Eric, IMO this is exactly what happens when reality and standards writers diverge!! They clearly have too much time on their hands!!
This methodology is consistent with the German insistence of Class B emissions levels for ALL equipment regardless of application. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 [email protected] Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 >---------- >From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 11:19 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Rigorous Passing Criteria? (no effect allowed) > > >A tidbit of news I was handed from inside the standards setting process >today is somewhat alarming, though it is - for the moment - affecting only >IEC/EN 61326-1's eventual inclusion of heavy industrial and portable >devices, and ultimate conversion to a form without any dash-numbering as >IEC/EN 61326:1998(?). > >But our ITE cousins should read on. > >Passing Criteria B has been with us for several years now in EN >50082-1:1992 as it applies to ESD/EFT testing. The propsal for IEC/EN >61326's final form is to add an Annex that stipulates "no output shift is >allowed whatsoever". It appears that factions within the IEC wish to make >Criteria A the only passing criteria available. (Perhaps because of >alledged abuse of Criteria B?) > >IMO a fundamental shift in testing philosophy, such as this, will likely >propagate through other product family EMC standards. It will call for a >few new technologies that are not currently available, and essentially >(IMO) eliminate the use of formerly industry standard unshielded I/O cable >formats such as RS-485/232/422 and some marginally shielded schemes (how >thick will your mouse cable get?). > >What considerations are offered for retryable I/O methods such as 10/100 >Base-T? >Will all unshielded cable formats have to use error-checking or packetized >CRC'd data to pass? > >Is there any discussion, rumors, or other insight offered? > >Regards, >Eric Lifsey >National Instruments > > >
