So if I understand this, there is no testing required for Europe above a
gigahertz for EN 55022 at this time?
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
=
all
Have just checked the BS EN document page for BS EN 55022, the version listed
30-11-2006 which is listed as active is version BS EN 55022:2006 +A1:2007.
This document includes limits for Radiated Emissions above 1GHz in Section 6.2
Tables 8 and 9.
Regards
Andy
Andrew P. Price
Ghery,
Could you in short resume the links between
de dated versions of :
CISPR 22 : dated and their corresponding edition numbers
EN 55022 dated versions versus CISPR 22 edition numbers they were based on
And if there were any (common) modifications between CISPR 22 and
the
In message
baaffc88eeb3c541b27f567064251ef905045...@desmdswms202.des.grplnk.net,
dated Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Price, Andrew (SELEX GALILEO, UK)
andrew.p.pr...@selexgalileo.com writes:
Have just checked the BS EN document page for BS EN 55022, the version
listed 30-11-2006 which is listed as
I thought id might help if I’d resume
the information I have on hand:
CISPR 22 : 1985 (ed1) -- EN 55022:1987 (mod) (listed OJ C99:2000)
CISPR 22:1993 (ed2) -- EN 55022:1994(mod) (listed in OJ C99:2000 +A1+A2)
CISPR 22:1997 (ed3) -- EN 55022:1998 (mod) (listed in OJ C99:2000
Pete (or anyone on the list), do you know of a human body circuit model
that is above 1 MHz? The circuits that are talked about below only go to a
megahertz.
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
Ghery, Rob, all
Remember that when you apply a standard you are doing so on the basis
that the standard covers ALL the product EMC characteristics.
IF you design a PC with a 3GHz clock and only apply a standard with a
1GHz limit and then there is a problem with real interference at 3GHz,
the
All,
Sorry I should have said under the EMC Directive in relation to my
last e-mail.
Regards
Tim
Tim Haynes A1N10
Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist
SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems
300 Capability Green
Luton LU1 3PG
Tel : +44 (0)1582 886239
Fax :
But unless A1 is published in the OJ, it is not a harmonized standard under the
EMC Directive, correct?
Jim Hulbert, Group Leader
TSO Competitive Compliance Engineering
Pitney Bowes, 35 Waterview Drive, Shelton, CT 06484
Tel: 203-924-3621 (Internal 442-3621)
Fax: 203-924-3352 (Internal
Tim - true enough, and as Engineers we can't disagree from a technical
perspective. However, manufacturers are going to test only to what they HAVE to
test to, i.e. there is a presumption of conformity with the EMC Directive if
the manufacturer applies those standards published in the OJ that
In message
201048ea81ba0745aca78e4cc8839001037cf...@desmdswms201.des.grplnk.net,
dated Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Haynes, Tim (SELEX GALILEO, UK)
tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com writes:
Remember that when you apply a standard you are doing so on the basis
that the standard covers ALL the product EMC
In message
72b8947772cf0948adaa9853631663fb20c833e...@pbi-namsg-02.mgdpbi.global.pv
t, dated Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com writes:
But unless A1 is published in the OJ, it is not a harmonized standard
under the EMC Directive, correct?
Your point is correct but since the
Way back in 2003 this issue was addressed in an ECACB (now ECANB)
Technical Guidance Note (TGN 9), which we've been using since then.
Basically it states that if a product has the potential to interfere at
frequencies above 1GHz, it should be checked using appropriate limits
and test methods. It
In message 8A23BE5F815D41408CB01F1F4621F88E0395E879@S1.DLSEMC.local,
dated Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Bill Stumpf bstu...@dlsemc.com writes:
Basically it states that if a product has the potential to interfere at
frequencies above 1GHz, it should be checked using appropriate limits
and test methods.
Below is a response I received today from BSI regarding the subject standard.
I guess the missing link (for me anyway) was that I never received corrigendum
1-16829 which removed section 6.2 from the standard.
Regarding A1:2007, 6.2 is back in. However, since A1:2007 is not yet
published in
You are correct. It is not. And rumor has it that CENELEC got it (the
amendment) out too late to make the next list for the OJ, but we’ll have to
see when that is finally published.
Are we having fun yet? :-)
Ghery Pettit
From: emc-p...@ieee.org
Bob et al,
The 1 MHz demarcation is an arbitrary, historical division between
electrical safety folks and EMC folks.
From a physiological point of view the model of the body at very HF
(1 MHz, etc) is not well described by a simple electrical model. Workers
in the field are now moving
I dare say that you can likely find a NIB replacement CRT from one or two
vendors in the USA.A Google search may be all that’s needed to locate
one.
Ralph McDiarmid, AScT
Compliance Engineering Group
Xantrex Technology Inc.
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
While I agree that the advice in the TGN was somewhat ambiguous, one
could have easily justified the use of FCC limits, test methods, and
criteria for testing above 1GHz. At the time nothing else was
available.
Bill
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
In message 8A23BE5F815D41408CB01F1F4621F88E0395E8E1@S1.DLSEMC.local,
dated Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Bill Stumpf bstu...@dlsemc.com writes:
While I agree that the advice in the TGN was somewhat ambiguous, one
could have easily justified the use of FCC limits, test methods, and
criteria for testing
20 matches
Mail list logo
