I'm going to say British pass on the left because the jousting pole is
usually held by right handers.
Sailors pass on the right, yet don't know the origin of that. Maybe the
sailing tradition started a propensity to pass on the right for colonists.
Automobiles in the US are made so the driver
Yes, I see a problem , Lightning spikes and the full peak mains
voltage when the mains is switched on at its voltage peak will
pass straight through your capacitors causing a safety hazard
and may destroy the insulation of the transformer if it is
not rated for this voltage.
Nick Rouse
-
Hello Group,
I'm trying to figure out a message in Korean from a test lab laboratory.
From what I can gather they seem to be applying an electrical noise source
to our DC power in lines with a Noise Laboratory INS 420(A). Has anybody
heard of such a beast? Better yet, do you know if it was
Oops. Meant to say the 801 series is obsolete and replaced by the
IEC 61000-4-X series, which is true..
Mike H.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hopkins [mailto:mhopk...@thermokeytek.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:42 PM
To: 'Sam Wismer'; EMC Forum
Subject: RE:
I read in !emc-pstc that Patrick Lawler plaw...@west.net wrote (in
d86u3ukalc0klgvpifajq86e13bmrcf...@4ax.com) about 'EN 50141 and EN
61000-4-6', on Fri, 11 Jan 2002:
This is a more of a general question, since I would actually test to
EN61000-6-2
(which references EN61000-4-6.)
You can't do
I read in !emc-pstc that Sam Wismer swis...@bellsouth.net wrote (in
000901c19ab1$7feb4ae0$0201a8c0@sam) about 'EN50091-2:1995', on Fri, 11
Jan 2002:
I am reviewing EN50091-2:1995 to determine the immunity requirements for
UPS
systems. According to the harmonized list, this is the
The intent of EN 50091-2 is to call out 801-5. The in preparation thing
was left there in error.
stillin...@aol.com
It is best to use this process to avoid additional testing costs associated
with using a non-UL approved coating or application process. Although these
coatings can provide significant reductions in Immunity and Emission noise,
they truly are a headache for safety approvals when regarding
I do not believe it's required. If the plastic/coating and applicator are
under the UL746 program then you do not need to do any testing to qualify
your product. If it is not then it must be tested.
We have been using conductive coatings for 15+ years and as long as the
combo is under the UL
Darrell and all,
Many of our clients work with a company that applies conductive coatings
on numerous electronic plastic housings. They have had much success in
providing this particular process to our customers and seem to be the
know all group in this industry. We like to stay up on what what
Hi Mike,
I will agree with you in that the IEC801 series is indeed an old series of
standards. However, these
standards were revised and renumbered into the IEC 1000-4-x series. Afterwhich,
the IEC renumbered
these standards to be IEC 61000-4-x. In addition, the EN 61000-4-x series was
Finally, a voice of sanity in news articles about
electromagnetic vulnerability. The ABC online news
headline is
High-Tech Robbery
Physicists Say
Electromagnetic-Aided
Robbery Limited to
Hollywood
The 801-n Norm numbering is now 61000-4-n. Attached is EMC Std update from
the TUV site - may be of interest.
(See attached file: EMC Std Update.doc)
Sam Wismer
That is the correct version of the standard as far as I know, and I agree it
does not require application of the 801-5 surge immunity requirements. I
too find that surprising, since surge is one of the most basic and
longest-standing immunity considerations, and real life problems occur if
it's
Darrell,
UL will require it if you seek UL approval for your device.
Mat
-Original Message-
From: Darrell Locke [SMTP:dlo...@advanced-input.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:52 AM
To: Aschenberg, Mat
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Spray-on Conductive
Can anyone point me to a reference for measuring the absorption of anechoic
material to verify the requirements as specified in MIL-STD-462D?
Thanks,
Susan Beard
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc
Group,
My understanding is that EN 50091-2:1995 is published in the official
journal and does specifically call out 801-2, 801-3 801-4 standards (not
801-5 which it states is in preparation). It does call out EN 61000-4-11:1994
and therefore I believe the intent is to use the 801
Yes, Hewlett-Packard and now Agilent uses spray-on conductive coatings. We
require our vendor to have there process UL approved. If you go to UL 746C
it will describe the test method. Paul N. Gardner Company makes a testing
set for checking coating adhesion.
Ron Duffy
Product Safety Engineer
Thanks Matt,
I was not aware that a UL approved painter/applicator was required. Is this
in a standard, or is it just a common practice?
Darrell Locke
-Original Message-
From: Aschenberg, Mat [mailto:matt.aschenb...@echostar.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM
To: Darrell
The entire 801 Series is obsolete and replaced by the EN61000-4-X series;
61000-4-2, 61000-4-3, 61000-4-4 and 61000-4-5.
It sounds like the product standard you have is out of date and needs to be
revised, if it hasn't been already, to call out the new standards.
Today, virtually all product
Darrell,
I have used this process in the past. It presents a bit of a safety
nightmare.
The products I work on are UL tested and approved. Getting a product
approved with UL having a spray-on conductive coating is difficult. The
spray needs to be UL listed for use with the particular plastic
Hi Pierre:
You did not state whether or not your secondary circuit
is intended to be SELV or not. This is critical to your
choice of capacitor. However, you did ask whether the
circuit is equivalent to reinforced insulation, so I
assume that your secondary circuit is SELV.
By
A small antenna with a 45 Mhz source and mixer at the center would retransmit a
US
cellphone on its own receive frequency. Would that do what you want?
Cortland - KA5S
(What I write here is mine alone.
My employer does not
Concur, agree or else endorse
These words, their mood, or thought.)
I read in !emc-pstc that John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote (in
syyeqfagtkp8e...@jmwa.demon.co.uk) about 'Switch Inrush Ratings', on
Wed, 9 Jan 2002:
I read in !emc-pstc that duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com wrote (in
3642233...@snellwilcox.com) about 'Switch Inrush Ratings', on Wed, 9
Jan
I read in !emc-pstc that Chris Chileshe chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk
wrote (in 01c19a92.f4398e80.chris.chile...@ultronics.co.uk) about 'EN
50141 and EN 61000-4-6', on Fri, 11 Jan 2002:
I am testing to the generic immunity standard EN 61000-6-2
which refers to EN 61000-4-6 for immunity to
Dear Colleages,
We have seen an issue lately with spray-on conductive coatings used on the
inside of electronic enclosures. The coating works great for EMC, but there
seems to be a problem with adhesion and tiny flakes of conductive material
getting in the electronics. I'm thinking that the
Actually, it's not the IEEE, but the IEE, a different organization.
Cortland
(If my firm wanted to say something, they wouldn't have ME say it! I don't
speak for them!)
---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee
If I assume that the top loaded antenna acts as a quarter wave stub,
that is it is extremely efficient at radiating all the power presented at
the base and not reflecting any back, and if I further assume this is CB
band or higher (essentially at or above 30 MHz), then 600 Watts 5 meters
away
Without a lot of test equipment that would be worth more than your car and
that you wouldn't want to fuss with, the only practical way I can think of
to quickly separate phone and ear in the car ahead of me is to send a burst
of broadband noise aimed in the direction of the offending vehicle. I
I couldn't speak for the automotive limit specifically mentioned in this
thread because I don't have a copy, but every BCI limit I have seen and the
similar IEC 1000-4-6 technique requires some kind of amplitude modulation.
The test is a low frequency radiated susceptibility/immunity requirement
My own personal experience bears this out.
on 1/10/02 3:39 PM, Patrick Lawler at plaw...@west.net wrote:
I belive emissions standards were designed to allow proper operation of radios
and televisions with minimal irritation. This would include sound and video
quality. I heard this story
Hi all,
I am reviewing EN50091-2:1995 to determine the immunity requirements for
UPS systems. According to the harmonized list, this is the correct
version of the standard under the EMCD. It calls for radiated
emissions, IEC 801-2, -3 and -4. It then says 801-5 is under
consideration. Our
There is a lot to be said for this approach.
Unfortunately, I had just sent out an e-mail on EN 61000-4-6
and EN 50141 when I started following the thread on Switch
Inrush Ratings.
I eventually came to the postings making reference to the
John Woodgate approach and realised I hadn't done all I
Hi group,
I am testing to the generic immunity standard EN 61000-6-2
which refers to EN 61000-4-6 for immunity to conducted
disturbances induced by radio-frequency fields.
A query has arisen that EN 50141 is missing from my list of
tests. Is my understanding correct that these two standards
Well from the urban myths I have seen it goes something like this,
The passing on the left does come form wearing a pistol or a sword. You
naturally lead an attack with your right hand. Hence why you shake with your
right hand to
show you are carrying no weapon and are a friend.
In Europe
TV rated switches are still in use, UL6500 (US version of IEC60065) calls
them up
Chris Colgan
Compliance Engineer
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd
The Summit, Latham Road
Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU
*Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627
*Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159
* Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com
*
I don't know whether it is true or not, but I recall hearing this some time
ago
The convention of passing to the left on a road dates back to the days of
riding horse back and was related to the normal position for wearing a sword or
pistol.
The first motor carriages had the driver sat
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter Tarver peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
wrote (in nebbkemlgllmjofmoplemecbdbaa.peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com)
about 'Switch Inrush Ratings', on Thu, 10 Jan 2002:
I haven't followed the Woodgate approach :),
My approach in this case was to cite the relevant
Hi Ken, Group,
As I present courses on EMC in the Netherlands,
I have this demo-box with me. It consists of a welded
rust free steel box with a clamp tightened cover.
The joints have EMC fingers in perfect state.
For miscellaneous experiments 5 6 mm (0.2)
holes are drilled in it.
When I teach
Yeah, it is funny. or can be -- if you are not the guy being strip-searched
because my rig set off a metal detector!
I tell people I'm a Radio Interference Engineer. I can cure it - or cause
it.
In the US, the FCC limits permissible RF field strength only to protect
public health. The field
Should be interesting. You'd have to run VOX on that sucker. Looks like
both hands would be well occupied controlling it.
73
Ghery, N6TPT
-Original Message-
From: Dave Lorusso [mailto:dave.loru...@genband.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:02 PM
To: 'Chris Maxwell'; Cortland
Note to list members: Dave has seen my car. Dave, I shall have to come to Austin
and try it in your parking lot. (grin!) But don't look for me on a Segway!
That's too far to stand up.
Cortland - KA5S
(What I write here is mine alone.
My employer does not
Concur, agree or else endorse
These
I'd like to add a few comments about paths and victim circuits.
The externally applied RF field may have more than one path into the EUT.
Let's assume you have just two paths; one via a powerline that's equipped
with a modest filter, and another that is a radiated path through
ventilation slots.
I'd like to see what that 100 Watts does to the Segway (www.segway.com)...
Dave - KD5ONZ
-Original Message-
From: Chris Maxwell [mailto:chris.maxw...@nettest.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:03 PM
To: Cortland Richmond; Ken Javor
Cc: scott@jci.com;
Depending on the type of Cell phone I don't think you'd need to jam it.
For analog, just acquire the frequency in use and transmit the tone/signal
for 'END' to hang it up.
The cell site will disconnect the call. (Please Note: This is my theory -
not a reported experiment.)
For digital you'd
I haven't followed the Woodgate approach :), hopefully the
information Rich discovered also includes such relevant
concerns as:
power factor for general use
power factor for inductive/motor loads
power factor for pilot duty loads
heavy power factor (perhaps as low as 0.10)
incandescent
46 matches
Mail list logo
