Hi Jim:
There are a number of ways to prove traceability
of bulk-labelled components, i.e., components
that are not indivually marked.
- unmarked components - may not be able to tell mfr and cat. no, let alone
agency status and ratings
These are really bulk-labelled components.
If
John,
mind-enhancing substances: Is the caffeine in coffee (or tea or
carbonated beverages) a mind-enhancing substance? IF SO where would many
engineers be without it?!
Program managers would be very upset if engineers were no longer able to
operate under the influence of caffeine! Many light
We're trying not to reinvent the wheel, since I suspect many of you have
solved precisely our problem already.
We need to show our agency inspectors that the components and raw materials
used in production are the same ones called out in the reports. This is
easy for clearly marked components,
I am a little miffed at the cost of some of these standards! The preview as
some have suggested is a great idea.
Here in the US the government published Mil-Standards. These standards were
created with taxpayer monies and therefore were available from the
government printing office for the cost
I read in !emc-pstc that Colgan, Chris chris.col...@tagmclaren.com
wrote (in AE0F4BD08FEAD211895900805FE67B1FD6CAE0@CAT) about 'consumer
equipment on board marine vessels', on Fri, 7 Sep 2001:
I have had an enquiry regarding installation of our consumer audio products
on board boats (I presume
I read in !emc-pstc that am...@westin.org wrote (in 20010907130815.1903
0.qm...@www2.nameplanet.com) about 'UL approval IT equipment', on Fri,
7 Sep 2001:
We want our IT product to be UL approved. We purchase a modified power supply
(PS) which is not UL appoved. The original PS is UL approved.
ANSI X3.263 section 9.1.1.1 specifies that STP interfaces shall be
terminated in 150 Ohms and section 9.1.2.1 that UTP shall be in 100 Ohms for
qualification testing. It seems that most Shielded Twisted Pair cables on
the marked called by the STP acronym are in fact designed according to UTP
Amund,
I have to agree with John. If you have a good relationship (and let's not
forget YOU are a customer!) with the power supply vendor, you could agree to
pay the UL certification fee and have them submit the unit back to UL as an
alternate to the original investigation. Based on the proposed
From your actual experiences or knowledge, which of the following ESD tests
is more severe (i.e., more likely to cause disruption of operation) given
that the same pre-discharge voltages are used:
* Air discharge using generator and procedures of IEC 801-2:1984 (the
old standard), or
*
Hi Amund:
We want our IT product to be UL approved. We purchase a modified power
supply
(PS) which is not UL appoved. The original PS is UL approved. The only
difference in the PS is the value of one resistor which means that we now
can
take 2.3A/28VDC out instead of
hello:
i am just curisous..how to measure shielding effectiveness of cables..
is shielding effectiveness of individual wire is better vs overall shield?
is there any other ways to shield a cable? other than aluminium foil or
conductive fabric around the cable?
thank you in advance.
Vijay Wani
I have also been down this road.
We insist he supply manufacturer add the new version to their `recognized'
file. If it doesn't affect the critical components transformer etc. it should
be a minor update to their file.
This way you have a recognized component that is traceable.
If it isn't
No limits in CISPR 22 (upon which EN 55022 is based) at this time. However,
we are working on limits above 1 GHz in CISPR SC I. It will be several
years before they are released, however, so don't worry about it today.
Ghery Pettit
Intel
-Original Message-
From: Kuganesan
I've been down this road . . .
The power supply will have to go through the approval process
too, including multiple samples of the magnetics, providing
drawings, etc . . .
You will also have to a) have the manufacturer
put a 'freeze' on the design of the unit (it's now
a 'custom unit' for you)
What about this one:
We want our IT product to be UL approved. We purchase a modified power supply
(PS) which is not UL appoved. The original PS is UL approved. The only
difference in the PS is the value of one resistor which means that we now can
take 2.3A/28VDC out instead of 1.9/28VDC. It
I read in !emc-pstc that rehel...@mmm.com wrote (in
ofe2e0cd02.d41f6d14-on86256ac0.003e3...@mmm.com) about 'ENV 50121-5',
on Fri, 7 Sep 2001:
John, I totally agree with Chris and you. In addition to the scope, I
would like to add that a brief
description of an amendment to a standard should be
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk
wrote (in 01c13783.174ab520.chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk) about 'ENV
50121-5', on Fri, 7 Sep 2001:
I agree that the scope should be in the public domain so we can
verify relevance before committing to purchase. I for one
John, I totally agree with Chris and you. In addition to the scope, I
would like to add that a brief
description of an amendment to a standard should be made available.
I will not be at the IEC meeting but if there is a manner in which you
think that I can provide
support, don't hesitate to
Timothy...very germane, very instructional.
Thanks,
Bob Heller
3M Product Safety, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
==
Lauren,
I spend a significant part of my free time working with mobile
pressure vessels. As a steam railway locomotive fireman and
repairer, I have to rely, for my continued well-being, on sound
engineering practice. This has been developed over the last
200 years, often learning from some
Eric,
this 150 ohm story of STP cables sounds completely new to me. Also, my
understanding is that both UTP and STP are used for 10bT ethernet.
In the STP definition of IEEE802.3, there is no mention about different
characteristic impedances from the required 100ohm of 10bT.
Unfortunately I
Dear Nick
I once asked the LVD section of the Department of Trade and Industry
(Current contact - Chris Parish) this question, and the reply was that the
Shipping, aircraft and rail industries have their own (international?)
requirements and compliance should be against these requirements, they
Chris Maxwell writes...
However; I have been burned by buying standards that sounded like
they would apply; but really don't.
Just had a dose of that myself last week!!
I agree that the scope should be in the public domain so we can
verify relevance before committing to purchase. I for one
Anyone know where to obtain a copy of SBC BSP 802-001-180MP (their grounding
and bonding spec)? thanks
Dwight
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at:
In the case of the PED, it's specifically defined (although I can't
remember where just now, and don't have time to look). In this
context, SEP is intended to mean the national practice/standards of a
member state prior to the implementation of harmonised standards for
pressure equipment. In
Hi Kuga,
According to EN55022:1998, which is based on CISPR 22:1997, the radiated
emission shall be meassured in the frequency band 30-1000MHz.
No talk about emission testing above 1GHz.
Best regards
Amund Westin, Oslo / Norway
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 09:29:40 +0800 Kuganesan
Does Anyone knows the EN55022 radiated emission limit for above 1GHz.
Regards
Kuga
#
P. Kuganesan
EMC Engineer
LabOne Singapore Pte Ltd
Tel: (65) 8969861
27 matches
Mail list logo
