From: Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]> To: Dean Jurgensen <[email protected]>, Steve Chin <[email protected]>, Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]> Cc: PSTC <[email protected]>, Judd Stewart <[email protected]>, treg group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: FCC Class A data vs. EN List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, 07 Nov 96 10:33:00 PST Message-Id: <[email protected]> Encoding: 187 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
This is an imprortant correction to what I said concerning how the conducted test must be performed. But the important thing to remember aside from this is that you can use EN 55022 radiated test data. This is where you will save time and money. Regards, Tony ---------- From: Steve Chin To: Dean Jurgensen; Tony Fredriksson Cc: Judd Stewart; PSTC; treg group Subject: Re: FCC Class A data vs. EN List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thursday, November 07, 1996 9:17AM Dean: The conducted emissions must be measured twice (actually, 4 times = if you consider line and neutral measurements as separate measurements) = against the CISPR limits. Once at 230V/50Hz, and once at 115V/60Hz. The = FCC will accept the conducted emissions data if it is taken against the = CISPR limits at 115V/60Hz (if your radiated emissions data was taken = against the CISPR limits, in accordance to the provisions stated in the = CISPR regulations). Conversely, the FCC will _not_ accept the conducted emissions data taken = against the FCC limits (at any voltage or cyclic rate) if you take your = radiated emissions data against the CISPR limits. I had a report kicked = back to me because I stupidly measured conducted emissions against the = FCC limits at 115V/60Hz. Steve Chin StreamLogic Corp. Menlo Park, CA, USA [email protected] The views expressed above in no way reflect those of any living or = corporate entity other than myself. -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 11/7/96 12:41 AM To: Steve Chin From: Dean Jurgensen Reply to: RE>>FCC Class A data vs. EN55022 Tony, What about: 1) The electrical rating differences (i.e. 120 V, 60 Hz vs. 230 V, 50 = Hz); and 2) The test methodology differences (i.e. ANSI C63.4 vs. CISPR = 22/EN55022/CISPR 16); for conducted and radiated emissions respectively. Just a thought. Regards, Dean Jurgensen NORTEL, Calgary [email protected] -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 96/11/4 1:21 PM To: Dean Jurgensen From: Tony Fredriksson ----- E X T E R N A L L Y O R I G I N A T E D M E S S A G E ----- Judd, I believe that is is the other way around. EN 55022 data is accepted for FCC Class A verification or FCC Class B Certification or Declaration of Conformity. The only modification is that if your equipment must be scanned above 1 GHz if you have an oscillator fundamental frequency of 108 MHz or greater. I do not believe that FCC Class A or B data can be used to verify compliance with Euro regs. Therefore, the best approach to use is to do the EN 55022 test. Has anyone recently heard otherwise? Regards, [email protected] ---------- From: Judd Stewart To: PSTC Subject: FCC Class A data vs. EN5502 List-Post: [email protected] Date: Friday, November 01, 1996 5:31PM Hello to all! I have a question concerning the applicability of data. Assume a ITE product is Verified FCC Class A and is being readied for marketing in the EU. (the unit is compliant with EN60950, notified body confirmed) Is the (FCC A) data package acceptable as being compliant with EN55022? = That is, can I use that data set to support my claim of compliance with = EN55022? One of the system engineers heard this on the grapevine and I rather = doubt it. I think the unit will need the full EN55022 data set. Thanks for the response in advance. Judd Stewart 619.552.5581 ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by nmisq2.miss.nt.com with SMTP;4 Nov 1996 13:15:50 -0500 Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by corpgate.rich.nt.com with SMTP (PP); Mon, 4 Nov 1996 18:08:45 +0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id = LAA16015 for emc-pstc-list; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 11:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]> To: PSTC <[email protected]>, Judd Stewart <[email protected]= m> Subject: RE: FCC Class A data vs. EN5502 List-Post: [email protected] Date: Mon, 04 Nov 96 08:38:00 PST Message-Id: <[email protected]> Encoding: 46 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] X-Moderator-Address: [email protected] ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by sledgehammer.com with SMTP;7 Nov 1996 00:38:20 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id = WAA13379 for emc-pstc-list; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:11:31 -0500 (EST) X400-Received: by mta NT.COM in /PRMD=3DNT/ADMD=3DMCI/C=3DUS/; Relayed; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 03:06:39 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=3DNT/ADMD=3DMCI/C=3DUS/; Relayed; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 01:05:29 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=3DNT/ADMD=3DMCI/C=3DUS/; Relayed; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:36:25 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=3DNT/ADMD=3DMCI/C=3DUS/; Relayed; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:29:19 +0000 List-Post: [email protected] Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 16:29:19 +0000 X400-Originator: [email protected] X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: = [/PRMD=3DNT/ADMD=3DMCI/C=3DUS/;<[email protected]] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Re: FCC Class... From: Dean Jurgensen <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> To: Tony Fredriksson <[email protected]> Cc: treg group <[email protected]>, Judd Stewart <[email protected]>, PSTC <[email protected]> Subject: Re: FCC Class A data vs. EN X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.3.960916 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1"; Name=3D"Message Body" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Dean Jurgensen <[email protected]> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
