Dan Kinney asks about pole-to-pole hi-pot testing.
The hi-pot test determines that the product's
insulation (both air and solid) is sufficient to
withstand the normally-occuring transient over-
voltages on a power line. Transient over-voltages
are both differential-mode (pole-to-pole) and
Regarding EMC, and safety: Is Hungary strictly on the CE compliance scheme?
Or, is there any options for manufacturing sites that build their own
production-line test systems/fixtures? (Such as a registration, license or
permit for operating such equipment, or other such local options per
I have a Dielectric Voltage-Withstand Test question. Paragraph 49.1.1(b) of
UL 508 says a product will withstand a potential between terminals of
opposite polarity with the contacts closed. By contacts I assume they are
referring to On-Off switch contact and relay contacts so the potential will
In a message dated 4/24/01, Kevin Harris writes:
We just ran across a nifty piece of standards writing. In Australia in of
their telecom standards (TS002) there is the following safety statement in
it.
5.1.1.2 CE should not cause harm or damage to a Telecommunications Network
or Facility
Richard,
For shielded ports/cables the method used should be the current clamp method
as described in C.1.2 of Annex C, EN 55022:1998. The ISN is used for
unshielded ports/cables. We had the same problem of failing conducted
emissions when we used an ISN. When you put a current clamp on a
Andrew
Yes I would, and do, test this type of equipment to EN61326. It is the product
specific
EMC standard for Electronic Equipment for measurement, control and laboratory
use. I
believe you can still use the generic standards, but can not see why anyone
would no the
product specific has
Andrew et al,
EN 61326-1:1997 A1:1998 is a harmonized product family standard for EMC of
measurement, control, and laboratory equipment, as a companion to safety
standard EN 61010-1. It covers both emission and immunity requirements and
references either EN 55011, EN 55022, and the EN 61000-X
This is merely a comment on the distant past regarding ESD.
I joined IBM in 1963, well before the present FCC regulations for
EMI of ITE and other digital products operating at 10kHz or above.
As I recall, the predominant EMC problem in those days was ESD
between operators of office equipment
Ed, the main difference has to do with the tip. An air discharge tip is
rounded, not sharp. While a contact tip is sharp. Each one will allow a
spark to jump the gap to the DUT, but in different ways.
Michael Sundstrom
Product Test Technician EMC
Nokia Mobile Phones, Dallas PCC
* Email
Hi everybody,
As someone who mainly works to EFA, Mil 461, Def Stan 59-41 RTCA/DO-160
Specifications I am looking for information on getting some test equipment
to meet the EU directives. The test equipment to be supplied to a customer
for ues on their premisis and will be used to test mil
Hello Colleagues,
We just ran across a nifty piece of standards writing. In Australia in of
their telecom standards (TS002) there is the following safety statement in
it.
5.1.1.2 CE should not cause harm or damage to a Telecommunications Network
or Facility when CE is operated outside the
Andrew,
Don't forget the Safety Spec EN 61010 to show conformity to the Low
Voltage
Directive too...
br, Pete
Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety Consultant
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
503/452-1201 fone/fax
p.perk...@ieee.org
Glyn,
I just ran across this paper, which discusses in greater detail how lower ESD
voltages can sometimes create greater upset of electronic equipment than high
ESD voltages:
[496a] Fujiwara, Osamu, An Analytical Approach to Model Indirect Effect
Caused by Electrostatic Discharge, IEICE
Glyn Garside(TUV) ggarside%us.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com on 04/21/2001
12:57:30 AM
Please respond to Glyn Garside(TUV)
ggarside%us.tuv@interlock.lexmark.com
To: Douglas C. Smith doug%emcesd@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: emc-pstc%ieee@interlock.lexmark.com,
My apologies to the group. I see what Ed is driving at. I should have
specified Direct Air Discharge as opposed to just Air Discharge. I
assumed that everyone would assume the Direct part. It would have saved
Ed, and possibly others, some confusion. IEC 1000-4-2 takes great pains to
Chris:
Sorry, my ignorance is showing! I was assuming that an air discharge was
just that; i.e., a test electrode to test electrode discharge in air some
specific distance from the EUT. From your elaboration, I now see that
contact discharge is a deliberate conductive connection before
DRS Advanced Programs out of Columbia, Maryland has an immediate
opening for an EMC/TEMPEST engineer with United States SECRET clearance. If
you or an associate are interested please contact Joe O'Banion at
oban...@drs-ap.com or 410-312-5868. Resumes can be faxed to me at
410-312-5860
To all grope members,
We would like to design an outdoor unit (radio terminal), metal enclosed,
with unit chassis NOT connected to earth. Unit
consisting the following: Antenna, RF module, digital and DC Power supply
module (powered by 60 Vdc - SELV). The outdoor unit
Mike,
Other than FDA compliance label required by CFRR1040, IEC 825 gives you the
option of not marking the product with the Class I Laser Product but rather
put a statement to this effect in the manual.
Warning Class 1 laser product.
Waarschuwing Klasse-1 laser produkt.
Varoitus
Hi All,
Where can I find a list of all of the international markings for a Class 1
laser product? We want to comply at least with the CB all members
requirements.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Mike Harris/Teccom Co.
---
This message is from the IEEE
Hi Richard,
I'm sure you are not the only one with doubts on this new standard for
Telecom port measurements.
I beleive that this standard is already under scrutiny and revisions are
underway to clarify some of the issues, especially for current measurement
methods.
About your question, I think
21 matches
Mail list logo
