/v6n1/difference.htm Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com on 05/11/2000 10:07:26 AM Please respond to Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com Sent by: Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The
RE: Network Card Certification
The release of the final version of UL60950 Third Edition was delayed until some time this summer (from the UL Bulletin). It was originally scheduled to be released by April 1, 2000. It will be a Bi-National standard with CSA 60950 Third Edition and will be harmonized with IEC60950 3rd edition Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:12 PM To: 'geor...@lexmark.com'; george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Network Card Certification Unfortunately, there is a UL60950. I had the draft copy, which was sent to me direct from UL, but not the final copy. My draft was misplaced in a change of companies. I have spoken to UL about getting another copy. I also understand that this standard went into effect on April 1st, 2000. http://www.wll.com/teupdate0100.pdf Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:10 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950
Re: UL60950 .. more info from wojo..
Hi Group: Do any of you know when an offical copy of the EN60950 will be available in standard manual form and CD ROM? Can we order this now? Thanks, kt From: George Sparacino george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com To: 'emc-pstc' emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: 'wojciech_ba...@nmss.com' wojciech_ba...@nmss.com Subject: UL60950 .. more info from wojo.. Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:55:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org Hello Group.. All interested should check this out.. George, Look under standards open for private review: http://www.ul.com/ite/ Wojo _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/Kathy Toy _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ Safety Compliance Engineer _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ Office/Voice Mail:(650)786-3210 _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ Dept. FAX: (650)786-3723 _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/Email:kathy@eng.sun.com M I C R O S Y S T E M S --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Network Card Certification
Look again. There is a UL60950. Check the UL website: 60950 Information Technology Equipment (Note: This is NOT a new Standard, but we changed the designation of UL 1950 to UL 60950 to correlate with the lastest IEC Standard Numbering) -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of geor...@lexmark.com Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:10 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org
RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
Well, I'm glad you have your body armour on and properly adjusted. One problem, when that load of napalm hits your going to wish it was only bullets. JOHN E. STUCKEY EMC Engineer Micron Technology, Inc. Integrated Products Group Micron Architectures Lab 8455 West Emerald St. Boise, Idaho 83704 PH: (208) 363-5313 FX: (208) 363-5596 jestuc...@micron.com -Original Message- From: Lacey,Scott [mailto:sla...@foxboro.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:29 To: 'David Spencer' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard In defense of Intel (please wait a moment while I don my full body armor), this is probably one of those things that only occurs on alternate rainy Tuesdays when using certain specific brands of SDRAM. Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: David Spencer [SMTP:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject:RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard Filed under Things that make you go hmmm. Was this a major Product Verification screw up? Or a carefully crafted marketing plan to increase demand for RDRAM? Have a Great Day, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: Paul J Smith [mailto:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:21 AM To: Barry Ma Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard Barry, Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip set. The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set that are exhibiting symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory translator hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM). While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is required on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It enables the chip set, which was designed to work with Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use less expensive, more readily available SDRAM. We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive to system board noise, an Intel spokesman said. Hangs and reboots The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs and intermittent system reboots, is due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on the MTH buses, Intel officials said. Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to notify computer users of the problem and to offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820 motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory. Computer users who believe they are affected should contact their manufacturers, or they can check Intel's Web site, where they can download the MTH ID Utility to test for the presence of the hub. The MTH support site also includes additional information on the problems. We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to customers, an Intel spokesman said. However, since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to offer a replacement. Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_produ ction_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from
UL60950 .. more info from wojo..
Hello Group.. All interested should check this out.. George, Look under standards open for private review: http://www.ul.com/ite/ Wojo
RE: Network Card Certification
Hello All Global Engineering Documents does offer the draft version UL 60950 PROPOSED for $210.00. They said that an update document is expected to be published sometime this year. Enjoy. http://global.ihs.com/cgi-bin/detdoc.cgi?FRITTER=130536DOCID=7335720 Document Details Number: UL 60950 PROPOSED Title: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT Comments³: PROPOSED 3RD EDITION Price: $210.00 Revision/Edition: 99 Supplement³: - Change Type³: - Date¹: 06/30/1999 RCP²: R # Pages: 332 George Sparacino -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 3:12 PM To: 'geor...@lexmark.com'; george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Unfortunately, there is a UL60950. I had the draft copy, which was sent to me direct from UL, but not the final copy. My draft was misplaced in a change of companies. I have spoken to UL about getting another copy. I also understand that this standard went into effect on April 1st, 2000. http://www.wll.com/teupdate0100.pdf Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:10 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Robert and Group: Just one further clarification: UL Classification means that UL has evaluated a product to a specific hazard (such as flame spread, smoke developed, slip resistance or sanitation) or the product has been evaluated to another organization's standard (such as an ASTM or ANSI standard). Regards, Richard Pittenger PMI Food Equipment Group Troy, Ohio Robert Tims (EMX) emxrt...@am1.ericsson.se Sent by: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org 05/11/00 01:57 PM Please respond to Robert Tims (EMX) To: 'Ned Devine' ndev...@entela.com, 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org cc: Subject:RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, Ok, not quite. All UL marked products have conditions of acceptability in some way, shape or form. 1. UL Listed mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and can be used as an entity unto itself (ie, a TV set). UL Listed products have conditions of acceptability defined by the product category (and written in conjunction with the product category Listing Cards and the standards/test guidelines tested against). 2. UL Recognition Mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and shall be used as a COMPONENT of a UL Listed product. An example of this is the plastics, tubes, internal wiring etc., of the TV set. UL Recognized products have conditions of acceptability tied into the exact component, based on the Listed product it will be placed in and its roll in the Listed product. The CofA's will be written on the Recognition Cards, or in some other manner (like Style Pages for AWM) for the specific product tested. 3. UL Classified Mark, in the past, could go only on previously UL Listed (and, possibly, on UL Recognized) products, and would cover classifications, ratings or conditions that the product was verified by UL above and/or beyond the safety issues of the product category. A product could be classified for non-safety performance, for instance (like Category 5 data cable is Classified for Cat 5 vs. IBM-initiated standards, and are also UL Listed as communications or power-limited data cable), or could be classiifed for additional safety standards for a specific use above and/or beyond the basic safety Listing. One should note that I believe UL has relaxed the past requirement that all Classified products must be Listed or Recognized first. I believe one could classify certain products without first testing for basic safety issues (perhaps product categories that do not have UL Standards for Safety testing but do have performance specifications to test and certify to). In summary, one could get a product that is UL Listed, Recognized and Classified, all at the same time. An example could be data cable. A cable could be UL Listed as Communications Plenum-rated Cable Type CMP (cable for communications run in air handling spaces in a building and sold as a building cabling solution), UL Recognized as AWM Style 2464 to interconnet between Listed Equipment (cable to interconnect UL Listed equipment, sold as a component to attach to a Listed product), and Classified as IBM Cat 5 cable for the computer industry (tested and certified by UL to meet all performance parameters specified by IBM for Category 5 cable). Where you use it and how you use determines what UL marks concern your inspector and installer. I hope this helps! Regards, Robert Tims Compliance/Test Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. PH 516-677-1138 Fax 516-677- robert.t...@ericsson.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
RE: Network Card Certification
Unfortunately, there is a UL60950. I had the draft copy, which was sent to me direct from UL, but not the final copy. My draft was misplaced in a change of companies. I have spoken to UL about getting another copy. I also understand that this standard went into effect on April 1st, 2000. http://www.wll.com/teupdate0100.pdf Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:10 AM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi All, Thank you all for your expert advice as usual. I feel significantly better now that I know that we are all being subjected to the same requirements. Brief Summary: 1. The CB Scheme requires all its participant labs and agencies to update their CB reports every 3 years, change or no change. 2. Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. 3. Corrections due to misprint, changes of names or addresses are not considered to be amendments. Best Regards, Brent Taira -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 6:57 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hi, We discussed this at the US National Committee of the IECEE on 19 April 2000. There is some confusion on the interpretation of this requirement. It was explained, that an amendment is NOT a correction or a change to a part number. An amendment is when new data/pages are added. Using Brent's example of adding an alternate plastic. If no tests are necessary, then it would not be an amendment. If there was testing, then it would be an amendment. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Matthew Meehan [mailto:mee...@i-kk.co.jp] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hi Brent, Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Definitely an actual requirement. (about the rest of your subject: No comment). Decision: Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. Explanatory notes: Experience shows that by making more than three amendments to a CB Test Report the technical features of the initial product becomes such that the tracking against the Master File can be lost. To get your very own copy go to: http://www2.imq.it/ctldecisions/collect.htm choose sheet 291 (bottom right) Regards, Matt Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
To Ned and Group, Read it for yourself on the UL homepage. http://www.ul.com/auth/tca/v6n1/difference.htm Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com on 05/11/2000 10:07:26 AM Please respond to Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com Sent by: Ned Devine ndev...@entela.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Hi, Ok, not quite. All UL marked products have conditions of acceptability in some way, shape or form. 1. UL Listed mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and can be used as an entity unto itself (ie, a TV set). UL Listed products have conditions of acceptability defined by the product category (and written in conjunction with the product category Listing Cards and the standards/test guidelines tested against). 2. UL Recognition Mark goes on a product that is tested to a UL Safety Standard (or safety guidelines) for that product category and shall be used as a COMPONENT of a UL Listed product. An example of this is the plastics, tubes, internal wiring etc., of the TV set. UL Recognized products have conditions of acceptability tied into the exact component, based on the Listed product it will be placed in and its roll in the Listed product. The CofA's will be written on the Recognition Cards, or in some other manner (like Style Pages for AWM) for the specific product tested. 3. UL Classified Mark, in the past, could go only on previously UL Listed (and, possibly, on UL Recognized) products, and would cover classifications, ratings or conditions that the product was verified by UL above and/or beyond the safety issues of the product category. A product could be classified for non-safety performance, for instance (like Category 5 data cable is Classified for Cat 5 vs. IBM-initiated standards, and are also UL Listed as communications or power-limited data cable), or could be classiifed for additional safety standards for a specific use above and/or beyond the basic safety Listing. One should note that I believe UL has relaxed the past requirement that all Classified products must be Listed or Recognized first. I believe one could classify certain products without first testing for basic safety issues (perhaps product categories that do not have UL Standards for Safety testing but do have performance specifications to test and certify to). In summary, one could get a product that is UL Listed, Recognized and Classified, all at the same time. An example could be data cable. A cable could be UL Listed as Communications Plenum-rated Cable Type CMP (cable for communications run in air handling spaces in a building and sold as a building cabling solution), UL Recognized as AWM Style 2464 to interconnet between Listed Equipment (cable to interconnect UL Listed equipment, sold as a component to attach to a Listed product), and Classified as IBM Cat 5 cable for the computer industry (tested and certified by UL to meet all performance parameters specified by IBM for Category 5 cable). Where you use it and how you use determines what UL marks concern your inspector and installer. I hope this helps! Regards, Robert Tims Compliance/Test Engineer Ericsson Messaging Systems Inc. PH 516-677-1138 Fax 516-677- robert.t...@ericsson.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ned Devine Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 11:07 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark'
RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
In defense of Intel (please wait a moment while I don my full body armor), this is probably one of those things that only occurs on alternate rainy Tuesdays when using certain specific brands of SDRAM. Scott Lacey -Original Message- From: David Spencer [SMTP:dspen...@oresis.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject:RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard Filed under Things that make you go hmmm. Was this a major Product Verification screw up? Or a carefully crafted marketing plan to increase demand for RDRAM? Have a Great Day, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: Paul J Smith [mailto:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:21 AM To: Barry Ma Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard Barry, Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip set. The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set that are exhibiting symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory translator hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM). While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is required on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It enables the chip set, which was designed to work with Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use less expensive, more readily available SDRAM. We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive to system board noise, an Intel spokesman said. Hangs and reboots The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs and intermittent system reboots, is due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on the MTH buses, Intel officials said. Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to notify computer users of the problem and to offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820 motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory. Computer users who believe they are affected should contact their manufacturers, or they can check Intel's Web site, where they can download the MTH ID Utility to test for the presence of the hub. The MTH support site also includes additional information on the problems. We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to customers, an Intel spokesman said. However, since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to offer a replacement. Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_produ ction_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet
EMC Engineering Position Available
Compaq Computer is looking for an experienced EMC Engineer to join our staff in Cupertino, CA. Job Title: EMC Engineer Job Description: Compaq Computer, Business Critical Server Div., has two fully equipped 10 meter semi-anechoic chambers to make an EMC engineer's working environment extremely conducive to personal and project successes. We are looking for the right individual to join our staff and work in these comfortable, productive surroundings. As a member of our staff, you will be responsible for the EMC compliance of your assigned projects throughout their life cycle. It is expected that you are self-motivated, proactive and able to meet schedules with minimal guidance. Our normal workload consists of several projects in various stages of activity. You must: provide EMC design guidance, develop test plans, support test and troubleshooting work, obtain or verify product compliances, conduct regression tests, and compose compliance test reports. If you have a BSEE or equivalent, and around 5 years of EMC experience in a development capacity that includes: EMC design and compliance responsibilty for high speed systems. Have worked regularly with international EMC test Standards. A strong conceptual understanding of electromagnetics. Excellent EMC troubleshooting skills. Can communicate well (written and oral). Are a team player. then we'd like to talk to you. Compaq is an equal opportunity employer, and we enjoy a diverse workforce. We also place great value on Compaq being a great place to work. Employment at Compaq is conditioned upon satisfactory completion of a drug screen and background investigation. Please Contact: Chan Moore Regulatory Manager Compaq Computer, BCSD chan.mo...@compaq.com mailto:chan.mo...@compaq.com fax: (408) 285-2699 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
I was wondering why the Intel stock took a dive that more excessive than the market dive. The analysts probably recieved a heads up from some industry wag. Jim Freeman Paul J Smith wrote: Barry, Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip set. The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set that are exhibiting symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory translator hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM). While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is required on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It enables the chip set, which was designed to work with Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use less expensive, more readily available SDRAM. We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive to system board noise, an Intel spokesman said. Hangs and reboots The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs and intermittent system reboots, is due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on the MTH buses, Intel officials said. Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to notify computer users of the problem and to offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820 motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory. Computer users who believe they are affected should contact their manufacturers, or they can check Intel's Web site, where they can download the MTH ID Utility to test for the presence of the hub. The MTH support site also includes additional information on the problems. We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to customers, an Intel spokesman said. However, since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to offer a replacement. Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_production_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send
Re: Contact at the FCC for Part 15C
Try Rich Fabina (301) 362-3021 Pryor McGinnis c...@prodigy.net www.ctl-lab.com - Original Message - From: Mike Morrow mi...@ucentric.com To: EMC Society emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:15 PM Subject: Contact at the FCC for Part 15C I'm looking for the name of an individual at the FCC who I can discuss the current requirements of section 15.239 (transmission in the 88 to 108 MHz bands). I'd like the name and phone number of an individual that someone on this list has actually dealt with. I've tried calling the main FCC number and just ended up with the usual voice mail run around. Thanks. Also has anyone ever tried to get the FCC to grant some type of waiver to the 250 microvolt/meter limit set forth in 15.239? Canada has recently relaxed their requirements to 1000 microvolt/meter (was previously 250 microvolts). Thanks again. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems mi...@ucentric.com --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
Filed under Things that make you go hmmm. Was this a major Product Verification screw up? Or a carefully crafted marketing plan to increase demand for RDRAM? Have a Great Day, Dave Spencer Oresis Communications -Original Message- From: Paul J Smith [mailto:paul_j_sm...@notes.teradyne.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 7:21 AM To: Barry Ma Cc: EMC-PSTC Subject: Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard Barry, Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip set. The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set that are exhibiting symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory translator hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM). While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is required on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It enables the chip set, which was designed to work with Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use less expensive, more readily available SDRAM. We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive to system board noise, an Intel spokesman said. Hangs and reboots The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs and intermittent system reboots, is due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on the MTH buses, Intel officials said. Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to notify computer users of the problem and to offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820 motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory. Computer users who believe they are affected should contact their manufacturers, or they can check Intel's Web site, where they can download the MTH ID Utility to test for the presence of the hub. The MTH support site also includes additional information on the problems. We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to customers, an Intel spokesman said. However, since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to offer a replacement. Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_produ ction_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org ---
RE: Network Card Certification
The final version is not yet out, but you can apparently purchase a proposed copy of UL60950 from Global http://global.ihs.com/cgi-bin/detdoc.cgi?FRITTER=130536DOCID=7335720 http://global.ihs.com/cgi-bin/detdoc.cgi?FRITTER=130536DOCID=7335720 Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 12:10 PM To: george.sparac...@bostonacoustics.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Network Card Certification George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _
Re: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Brent, in my experience with CB Cert Report updates ( I worked at ITS for 10+ years) , the procedures are clearly documented and are to be uniformly applied (i.e. being a member of the Scheme means you'll follow the rules strictly, and not apply your own interpretations). The scheme rules did allow one update per Certificate, subsequent updates required the issuing Lab to issue a new Certificate, but this should not require a whole new report. Unless the rules have changed you shouldn't be charged for a new report, especially if it's solely due to one lab's policy. The Scheme was always very serious about the rules, and required ALL labs to adhere to them. If I was you I'd either: ask the Lab to show you , in black and white, the requirements supporting their stance or, check the CB web site for guidance on the rules ( these are publicly available documents, known as the 01, 02, etc rules.) I believe you can also ask questions of this nature on the CB web site. In short, if it's in the CB rules (01, 02, etc) labs must do it, if it's not in the rules you've got a case to reverse their decision. Good Luck. At 03:58 PM 5/10/00 -0700, Compliance wrote: Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Linehan Hardware Engineer Cisco Systems Inc. 25 Sundial Ave, Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 665-3343 --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Contact at the FCC for Part 15C
I'm looking for the name of an individual at the FCC who I can discuss the current requirements of section 15.239 (transmission in the 88 to 108 MHz bands). I'd like the name and phone number of an individual that someone on this list has actually dealt with. I've tried calling the main FCC number and just ended up with the usual voice mail run around. Thanks. Also has anyone ever tried to get the FCC to grant some type of waiver to the 250 microvolt/meter limit set forth in 15.239? Canada has recently relaxed their requirements to 1000 microvolt/meter (was previously 250 microvolts). Thanks again. Mike Morrow Senior Compliance Engineer Ucentric Systems mi...@ucentric.com attachment: winmail.dat
RE: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
-Original Message- From: Barry Ma [SMTP:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:13 PM To: EMC-PSTC Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_pro duction_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com Barry: My guess is that they must have spent a lot of time rebooting Windows. ;) 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 Services 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. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Network Card Certification
George, There is no UL60950. Try UL1950, Third Edition. George george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com on 05/11/2000 11:50:58 AM Please respond to george.sparacino%bostonacoustics@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Title: RE: Network Card Certification Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent:
RE: EMC regulations for equipment onboard aircraft
Chris: If you mean entertainment systems that are part of the host aircraft, then see: ARINC Specification 628P1-2 ARINC Specification 628 Part 2 These cover Cabin Management and Entertainment Systems, Seat Interfaces Peripherals. Then there are ARINC 485, Parts 1 2, for Cabin Equipment Systems. For passenger owned carry-on stuff, check out RTCA DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Onboard. Finally, there may be some further requirements from the FAA, in the form of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's). 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 Services Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) -Original Message- From: Chris Allen [SMTP:chris_al...@eur.3com.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 6:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: EMC regulations for equipment onboard aircraft Can anybody point me in the direction of the regulations for EMI / EMC approval for non-critical electronic equipment (entertainment systems) for use on aircraft. Thanks, Chris. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Safety and EMC in Korea
Ryan, I work in the Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment industry. We have heard a bit about the Korean S-Mark lately, but not much about the Jun Mark (also known as Choen Mark?). Can you shed any light on how the S-mark and the Jun-mark are related? Thanks in advance... Lauren E. Crane * Eaton Corporation, SEO * Ion Beam Systems Division * Manager - Product Design Safety and Compliance * lcr...@bev.etn.com 978.921-9745 -Original Message- From: Ryan Kim [SMTP:hait...@soback.kornet21.net] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 2:02 PM To: Peter Merguerian; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Safety and EMC in Korea Peter, ITE equipment is regulated (EMC, Telecom and Wireless Approval) by Ministry of Communication and Information. However, Safety Regulation (Jun Mark which is Safety Mark in Korea) is controlled by Ministry of Industry. Ryan Kim - Original Message - From: Peter Merguerian pmerguer...@itl.co.il To: Ryan Kim hait...@soback.kornet21.net; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 7:35 AM Subject: Re: Safety and EMC in Korea Ryan, Thanks. How about safety? Remember product is not telecom. Also, who regulates ITE equipment? Is it customs? At 12:01 03/05/2000 -0700, Ryan Kim wrote: Hi Peter, All of ITE product needs to have EMI/EMS Approval. You should send sample to Korea and use local test lab in Korea for the test and report even though your product already got CE mark. The following is the answer to your question, - You wrote --- . Dear All, Can someone help to determine the steps for acceptance of safety and emc for a UL Listed and CE (Safety and EMC) ITE (no telecoms) product. === All ITE products : subject to get KOREA EMC Approval. Printer, Monitor and AC/DC adapter : Needs to get Korea Safety Mark which is JUN mark. For safety, is CB essential or is UL/CE Report enough? Actually Not, you have to send sample to Korea and retest according to Korea deviation. However, if your product is not the printer, monitor and AC/DC adapter, there is no requirment for the Safety Approval, that means only EMC approval is required. For emc, is CE (emissions and immunity) from a third party certification lab sufficient? You must use Korea Government accrediated lab for the testing and reporting in Korea. KTL Ottawa is the only one which has Korea Government Accrediation for the test and report. Other than KTL Ottawa, you have to send sample to Korea and test. Korea doesn't accept any third party certification at the monent. If you have any other question, please let me know. Regards, Ryan Kim / President of Haitong EMC --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail
RE: Network Card Certification
Has anyone seen a copy of UL60950 ? I am unable to find copy (or draft) for review. Thanks, George -Original Message- From: Bandele Adepoju [mailto:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:38 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory - Over voltage te ster
Hello, I have a related question. It is indicated that one can get a CB Scheme report to UL 1950. UL 1950 paragraph 6.6 requires an overvoltage test. Who makes these overvoltage testers? Mat Mathew Aschenberg Agency Engineer EchoStar Technologies Corporation 90 Inverness Circle East Englewood, CO 80112 -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 7:51 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. I'd be very appreciative of some candid feedback. - Jon Keeble Fairlight Hardware Engineering Manager 02 8977 9931 j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au _ The bounds of Time, Space or Mechanics should never stand in the way of a perfectly good idea... --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Hi, OK, I wasn't going to say anything, but. 1. A UL Listed product complies with all of the applicable requirements. Usually from a standard. 2. A UL Recognized Component does not comply with all of the applicable requirements. That is why they have Conditions of Acceptability. Whether the product is a complete unit or a component is immaterial to whether it is UL Listed or Recognized Component. If it meets all of the applicable requirements, it is Listed. If not, it is a Recognized Component. Now, sometimes UL cheats on this and calls it Classified. Medical equipment is Classified to UL 2601-1. This is mostly because UL does not require you to meet all of the requirements. They say the FDA (US Government agency) covers them. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 9:49 AM To: Grant, Tania (Tania); emc-p...@ieee.org; 'Jon Keeble' Subject: RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. I'd be very appreciative of some candid feedback. - Jon Keeble Fairlight Hardware Engineering Manager 02 8977 9931 j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au _ The bounds of Time, Space or Mechanics should never stand in the way of a perfectly good idea...
Re: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
Barry, Thanks for the heads-up. Article was also published by AP in today's Boston Globe. The following excerpt is from the site you noted Regards, Paul J. Smith Teradyne, Boston Chip maker will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Intel Corp. has acknowledged another setback for PCs using its 820 chip set. The company announced Wednesday morning that it will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set that are exhibiting symptoms of a problem with a related component -- called a memory translator hub, or MTH -- with synchronous dynamic RAM (SDRAM). While the hub is not part of the 820 itself, it is required on a motherboard that uses SDRAM. It enables the chip set, which was designed to work with Rambus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), to use less expensive, more readily available SDRAM. We have found that some systems ... may be sensitive to system board noise, an Intel spokesman said. Hangs and reboots The MTH problem, which manifests itself by system hangs and intermittent system reboots, is due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals on the MTH buses, Intel officials said. Intel is working with PC and motherboard makers to notify computer users of the problem and to offer a replacement motherboard. Intel plans to replace all the 820 motherboards with SDRAM support that it sold directly to customers with an Intel 820 chip set motherboard with RDRAM memory. Computer users who believe they are affected should contact their manufacturers, or they can check Intel's Web site, where they can download the MTH ID Utility to test for the presence of the hub. The MTH support site also includes additional information on the problems. We believe less than 1 million boards with the MTH have been shipped to customers, an Intel spokesman said. However, since we have determined no root cause on this issue, we have decided to offer a replacement. Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com on 05/10/2000 07:12:33 PM Please respond to Barry Ma barry...@altavista.com To: EMC-PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org cc:(bcc: Paul J Smith/Bos/Teradyne) Subject: Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_production_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC vs. Exi equipment
I believe the surge test is applicable. The zener avalanche diode barriers provide protection to sensitive circuit components, but are the zeners robust enough to withstand the surge? If the signal line in question is one which, according to the standard, is to be surge tested, the presence or absence of circuit protective elements is immaterial. John P. Wagner Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs 11900 N. Pecos St, Room 2F58 Denver CO 80234 email: johnwag...@lucent.com phone: 303 538-4241 fax: 303 538-5211 -- From: Westin, Amund[SMTP:amund.wes...@dnv.com] Reply To: Westin, Amund Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:15 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: EMC vs. Exi equipment Hello members, One question, what's common practise regarding surge test (EN61000-4-5 on signal lines) on lines which contains zener barriers ? Have a feeling that the surge test is not applicable. Comments ? Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com ** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi, We discussed this at the US National Committee of the IECEE on 19 April 2000. There is some confusion on the interpretation of this requirement. It was explained, that an amendment is NOT a correction or a change to a part number. An amendment is when new data/pages are added. Using Brent's example of adding an alternate plastic. If no tests are necessary, then it would not be an amendment. If there was testing, then it would be an amendment. Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com -Original Message- From: Matthew Meehan [mailto:mee...@i-kk.co.jp] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 1:35 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hi Brent, Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Definitely an actual requirement. (about the rest of your subject: No comment). Decision: Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. Explanatory notes: Experience shows that by making more than three amendments to a CB Test Report the technical features of the initial product becomes such that the tracking against the Master File can be lost. To get your very own copy go to: http://www2.imq.it/ctldecisions/collect.htm choose sheet 291 (bottom right) Regards, Matt Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Hello Tania and All Members, Al is well said, but allow me to add one additional fact. UL also Lists COMPONENTS which an electrician might use in the field; for example closed-loop connectors, quick-disconnet connectors, splicing connectors, fixture wiring, circuit breakers, outlet boxes, etc. These components undergo more rigorous testing than normal components and are always provided with installation instructions limiting the usage; for example a splicing connector may specify the exact crimping tool and the # and size of all the combination of wires to be spliced by that connector. Best Regards At 18:50 10/05/2000 -0700, Grant, Tania (Tania) wrote: John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. I'd be very appreciative of some candid feedback. - Jon Keeble Fairlight Hardware Engineering Manager 02 8977 9931 j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au _ The bounds of Time, Space or Mechanics should never stand in the way of a perfectly good idea... --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or
EMC regulations for equipment onboard aircraft
Can anybody point me in the direction of the regulations for EMI / EMC approval for non-critical electronic equipment (entertainment systems) for use on aircraft. Thanks, Chris. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: EMC vs. Exi equipment
Amund, My feeling is that the test validates the protection. If devices are not correctly rated for the application or applied correctly for the intended use, the product may still be vulnerable. Regards, Don Umbdenstock -- From: Westin, Amund[SMTP:amund.wes...@dnv.com] Reply To: Westin, Amund Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 4:15 AM To: 'emc-pstc' Subject: EMC vs. Exi equipment Hello members, One question, what's common practise regarding surge test (EN61000-4-5 on signal lines) on lines which contains zener barriers ? Have a feeling that the surge test is not applicable. Comments ? Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com ** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Capacitors over the lines in primary circuits
Dear all, I would like to ask you the following: §1.5.6 of IEC 60950 3rd ED - Capacitors in primary circuits states that: A capacitor connected between 2 lines conductors of the primary circuit, or between one line conductor and the neutral conductor, shall comply with IEC 60384-14, sub-class X1 or X2. 1) Does that mean that capacitors connected over the lines and after the main fuses have to comply with the requirements ? 2) If yes, have capacitors connected in series with other components (f.e. a resistance) to comply with the requirements too ? I appreciate any answer. Regards, Huu Dung Dinh DET NORSKE VERITAS, RN 413 Testing and Certification of Electrical Equipment Division Nordic Countries ( +47 67 57 95 91 FAX +47 67 57 89 60 * Veritasveien 1, N-1322 Høvik, Norway . huu.dung.d...@dnv.com ** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: BG Approval
Dear Peter, BG stands for Berufsgenossenschaften (don't ask*). I think the certification mark BG has a rather overweight ... uh thinness challenged i to the left of it. The interlock was certified by the BG Institute for occupational safety in Germany. You may also see IEC/EN 60947-5-1 (chapter 3) written on the switch. This signifies that it is a positive opening device. Regards, Matt *Professional associations dealing with statutory insurance and the prevention of accidents (and many other things). Dear Group, An interlock has BG Approval. Does anyone know what it is? Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi Brent I have experienced this problem too. As far as I know, if you want to change a part that is listed in a CB Test Report, you have to have the report changed by the issuing agency. Alternate equivalent parts are not allowed (as per UL or CSA reports). I have been told that the only way to overcome this for free is to list alternate parts in the initial report - not much good if you want to change an obsolete part for a new part that wasn't available at the time of testing. This is a problem with the CB Scheme not particular agencies, although some agencies will charge more than others for amending test reports. In a previous life I used to allow minor component changes without amending the CB Report eg change from Littelfuse to Bussman fuses. I never had a problem with any countries' safety authority refusing entry of a shipment. Changing a disc drive would probably cause a problem though. Regards Chris Colgan EMC Safety TAG McLaren Audio Ltd mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com -Original Message- From: Compliance [SMTP:complia...@eoscorp.com] Sent: 10 May 2000 23:58 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org = Authorised on 05/11/00 at 10:12:16; code 37f48bf3FC6C0748. ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd, The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
EMC vs. Exi equipment
Hello members, One question, what's common practise regarding surge test (EN61000-4-5 on signal lines) on lines which contains zener barriers ? Have a feeling that the surge test is not applicable. Comments ? Best regards Amund Westin Det Norske Veritas * amund.wes...@dnv.com ** Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Jon, Regarding point #1: Think of it this way ... UL Listing (UL logo) means system level, compliant with some standard for a system under a lot of conditions. Mostly along the lines of construction AND performance. UL UbackwardsR means component level, a restricted compliance with a standard. As in the case of transformers, compliant possibly only by way of construction. Assembling a bunch of parts that have component level approval together into a system isn't sufficient for the system to be automatically approved. The system must be tested. Alternatively, a system which is Listed that was put together with a bunch of unapproved parts does not make the parts automatically approved for use in another system. Regarding point #2: UL is the only NRTL which can apply the UbackwardsR for component approval or the UL logo for system Listing. It's a trademark of UL. ETL is another NRTL which has their trademarked logo for product listing. Regarding point #3: I believe there's a review within the CB scheme for local variations once you've you've passed. But I believe your premise is solid. Regarding question #4: Not sure how to answer that one since I'm not sure what's meant by certificate. A qualified test house is an NRTL or is in association with an NRTL (they do testing then pass along the results to the NRTL for review). The NRTL allows applying their logo to your product. Regarding the final points raised by your marketing people: - IF your product is a component, or is an assembly that can be considered a component (like a transformer or even a power supply), then they're correct. - IF your product is some stand alone system, then you'll have to go for Listing. Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
BG Approval
Dear Group, An interlock has BG Approval. Does anyone know what it is? Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hi Brent, Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Definitely an actual requirement. (about the rest of your subject: No comment). Decision: Original CB Test Reports can be subjected to three (3) amendments only, after which a new CB Test Report and associate CB Test Certificate shall be issued. Explanatory notes: Experience shows that by making more than three amendments to a CB Test Report the technical features of the initial product becomes such that the tracking against the Master File can be lost. To get your very own copy go to: http://www2.imq.it/ctldecisions/collect.htm choose sheet 291 (bottom right) Regards, Matt Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Brent, I fully agree with you on your assumption. I think that Tania perhaps misunderstood your question. You can have as many amendment to the original CB report as you like. The main thing is that when sending the report to a customer or to another agency, you must ensure that the original report plus all the amendments are put together and supplied to the requester in one shot. You are not suppose to send them the original report without the appendixes or vice-versa. Almost all manufacturers keep updating their CB report by either adding or deleting items from it. I think the agency that you are dealing with is after some extra $. Why don't you ask him to provide you with a letter or memo from the CB head office stating what he claims. If you get such a letter we would all appreciate if you could post it on this forum. Thanks Peter --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Oooops! Brent, I don't think you want an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement. You will find that your CB report would not be accepted by other countries/agencies. The CB Scheme requires all its participant labs and agencies to update their CB reports every 3 years, change or no change. You should be grateful that your agency is reminding you of this fact. Can you imagine your surprise or better yet, the surprise of your Marketing organization, that you flubbed and that the CB report you were counting on is no longer valid! My recommendation is that you update your budget to take this into account, and schedule this on a timely basis. Try to align your changes every year and a half. Tell your purchasing department to buy enough parts to last in between.Or. pay the price. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Compliance [SMTP:complia...@eoscorp.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 3:58 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Actual requirement or money making scheme? Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
John, The 'UbackwardsR' mark' is but one of many UL marks. This is the UL Recognition Mark;-- there are also UL Listing Marks, UL Classification Marks, and perhaps others that I have forgotten.And you are correct that only UL can issue UL marks.However, UL can do this based on CB Scheme reports, provided you have also complied with the U.S. National Electrical Code requirements, which are spelled out as deviation in the UL1950 standard. You should be looking at the UL1950, 3rd edition, which is also harmonized with the Canadian Standards Association and its Electrical Code. (Kill 2 birds with one stone!) Generally speaking, the UL Listing Mark is for end-use product, such as coffee pots, computers, and finished things one can generally buy in the store that perform a function.UL Recognition Marks are for components and incomplete assemblies that are to be placed inside end-use products, where their recognition still has to be evaluated in this final application. For example, power supplies, such as UPS, electronic load boxes, or desk type boxes with power cords which are used for test equipment, would be UL Listed.However, power supplies (transformer/capacitor/choke/etc. circuitry mounted on a printed circuit card) that are sub-assemblies of assorted computer products, would be UL Recognized.That means that this power supply would be further tested in you end-use product to be sure that you are not overloading it, and that you are using it within its rated specifications. You might find the following web sites helpful. http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ http://www.ul.com/ Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com mailto:tgr...@lucent.com Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group -- From: Jon Keeble [SMTP:j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 4:05 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory I work for an Australian company that has always assumed that 'having UL' means 'having the 'UbackwardsR' mark'. The facts as I understand them are (1) a UL1950 certificate is required (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required In our case, there are people in neighboring countries that (1) participate in the CB scheme (2) recognize some Australian test houses (none of which can issue UL1950) (3) are qualified to issue 1950 Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. I'd be very appreciative of some candid feedback. - Jon Keeble Fairlight Hardware Engineering Manager 02 8977 9931 j.kee...@fairlightesp.com.au _ The bounds of Time, Space or Mechanics should never stand in the way of a perfectly good idea... --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: UL certification and Underwriter Laboratory
Hi Jon: UL has several different certification marks. The two that most of us are concerned with are: UL LISTING mark. Comprised of four data: * UL in a circle; * the word Listed; * the type of equipment or UL file number; * the UL control number. This mark is applied to complete equipment. UL component recognition mark. UR as viewed through a mirror (RU). This mark is applied to incomplete equipment (e.g., power supplies intended for building into equipment) and to components (e.g., EMC capacitors, printed wiring boards). In the USA, OSHA (a part of our Federal governement) requires electrical products used by employees in a workplace to be certified for safety by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). A list of NRTLs is published on the OSHA website: http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html In addition to the workplace, safety of ALL electrical installations is governed by either a State government, a County government, or a City government. Most of these governments adopt the National Electrical Code, which is published by the NFPA (http://www.nfpa.org/). The NEC requires ALL electrical products be certified by safety by an organization approved by the government enforcing the code. For all practical purposes, this means all NRTLs, and, in particular, UL. So, UL LISTING of a product provides compliance with both OSHA and the NEC. The RU mark does not provide compliance with either OSHA or the NEC. The RU mark is for a component. The mark means that whoever uses the RU component in his equipment need not test that component when it is used in his end- product. This means that UL LISTING is much, much easier using RU components than using non-RU components. To answer your questions: (1) a UL1950 certificate is required A UL LISTING provides compliance to both OSHA and NEC requirements. There are other certification laboratories that also provide a mark indicating compliance to both OSHA and NEC requirements. (2) only an NRTL can issue this certificate For OSHA, yes. For the NEC, probably yes, but there may be more certification laboratories that can provide NEC certification than can OSHA certification. The acceptable laboratories depends on the local government, so no one has a complete list of what laboratory is accpetable in all the various USA NEC jurisdictions. You need NRTL certification for any product that will be used in a workplace by employees. You need NEC certification for any product that will be used by consumers in their homes, and used in schools. (3) The CB scheme was created to allow people in countries like Australia to achieve accreditation in other countries (including the US) through their local test house Yes. Sort of. Actually, the CB Scheme is a means for accepting TEST DATA among CB Scheme members. This meanst that the product need be tested only once, rather than once per country. The CB Scheme does not allow a local certification house to issue a national certification of another country. If you obtain a CB Certificate with USA national deviations, you will easily be able to obtain certification from UL as well as other USA NCBs. You will need to submit the CB Certificate, CB Test Report, and a sample unit to the USA certification house. In some cases, if your favorite certification house has a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with UL, you can often obtain UL certification through your local certification house. Still other certification houses are approved by UL for UL acceptance of their descriptive reports and test reports. (4) the mark of any test house qualified to issue a UL1950 certificate is all that is required Well... this is a bit too general. UL 1950 is the USA national safety standard for IT equipment. (It is an IEC 60950 clone.) Certification is just that: certification of the safety of the product. The standard, UL 1950, is used as the basis of the certification. Certification by UL is called LISTING or LISTED ITE EQUIPMENT. The UL test report will indicate that the testing was under UL 1950. After certification is issued, UL issues the right to use the UL mark (which is copyrighted). As previously mentioned, there are a number of NRTLs and other certification houses that can issue certifications to the USA national standard, UL 1950. The choice of test house depends on whether your product is subject to OSHA, or is a consumer product. Our marketing department is fearful that not having the 'UbackwardsR' mark will raise questions in the mind of prospective customers. As explained, the RU mark is for components, not end-products. The value of the RU mark is to another manufacturer who incorporates your product into his product. Safety certification of electrical products is REQUIRED under law by OSHA and the NEC. The UL LISTING mark satisfies both of these laws. (There are
RE: Network Card Certification
You should self declare conformity (DoC) of the card to FCC Class B. The FCC logo mentioned by David must be supported on your card with the product model or identification number. Test configuration, in addition to that listed by David below, should include a remote PC hookup for data exchange (or a loopback transceiver) to exercise the LAN port. For US safety, the RJ jacks may, as alternate to what is listed below, be marked with the word Ethernet or similar. Clause 6 of the EN60950 or UL1950 standard does not apply to your card. Make sure that the card is listed to the 3rd Edition of UL1950 or UL60950. Preferably that you list the card to UL60950 which went into effect on April 1st of this year. UL1950 expires on April 1st of 2003. Regards, Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: david_ster...@ademco.com [mailto:david_ster...@ademco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:26 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org; dan_mitch...@condordc.com Subject: RE: Network Card Certification Safety: UL1950US EN/IEC60950 International FCC CFR 47 Part 15: Class B residential or Class A (industrial) Re: FCC FCC logo for Class B is self-certified but you must test in the PC configuration specified in Part 15; EUT includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, serial device and printer. Be sure all items are Class B before you test your card. Class B requires careful circuit layout and component choice for most network technologies. Re: safety If RJ jack, mark the port with the telephone-banned logo or print a lengthy message (for data only) near the port. 'For data only' does not translate well into French. david __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Network Card Certification Author: Dan Mitchell SMTP:dan_mitch...@condordc.com at ADEMCONET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:5/10/2000 11:54 AM I have a possible project where I will have to get a PC Network Card Safety certified. As it is used in a PC, I would assume that it will fall under UL1950. Since the card does not directly connect to a phone line, (it would go through a server and then to a phone line) I was wondering if Clause 6 Connection to Telecommunication Networks would apply. Additionally, I would like to know what FCC requirements must be met. Any other information would be greatly appreciated. Dan Mitchell Condor DC Power Supplies --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Chip noise halts Intel 820 motherboard
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/2510/tc/chip_noise_halts_intel_820_production_1.html INTEL will replace motherboards using its 820 chip set due to noise caused by simultaneous switching of signals. Can anybody be more specific or just make a speculation by using EMC language? Another question is irrelevant to EMC. I am wondering why it took so long - five months from field failure report to recreating the problem inside INTEL? See quotation below: First noted in November Intel began shipping the MTH last November. The problem was brought to light by an Intel customer who observed the problem Intel followed up on the report and observed the problem in its own tests earlier this month. Barry Ma b...@anritsu.com ___ Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go ___ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Actual requirement or money making scheme?
Hello wise colleagues - Just recently, we have decided to add some alternate components to one of our CB Reports and was informed by a particular agency that we needed to have a new CB Report issued since we already have 3 updates to the existing report. In the past, we were able to add an alternate plastic to the CB report and just pay for an addendum (few thousand...I know, I am already getting ripped off). But, now to add an alternate component and pay for a full CB Report and Certificate?! That does not make sense. After talking to the project engineer, he indicated that this is the direction of his organization and this interpretation will be implemented across the board with all member agencies. We only have a few products with few changes. I would hate to work for a computer manufacturer who changes the disk drive manufacturer and model numbers like it was last month's model. Oh yeah, it was last month's model. All I know is that this change in policy will push me well over budget this year. Without turning this into a bashing session of any particular agency, can anyone direct me to an agency that has a more relaxed interpretation of the CB Update requirement? Thank you very much for your time and your expert advice. Best Regards, Brent Taira --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: Microwave Cables
--- umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote: Friends, We have been performing EMC measurements below 1 GHz. Now we need to do measurements for 2.5 GHz systems to the 10th harmonic (25 GHz). What kind of coax (or other cable) have you found suitable for testing this frequency range on an OATS? Type and vendor would be appreciated. Also, a brief description, such as flexible, rigid, diameter, loss characteristics, typical connector system, etc would help. Any cable (or measurement) tips would be appreciated. Thanks, Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic I have used Andrews 1/4 superflex as it is rated to 20GHz with low loss. It is not exactly flexible and more suited for permanent instalations. If you do not have to go to 25GHz then you can use their 3/8 or 1/2 for even lower loss (and less flexibility) but the high frequency performance begins to deteriorate. That particular type of coax is corugated and uses closed cell dielectric material to minimize hygroscopic affinity. Another vendor of low loss coax cables is a German manufacturer Rosenberger = Best Regards Hans Mellberg EMC Consultant __ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
