No difference, but you should get the 5th Edition. It basically is the basis
for EN 55022:2006, which should be listed in the OJ early (I hope) next year.
Ghery S. Pettit
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin
Sent: Tuesday, November 28,
I think the power line transmission scheme some folks are trying to
implement frame the issue pretty well.
Certainly being able to put the internet on the powerlines is innovative
and a very economical solution to providing mid-bandwith* data. But
implementing it without the regulatory oversight
I agree with your conclusion.
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Powell, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:31 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Regulatory Compliance stifles
I could make an argument that regulatory compliance can encourage
innovation. Without legally mandated frequency allocations, the rich and
powerful could monopolize the spectrum. Small companies could have
problems developing wireless devices. Without safety approvals, large
companies might be
I agree with Mr. O'Connell and call such regulations, necessary though they
might be, by their rightful name: barriers to entry into the marketplace.
While large established manufacturers will have on hand the necessary staff,
the small outfits from which truly innovative products stem are
While Regulatory Compliance itself may not inherently stifle innovation,
the various approval processes mandated by NRTLs and NBs/CBs tend to limit a
smaller company's ability to introduce competitive technology, and
ultimately drives up the cost of new technology for both the company and the
Well said.
Richard
=
Richard Georgerian
Longmont, CO 80504
email: richa...@ieee.org
=
From: Powell, Doug [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [EMC-PSTC] Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
All,
I've heard
Grace,
One of our hardware design engineers comes up with a question for
rated voltage for a capacitor.
Under the second page (Page 19) of the datasheet found at
http://www.avxcorp.com/docs/Catalogs/safecc.pdf, the rated voltage for
61V is different when using as a X1 and when using as an
Hello Grace,
An X1 capacitor needs to provide basic insulation from Line to Line. A Y1
capacitor must provide double protection because it is rated to bridge Line
to SELV. A Y1 capacitor must be equivalent to two Y2 capacitors in series,
where each Y2 is rated for the operating voltage.
A Y1
Hello Group,
Just reviewing EN 60950:2006 table 2N….
Am I right in thinking that the creepage distances for non-coated PCB’s has
been relaxed?
Ie Reinforced creepage distance is now 2mm for a working voltage of 250V,
material group IIIa? Whereas before it was 5mm (ref Table 2L EN
Dear Tom:
Thank you for your reminder. I don't have a copy of CISPR 22: 2003. I do
have a copy of CISPR 22: 2005 Fifth Edition. Do you know if there is any
difference for the requirement of an ISN between the versions 2003 and 2005?
Best regards,
Grace
On 11/27/06, T.Sato
11 matches
Mail list logo
