Looking for a filter

[rbusche]

I have a low frequency control port that has a high frequency (300 MHz)
common mode harmonic noise on all three lines. This is on an existing card
with a limited amount of real-estate available. To compound the problems I
am driving a unique,  off-the-shelf, device with no provisions for proper
shielding. As such, I am looking for a filtered 3 pin mini-din connector, or
a filter assembly that would lend itself to surface mounting.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Rick Busche
rbus...@es.com

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[bma]

We might have to correct a misconception of triboeletrification that we 
learnt from all demonstrations in schools. The myth is  triboeletrification 
only happens to insulators. 
Can we try to say: Triboeletrification would cause transfer of electrons 
between different materials. Insulators would hold electrostatic charges 
due to the triboeletrification. On the other hand,  transient flow of 
electrons between different metals would produce broadband EMI.

Please correct me.
Thank you.
Barry Ma


-
Original Text
From: , on 3/16/99 12:16 PM:
I remember a similar effect. Many years ago, when I was a student, in my
room I had a TV set with a simple loop antenna. 2 meters away from the
antenna was the radiator of the central heating of that house. On seams of
the elements  of that radiator the paint had come off. Below the paint the
metal was slightly oxidized with a black colour.

When I took a scewdriver and rubbed the metal blade along that seam the TV
picture would become distorted with some black lines.
I always wondered why, and in fact still do.

Rene Charton



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

UL/CSA Listings (a Clarification)

[Art Michael]

Hello All,

Just had a short emailversation with Dick Pittenger regarding his response
(enclosed below).  We both agreed that while his response may be true in
the Consumer Product world, it is not correct with respect to the
Workplace (under OSHA's control);  And that happens to be where Mr. 
Harlowe's equipment is headed for (as determined in an emailversation with
Mr.  Harlowe earlier today). 

OSHA requires all electrical equipment to be Listed, Labelled, etc, per
the earlier and very comprehensive response on this topic submitted by Ron
Pickard.

Regards, Art Michael

Int'l Product Safety News
A.E. Michael, Editor
P.O. Box 1561 PSTC
Middletown CT 06457-8061 U.S.A.

Phone  :  (860) 344-1651
Fax:  (860) 346-9066
Email  :  i...@connix.com
Website:  http://www.safetylink.com
ISSN   :  1040-7529


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
*   International Product Safety Bookshop   *
*  Check out our current offerings! *
*  *   
* A new service of the Safety Link  *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 


-

-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:44:06 -0500
From: pitt...@pmifeg.com
To: emc-p...@ieee.org

Hello Brian:

Concerning your questions about the requirement for UL Listing/CSA
Certification for electrical equipment used in the USA and Canada, here's
my two cent's worth (this is based on 20+ years of handling submittals to
both agencies):

For the USA, NFPA 70 (the National Electrical Code) makes reference to use
of Listed equipment, meaning that electrical construction equipment,
conduit, outlets, boxes, circuit breakers AND utilization equipment such as
appliances which are permanently connected to the branch circuit, must be
evaluated and covered by an NRTL such as UL. Thus, any installation that
will be subjected to an electrical inspection needs to be made-up of Listed
equipment. If not, the inspector performing the inspection must make the
judgment himself concerning suitability of the components. Some states and
cities are not willing to take on that responsibility and make it very
difficult to use non-Listed equipment. Field inspections by UL are possible
but cost-prohibitive.

For cord-connected portable equipment, it is entirely possible to avoid any
Listing at all since the user simply takes the product home and plugs it in
with no electrical inspection taking place. Case in point is holiday
lighting strands, many of which are on store shelves with no Listing Marks
in evidence.

In reality, most reputable manufacturers want, and in-the-know consumers
demand, a third-party Listing of some sort. Personally, I wouldn't want any
electrical product in my home that didn't meet at least such minimum levels
of safety standards such as UL's (indeed some of the products that do have
the Mark are marhinal at best).. Additionally, with the product liability
climate in the USA, manufacturers want the extra assurance that an outside
organization has agreed that a minimum safety standard has been met. This
can be very beneficial during litigation.

For Canada, Certifications or field inspections of electrical equipment are
mandated by law. Therefore, in most instances, a Certification is the most
economical procedure. For low-volume equipment, field inspections are
possible but again expensive. Note that it's very common now for
manufacturers to submit to UL or CSA for coverage in both the USA and
Canada-one project for a small additional expense covers requirements for
both and allows for markings acceptable to both countries to be placed on
each unit.

Hope this information helps some.

R. Pittenger
PMI Food Equipment Group
Troy, Ohio



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).





-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

[no subject]

[pitteri]

Hello Brian:

Concerning your questions about the requirement for UL Listing/CSA
Certification for electrical equipment used in the USA and Canada, here's
my two cent's worth (this is based on 20+ years of handling submittals to
both agencies):

For the USA, NFPA 70 (the National Electrical Code) makes reference to use
of Listed equipment, meaning that electrical construction equipment,
conduit, outlets, boxes, circuit breakers AND utilization equipment such as
appliances which are permanently connected to the branch circuit, must be
evaluated and covered by an NRTL such as UL. Thus, any installation that
will be subjected to an electrical inspection needs to be made-up of Listed
equipment. If not, the inspector performing the inspection must make the
judgment himself concerning suitability of the components. Some states and
cities are not willing to take on that responsibility and make it very
difficult to use non-Listed equipment. Field inspections by UL are possible
but cost-prohibitive.

For cord-connected portable equipment, it is entirely possible to avoid any
Listing at all since the user simply takes the product home and plugs it in
with no electrical inspection taking place. Case in point is holiday
lighting strands, many of which are on store shelves with no Listing Marks
in evidence.

In reality, most reputable manufacturers want, and in-the-know consumers
demand, a third-party Listing of some sort. Personally, I wouldn't want any
electrical product in my home that didn't meet at least such minimum levels
of safety standards such as UL's (indeed some of the products that do have
the Mark are marhinal at best). Additionally, with the product liability
climate in the USA, manufacturers want the extra assurance that an outside
organization has agreed that a minimum safety standard has been met. This
can be very beneficial during litigation.

For Canada, Certifications or field inspections of electrical equipment are
mandated by law. Therefore, in most instances, a Certification is the most
economical procedure. For low-volume equipment, field inspections are
possible but again expensive. Note that it's very common now for
manufacturers to submit to UL or CSA for coverage in both the USA and
Canada-one project for a small additional expense covers requirements for
both and allows for markings acceptable to both countries to be placed on
each unit.

Hope this information helps some.

R. Pittenger
PMI Food Equipment Group
Troy, Ohio



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[rc]

I remember a similar effect. Many years ago, when I was a student, in my
room I had a TV set with a simple loop antenna. 2 meters away from the
antenna was the radiator of the central heating of that house. On seams of
the elements  of that radiator the paint had come off. Below the paint the
metal was slightly oxidized with a black colour.

When I took a scewdriver and rubbed the metal blade along that seam the TV
picture would become distorted with some black lines.
I always wondered why, and in fact still do.

Rene Charton



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Argentina's Resolution 92

[WOODS, RICHARD]

UL has informed me that they have signed a MOU with IRAM. IRAM will accept
test results from UL where UL has demonstrated experience with IEC
standards, such as IEC 950. IRAM will even issue their mark based upon those
tests. As an option for Phase II only, IRAM will accept products that bear
the UL Listing Mark if the Argentine deviations have been taken into
consideration during the evaluation (operating voltage and power cord, for
example)

For additional information contact Willie Janisch at janis...@ul.com
 .

--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD
Sent:  Tuesday, March 09, 1999 1:51 PM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  Argentina's Resolution 92

Per Resolution 92, Argentina was scheduled to
require a Conformity-to-Type Certificate for electronic apparatus effective
18 June, 1999. The problem, of course, was that when the resolution was
published they did not have the infrastructure nor MRAs in place to
accomplish this task. Has anyone heard of any change in their capabilities
to test, MRAs with other agencies, or a change in the date?


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: UL/CSA Listings

[ron_pickard]

 Hi Brian,
 
 Whizzy, eh? Well, I think that most of us resemble that remark. :-)
 
 First, UL and CSA are but two of the 17 NRTLs that are accredited by the 
 Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA) which is a part of the US 
 Department of Labor.
 
 Anyway, according to OSHA regulations (29CFR Subpart 1910.399), "an 
 installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, 
 and approved within the meaning of this Subpart S:
 
 (i) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise 
 determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory; or
 
 (ii) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind which no 
nationally 
 recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines 
 to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another Federal agency, or by a 
 State, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing 
 occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code, and found in 
 compliance with the provisions of the National Electrical Code as applied in 
 this subpart; or
 
 (iii) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations which are 
 designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it 
 is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis 
 of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to 
the 
 Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. Refer to 1910.7 for 
 definition of nationally recognized testing laboratory."
 
 The meaning of accepted as it applies here is "An installation is "accepted" 
if 
 it has been inspected and found by a nationally recognized testing laboratory 
 to conform to specified plans or to procedures of applicable codes."
 
 What this means is that equipment bound for use in the US or its territories  
 must either be formally tested by a NRTL, or be subject to the requirements of 
 the National Electrical Code (NEC) on a case-by-case basis. However, due to 
the 
 lack of technical expertise on the part of the NEC inspectors, they can, and 
 do, refer an evaluation back to the NRTLs. This is the essense of the NRTL's 
 field inspection and labeling programs.
 
 Well, that's it in a nutshell. Any additional comments from any of us whizzies?
 
 I hope this helps to answer your question.
 
 Best regards,
 Ron Pickard
 ron_pick...@hypercom.com

__ Reply Separator _
Subject: UL/CSA  Listings 
Author:  "Brian Harlowe"  at INTERNET
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:3/16/99 12:14 PM


Hi Everybody
 Can some of you Whizzy American Engineers 
provide me with some information.
 
The word on this side of the Atlantic is that if Equipment is not 
UL/CSA approved. It MUST be field labelled.
 
Can anyone confirm this please
 
Regards
 
Brian Harlowe 
* opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG 
ientific
 
-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the 
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, 
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or 
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
 
 


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Notebook computers for Emi testing

[Sparacino,George]

Hello All,

I am about to purchase a notebook (support equip.) computer for use in
Emi / immunity testing of our  (ITE)  equipment.

I have no experience with notebooks (in Emi testing) and am looking for
your opinions on which manufacturer(s) are quiet performers for this
application.

Thank You,
George Sparacino

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[Hans Mellberg]

---Lou Gnecco  wrote:
>
> Do you get the same effect with the coins in a cloth bag or a paper
bag?
> Has anybody tried it?
> Lou
> 
> 
To answer that, there are two parts;

1) Look at the triboelectric series chart. This chart, shows, what
materials when rubbed with what other materials, will generate either
a positive or negative charge and the relative magnitude of the
charge. The materials at the top of the chart will generate a positive
charge and the materials at the bottom of the chart will generate a
negative charge. The farther apart the materials, the greater the
charge build up. 

2) Determine the conductivity of both materials. If one of the
materials is a conductor, then assume that dishcharge can occur from
any location. If it is an insulator, then a dicharge can only occur
from the localized charged area.  If one of the materials is a
conductor and the second material is poor conductor such as paper or
cloth, then the charge will begin decaying as soon as it is built up
with a time constant based on the conductivity of the poor conductor.

So, to answer your question, paper or cloth bags will have a lesser
effect than a polymer bag. In certain conditions, the charge may not
even built up enough to create any effects.

Hans Mellberg
_
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

RE: Invitation to EU workshop for all CABs (Washington, D.C., Apr il 2 7-29)

[WOODS, RICHARD]

According to this site, the MRA process is being delayed.

http://www.cix.co.uk/~approval/n2_0199.htm
 


--
From:  Leafloor, Bob: DSI [SMTP:leafloor@ic.gc.ca]
Sent:  Tuesday, March 16, 1999 8:11 AM
To:  t...@world.std.com
Subject:  RE: Invitation to EU workshop for all CABs (Washington,
D.C., Apr il 2  7-29)

For US registration contact: jogindar.dhil...@nist.gov

-Original Message-
From: Scott Lemon [mailto:lem...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: March 15, 1999 12:08 PM
To: t...@world.std.com
Subject: RE: Invitation to EU workshop for all CABs (Washington,
D.C.,
Apr il 2 7-29)


Sounds interesting - anyone know where to go for more details on
registration, etc. (not obvious where to look once you are on DoC
web page)?

Regards, 
Scott Lemon (esn 351-4487, 919-991-4487)
Fax:  (919) 991-8724
Network Dependability
Nortel Networks
RTP, NC


> -Original Message-
> From: Victor L. Boersma [SMTP:vboer...@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 12:01 PM
> To:   TREG
> Subject:  Invitation to EU workshop for all CABs (Washington,
D.C.,
> April 2 7-29)
> 
> For those who prefer to stop guessing and would like to get some
> information from the horse's mouthes:
> 
> There will be two consecutive workshops, to be
> held in Washington, D.C. on April 27-29, 1999.
> 
> On Tuesday, April 27, representatives of the European Commission, 
> and other European experts, will brief  interested parties from 
> both the United States and Canada on responsibilities under
relevant 
> European directives (98/13/EC and 89/336/EEC) and the respective 
> Canadian and  US MRAs with the EU.  A draft agenda for this
all-day 
> workshop is enclosed. Attendees are  advised to bring copies of
the 
> relevant EU directives and the EU MRA with them to the workshop.
> 
> On Wednesday, April 28, the National Institute of Standards and 
> Technology (NIST) invites interested parties, including Canadians,

> to attend a workshop to develop the following two sets of
criteria, 
> for implementation purposes:
> 
> (1) criteria for  a sub-program under the National Voluntary 
> Conformity Assessment Systems Evaluation (NVCASE) Program to
satisfy 
> product testing, certification and quality systems requirements of

> the telecommunications equipment and EMC annexes of the US/EC MRA;
> 
> (2) criteria for the qualification and operation of
telecommunications
> certification bodies (TCBs) under the FCC Report and Order 98-338
of 
> 17 December 1998.
> 
> The Tuesday and Wednesday  workshops will be held from 
> 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. in the Department of Commerce Auditorium, at

> 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 
> 
> (Note: there also is a workshop on Thursday, doing much the same
thing
> for the Canada - Switzerland MRA, in the Canadian Embassy in
Washington.
> Since the US has no MRA with Switzerland (yet) this may be of
interest
> only to Canadians). 
> 
> You must pre-register to attend any of the workshops by providing
the 
> full names and affiliations of planned participants from your 
> organization by April 16, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
> made.  
> Note: I don't know where US attendees must register.  
> Check with DoC or NIST.
> 
> EU Workshop for North American CABs
> 
> A.M.  Overview of Practical Implementation of the MRA Transition 
> Period (EMC and telecom/radio):
> - Manufacturer Responsibilities
> - Role of CABs
> - Competent Bodies' Role (EMC)
> - Notified Bodies' Role - both EMC and TTE
> - Annexes I - IV of the TTE Directive (98/13/EC)
> - Exchange of Test Reports, Etc. during the Transition Period
> - Confidence Building
> 
> P.M.  Overview of the Proposed R&TTE Directive:
> - Description of the provisions of the directive
> - Essential requirements
> - Role of voluntary standards; shift from CTRs to TBRs or other
ETSI
>   standards, etc.
> - Availability of network technical information
> - Role of notified bodies
> - Need for quality systems
> 
> 
> The week following, ICC has arranged for a seminar and workhops
that
> will allow for further elaboration, including full discussion on
the
> new R&TTE Directive that will replace the TTE Directive covered
unde

RE: UL/CSA Listings

[WOODS, RICHARD]

In the US, OSHA requires that all equipment used in the workplace must be
Listed. Many states and localities have laws that require consumer equipment
to be Listed. A NRTL, such as UL, will investigate and label a product in
the field. 

In Canada, each Province requires that all equipment connected to the power
mains must be Certified. CSA will field label a product.
--
From:  Brian Harlowe [SMTP:bharl...@vgscientific.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, March 16, 1999 7:15 AM
To:  emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject:  UL/CSA  Listings

Hi Everybody
 Can some of you Whizzy American Engineers 
provide me with some information.

The word on this side of the Atlantic is that if Equipment is not 
UL/CSA approved. It MUST be field labelled.

Can anyone confirm this please

Regards

Brian Harlowe 
* opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the
position of VG Scientific

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

CSZ.. service contact

[Sparacino,George]

Hello Group,

Sorry to bother you with this one, but I am having a bit of a problem
connecting with a service person for Cincinnati Sub-Zero. My tech has
placed several calls and was told that someone would get back to us..
but it's been over a week.. we're still trying and still no call back.
The unit is still under it's 2-year warrantee, so we don't want to pay
an outside contract repair service if we don't have to.

Does anyone have a specific name and phone number of a CSZ service
person? 

Thanx for your help,
George Sparacino

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: Fw: EN 50021 and the EX Mark

[Bill Lawrence]

The explosive atmospheres directive (ATEX) 94/9/EC is in force, but not
mandatory until 30 June 2003.  You are correct in stating that there are no
standards published in the OJ yet, but that will occur soon. 

Also, prEN 50 021 is due to be published any day now as EN 50 021.

By 'EX', I assume you refer to the 'Epsilon x within a hex' mark.  This mark
was also required under the old approach directive 76/117/EC, so based on
the presence of that mark alone, you cannot tell whether the Certificate is
to 76/117/EEC or 94/9/EC, you must look to the particular type of CE marking
outlined in the ATEX directive.

Yes, there are ATEX Certificates issued that are based on prEN 50 021, this
is permitted by the directive.

Under 76/117/EEC, there were no standards for Zone 2 locations, so the only
option for Zone 2 was to obtain a National Certificate in each member state.
The standard most frequently used was BS 6941:1988.  Under ATEX, this is no
longer true as the directive applies to Zone 0, 1, and 2 hazardous areas.
Certification is not required for Zone 2 apparatus, self declaration may be
used.

If you  have any further questions, please contact me privately.

Bill Lawrence
Factory Mutual
781-255-4822
william.lawre...@factory-mutual.com


At 15:18 3/15/1999 -0800, ed.pr...@cubic.com wrote:
>Posted for Carl Newton :
>
>
>
>
>
>  From: cnew...@xycom.com
>  Subject: EN 50021 and the EX Mark
>  Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:26:53 -0500 
>  To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding Zone 2 Hazardous Locations compliance in the EU:
>> 
>> My understanding is that no harmonized standards have been listed in the
>> Journal, and that the proposed EX Mark is still meaningless.  I've found an
>> industrial product with the EX mark on it.  It's been a few years since I've
>> studied this matter, but I believe that certification to a standard such
as EN
>> 50021 must still be done in each EU member nation.  Anyone up to date on this
>> issue?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> Carl
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>---End of Original Message-
>
>--
>Ed Price
>ed.pr...@cubic.com
>Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
>Cubic Defense Systems
>San Diego, CA.  USA
>619-505-2780
>Date: 03/15/1999
>Time: 15:18:33
>--
>
>
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>



Bill Lawrence
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
wlawr...@capecod.net


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

UL/CSA Listings

[Brian Harlowe]

Hi Everybody
 Can some of you Whizzy American Engineers 
provide me with some information.

The word on this side of the Atlantic is that if Equipment is not 
UL/CSA approved. It MUST be field labelled.

Can anyone confirm this please

Regards

Brian Harlowe 
* opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG 
Scientific

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

FW: Earth Bonding Requirements for Telecom Equipment

[Ing. Gert Gremmen]

Regards,

Gert Gremmen Ing.

== Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm



-Original Message-
From:   Ing. Gert Gremmen [mailto:cet...@cetest.nl]
Sent:   maandag 15 maart 1999 19:35
To: Peter Merguerian
Subject:RE: Earth Bonding Requirements for Telecom Equipment
Importance: High

Hello Peter,

I am not familiar with your bullet type wire termination, at least not under
that name,
so i cannot share my experience with these.

About the termination of earth wires; no i know that it's no good  practice
and it
is therefore not allowed in 950.  You better bond the two together on
a separate bonding terminal and then lead one wire to your 5-pole connector.

Even better for reliability is two 3-pole connectors.

The main problem with 2 wires in one (crimp) type of connector is that if
one of the 2 supply wires is
pulled away by brute force, that the other wire goes with it, or if it's
not, its connection quality is reduced
below acceptable.  This certainly reduces the quality of your design, where
you used
a second redundant supply cable for reliability reasons, you invalid it's
redundancy
by connecting the two together.

I certainly disagree using a shield for safety. One might conclude that
shielding is
superfluous and replace by unshielded, thereby invalidating the safety
concept.

Only one solution is acceptable : the right one ;<).

In general: safety measures should be visible, and clearly distinguishable
from functional
circuits, and should never be hidden as a functional circuit.

visible : for inspection in manufacturing and quality control
clearly as such : so no one in the field might be tempted to replace a
unclear measure by a less reliable "equivalent"


Regards,

Gert Gremmen Ing.

== Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm



-Original Message-
From:   owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Merguerian
Sent:   zondag 14 maart 1999 21:57
To: 'EMC-PST'; t...@world.std.com
Subject:Earth Bonding Requirements for Telecom Equipment

Dear All,

A telecom rack subsystem has two power entry modules (for
redundancy); two cables, one for each power entry module, each
consisting of 3 leads (+, - and earth), are terminated by means of a
3-pole connector to each power entry module; the other end of the
cables are terminated to one 5-pole connector where two of the
earthing leads are terminated together in one terminal of the
connector and the other four leads (supply) are terminated to each
of the remaining terminals of the connector. This 5-pole connnector
is the connection to the power distribution unit which has the main
earthing terminal, power supply connections and circuit breakers.

1. Do you see a problem with UL1950/EN 60950 of terminating two
earth bonding leads to one terminal? I should state that the
connector is Recognized but most likely evaluated to accept one
wire per terminal.

2. Assuming that the combination of connector and two leads in
one terminal was submitted for a separate investigation (to one of
the connector standards), is there some clause in the standard
which will not allow me to use this type of termination?

3. In lieu of 3 leads/cable, can manufacturer use 2 leads/cable and
use the shield of the cable as the earth bonding "conductor"?

4. For wire terminations in general, I find that more and more
manufacturers like (for manufacturing reasons) to terminate their
leads to insulated bullet type pressure terminal connectors prior to
terminating them to connectors and/or terminal blocks employing
pressure wire terminals. However, even though the
connectors/terminal blocks are Recognized, these bullet type
connectors are not Approved.

Is anyone using the same technique in manufacturing? If so, do
you use Listed and/or Recognized bullet-type pressure wire
connectors? If so, can you supply with some manufacturer's
names of such connectors?


Thanks in Advance,





PETER S. MERGUERIAN
MANAGING DIRECTOR
PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION
I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD.
HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211
OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL

TEL: 972-3-5339022
FAX: 972-3-5339019
E-MAIL: pe...@itl.co.il
Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
wi

RE: passive loudspeakers

[Juan Pedro Peña]

Chris,
about safety, if you look at EN 60065 (IEC 60065), you'll see that any
loudspeaker is included, regardless of its input voltage. Of course,
most of the tests are not applicable to those devices. 

However, only loudspeakers using voltage higher than 50 V AC or 75 V DC
are affected by LVD. It doesn't matter if it is a passive or active
loudspeaker.

Moreover, in order to test a loudspeaker, the laboratory needs an
amplifier capable to provide the maximum power the loudspeaker admits.
That amplifier is not under test, it is just an auxiliary equipment. 

I hope to have helped you

Juan Pedro Peña



CENTRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE LAS COMUNICACIONES, S.A.
PTA - C/ Severo Ochoa, 2 - 29590 Campanillas
(Malaga) - SPAIN
Tel.: +34 95 261 91 55 - Fax: +34 95 261 91 13
e-mail: jpp...@cetecom.es
Web: http://www.cetecom.es/




--
De:  Colgan, Chris[SMTP:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com]
Enviado el:  viernes 12 de marzo de 1999 13:13
Para:  EMC-PTSC discussion group (E-mail)
Asunto:  passive loudspeakers

Hello All

Does anybody know of any safety or EMC regulations that apply to
passive
loudspeakers?

Two particular areas of concern have been raised by colleagues:

1)  Stability tests, especially for North America (or anywhere
else)

2)  Insulation of terminals - I have heard claims that as a
loudspeaker
could be supplied with a fairly large voltage, 100V rms or more,
it
could fall in to the scope of the Low Voltage Directive.  I
don't agree,
but has anyone had any experience of this?

Thanks

Chris Colgan
EMC & Safety
TAG McLaren Audio Ltd

mailto:chris.col...@tagmclarenaudio.com

=
Authorised on 03/12/99 at 12:13:44; code 36dd0c74B2250754.

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[George Tang]

Barry,

Your question is very much justified.  I use the word "ESD" because in my mind,
I
play the image of the striking screw driver in slow motion.  If you imagine the
nickel surface robs the
screw driver of its electrons to charge up the screw driver, then the electric
field builds up as the screw driver moves away from the nickel surface to the
point to cause air break down and screw driver discharge.  In slow motion, this
is exactly the ESD process.  But in real-time, this is RF.  Different
perspective makes worlds of differences.  :)


Thanks,

George Tang



(Bailin Ma) wrote:

> George,
>
> I think your reasoning is convincing to me. Thanks.
> But please allow me to pose a silly question: Are we really sure those
> kinds of "shaking coins" interferences can be categorized as ESD
> (Electrostatic Discharge) problem?
> In your experience, for instance, the screw driver did not carry any
> electrostatic charge before striking the nickel surface. Right? We don't
> know if coins, keys, and metal door got electrostatic charged before
> jangling or slamming in Doug Mckean's experiences, either.
> ASSUMING friction and striking between different materials would cause fast
> electron transition between materials, back and forth, and then produce
> strong RF EM waves, there is no Electrostatics involved.
> If we are not sure whether or not those objects were electrostatic charged
> before friction, can we try to see if it makes difference?
>
> Best Regards,
> Barry Ma
>
>
> -
> Original Text
> From: "George Tang" , on 3/15/99 4:25 PM:
> Barry,
>
> No, I did not measure the 15kv on the scope, but I suspect that was the
> case.
> Here is my reasoning:  The system was well shielded with aperture size
> smaller
> than 1/2 inch with few apertures.  The system passed FCC B emi limits with
> 8 dB
> margin.  It seemed very unlikely for a power plane in such a system to pick
> up
> 8 volts of radiated noise, since large power planes are not efficient
> antennas.  And to charge the power and ground planes with many caps up to 8
> volts at 100 MHz fundamental and GHz harmonics would seem to require very
> high
> power of radiated energy, assuming the lumped circuit model is used for the
> caps and planes at 100 MHz.  But on the other hand, the boards are grounded
> to
> the chassis, so if the chassis had ESD noise of  many kv conducted to it,
> it
> could generate 8 volts on the power to ground plane.  The chassis is low
> impedance, so high current noise is likely.  With radiated noise, even at
> near
> field, the propagation impedance would still be higher than conducted, so
> high
> current noise seemed more unlikely.  The system had already passed 15kv ESD
> air
> (and accidental contact discharge) on most all parts on the chassis, then
> the
> screw driver noise maybe higher than 15 kv conducted ESD.  You can see
> there
> are many assumptions used.  But trying to measure the screw driver to
> chassis
> ESD voltages directly with differential probes is difficult because a large
> current loop formed by the probes is required due to the moving parts and
> the
> probes may be damaged by the ESD.  I did not measure the screw driver
> voltage,
> but I guessed that it was high voltage/current conducted ESD that caused
> the
> system error.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> George Tang
>
> (Bailin Ma) wrote:
>
> > George,
> >
> > You mentioned: "the ESD generated by the metal surface was much higher
> than
> > 15kv." at the end of your note.
> > Does that mean you measured the noise between power and ground planes
> using
> > digital scope, and got the higher than 15 KV reading on the scope when
> > striking a screw driver against the nickel plated surface?
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Barry Ma
> > Anritsu Company
> > Morgan Hill, CA 95037
> >
> > -
> > Original Text
> > From: "George Tang" , on 3/15/99 1:23 PM:
> > Douglas,
> >
> > I have seen similar events in a different way.  Years ago, I helped
> design
> > an electronic system using plastic chassis with nickel surface plating.
> > The
> > system passed 15kv ESD air discharge and 8kv contact.  But in the
> hardware
> > lab, the system gets data error everytime a piece of metal (like a screw
> > driver) is striked against the nickel plated surface on chassis.  A
> digital
> > scope is used to measure the noise generated on power and ground planes
> on
> > the PCB inside the chassis and the scope captured a noise voltage as high
> > as
> > 8 volts peak to peak on the PCB from a few hundred MHz to beyond GHz.
> The
> > PCB was very well decoupled with power next to ground planes and many on
> > board capacitors.  This puzzled me at first.  But I remembered a very
> > knowledgeable mechanical engineer once told me to never use nickel
> material
> > in an application where friction takes place.  Nickel has a very hard and
> > rough surface, so in a frictional application, it always damages the
> mating
> > surface.  Maybe this explains the events that you saw, 

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[bma]

George,

I think your reasoning is convincing to me. Thanks.
But please allow me to pose a silly question: Are we really sure those 
kinds of "shaking coins" interferences can be categorized as ESD 
(Electrostatic Discharge) problem?
In your experience, for instance, the screw driver did not carry any 
electrostatic charge before striking the nickel surface. Right? We don't 
know if coins, keys, and metal door got electrostatic charged before 
jangling or slamming in Doug Mckean's experiences, either. 
ASSUMING friction and striking between different materials would cause fast 
electron transition between materials, back and forth, and then produce 
strong RF EM waves, there is no Electrostatics involved. 
If we are not sure whether or not those objects were electrostatic charged 
before friction, can we try to see if it makes difference?

Best Regards,
Barry Ma
 

-
Original Text
From: "George Tang" , on 3/15/99 4:25 PM:
Barry,

No, I did not measure the 15kv on the scope, but I suspect that was the 
case.
Here is my reasoning:  The system was well shielded with aperture size 
smaller
than 1/2 inch with few apertures.  The system passed FCC B emi limits with 
8 dB
margin.  It seemed very unlikely for a power plane in such a system to pick 
up
8 volts of radiated noise, since large power planes are not efficient
antennas.  And to charge the power and ground planes with many caps up to 8
volts at 100 MHz fundamental and GHz harmonics would seem to require very 
high
power of radiated energy, assuming the lumped circuit model is used for the
caps and planes at 100 MHz.  But on the other hand, the boards are grounded 
to
the chassis, so if the chassis had ESD noise of  many kv conducted to it, 
it
could generate 8 volts on the power to ground plane.  The chassis is low
impedance, so high current noise is likely.  With radiated noise, even at 
near
field, the propagation impedance would still be higher than conducted, so 
high
current noise seemed more unlikely.  The system had already passed 15kv ESD 
air
(and accidental contact discharge) on most all parts on the chassis, then 
the
screw driver noise maybe higher than 15 kv conducted ESD.  You can see 
there
are many assumptions used.  But trying to measure the screw driver to 
chassis
ESD voltages directly with differential probes is difficult because a large
current loop formed by the probes is required due to the moving parts and 
the
probes may be damaged by the ESD.  I did not measure the screw driver 
voltage,
but I guessed that it was high voltage/current conducted ESD that caused 
the
system error.

Hope that helps.

George Tang




(Bailin Ma) wrote:

> George,
>
> You mentioned: "the ESD generated by the metal surface was much higher 
than
> 15kv." at the end of your note.
> Does that mean you measured the noise between power and ground planes 
using
> digital scope, and got the higher than 15 KV reading on the scope when
> striking a screw driver against the nickel plated surface?
>
> Thank you.
> Barry Ma
> Anritsu Company
> Morgan Hill, CA 95037
>
> -
> Original Text
> From: "George Tang" , on 3/15/99 1:23 PM:
> Douglas,
>
> I have seen similar events in a different way.  Years ago, I helped 
design
> an electronic system using plastic chassis with nickel surface plating.
> The
> system passed 15kv ESD air discharge and 8kv contact.  But in the 
hardware
> lab, the system gets data error everytime a piece of metal (like a screw
> driver) is striked against the nickel plated surface on chassis.  A 
digital
> scope is used to measure the noise generated on power and ground planes 
on
> the PCB inside the chassis and the scope captured a noise voltage as high
> as
> 8 volts peak to peak on the PCB from a few hundred MHz to beyond GHz.  
The
> PCB was very well decoupled with power next to ground planes and many on
> board capacitors.  This puzzled me at first.  But I remembered a very
> knowledgeable mechanical engineer once told me to never use nickel 
material
> in an application where friction takes place.  Nickel has a very hard and
> rough surface, so in a frictional application, it always damages the 
mating
> surface.  Maybe this explains the events that you saw, and the ESD
> generated
> by the metal surface was much higher than 15kv.
>
> Regards,
>
> George Tang
>
> Douglas McKean wrote:
>
> > Hans,
> >
> > That's certainly an interesting explanation, but does
> > not correlate to at least three different scenarios.
> >
> > 1) A calibrated ESD simulator in self discharge
> >mode at 15KV.  When the results of the ESD
> >simulator are compared to the results of the
> >coins, the coins have a fairly wideband constant
> >level from 0 - 2 GHz.  Both start off at roughly
> >the same level with the only the coins remaining
> >constant throughout.  The ESD simulator has approx
> >a -20dB per octave drop off.
> >
> >A side interest is that on the display of the SA has
> >an IF overload ind

RE: EN 61326

[Tetsuya Hashimoto]

Dear Laura,

Yes, you are correct.
You must start the test at the zero cross points (0 and 180).

Best regards,

Tetsuya Hashimoto
A-pex International Co.,Ltd.
2nd EMC Division Yokowa Lab
E-mail: has...@a-pex.co.jp



>Hello Everyone,
>
>While reviewing the new EN 61326 standard I noticed that the test value for
>AC power voltage dip/short interruptions (IEC 61000-4-11)  is 0.5 cycle,
>each polarity/100%.
>
>I understand the 0.5 cycle and the 100%, the question that I have is with
>each polarity.  I am assuming that each polarity means 90ｰ phase and 270ｰ
>phase.
>I would appreciate any comments on whether or not I am interpreting the
>test value correctly.
>
>Thank you in advance for your help,
>Laura Newton
>
>
>-
>This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
>To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
>with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
>quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
>j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
>roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>


-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Re: explanation of ESD events with coins in baggie.

[Lou Gnecco]

Do you get the same effect with the coins in a cloth bag or  a paper bag?
Has anybody tried it?
Lou


At 10:57 AM 3/15/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Douglas,
>
>I have seen similar events in a different way.  Years ago, I helped design
>an electronic system using plastic chassis with nickel surface plating.  The
>system passed 15kv ESD air discharge and 8kv contact.  But in the hardware
>lab, the system gets data error everytime a piece of metal (like a screw
>driver) is striked against the nickel plated surface on chassis.  A digital
>scope is used to measure the noise generated on power and ground planes on
>the PCB inside the chassis and the scope captured a noise voltage as high as
>8 volts peak to peak on the PCB from a few hundred MHz to beyond GHz.  The
>PCB was very well decoupled with power next to ground planes and many on
>board capacitors.  This puzzled me at first.  But I remembered a very
>knowledgeable mechanical engineer once told me to never use nickel material
>in an application where friction takes place.  Nickel has a very hard and
>rough surface, so in a frictional application, it always damages the mating
>surface.  Maybe this explains the events that you saw, and the ESD generated
>by the metal surface was much higher than 15kv.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>George Tang
>
>
>
>Douglas McKean wrote:
>
>> Hans,
>>
>> That's certainly an interesting explanation, but does
>> not correlate to at least three different scenarios.
>>
>> 1) A calibrated ESD simulator in self discharge
>>mode at 15KV.  When the results of the ESD
>>simulator are compared to the results of the
>>coins, the coins have a fairly wideband constant
>>level from 0 - 2 GHz.  Both start off at roughly
>>the same level with the only the coins remaining
>>constant throughout.  The ESD simulator has approx
>>a -20dB per octave drop off.
>>
>>A side interest is that on the display of the SA has
>>an IF overload indication.  This tells me  that the
>>transients from the coins are quite possibly a lot
>>higher and much quicker than what the SA can handle
>>within the sampling window.
>>
>> 2) The level from the coins is proportional to the
>>dissimilarity of the metals of the coins.  A bag of
>>quarters has a lower profile than a bag of quarters
>>and pennies.  Thus, there is some function due to
>>electronegativity differentials. Actually, a
>>significant amount of difference.
>>
>> 3) I can cause the same effect by sliding the coins
>>back and forth as a group within the bag.  Thus,
>>the coins are in at least incidental contact with
>>each other so that differing potentials amongst
>>the coins is minor.
>>
>> I'm not sure if anyone knows the reason.
>>
>> Regards,  Doug McKean
>>
>> At 11:11 AM 3/11/99 -0800, Hans Mellberg wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >There is an expanation for this seemingly unlikely event.
>> >
>> >Having coins in a baggie and jingeling them causes the following
>> >events to occur:
>> >
>> >The rubbing of a coin against the polymer causes triboelectric
>> >charging of both the coin and localized areas of the bag. Since there
>> >are multiple coins, each coin will charge at some voltage level but
>> >not necessarily the same as another coin. When two coins of different
>> >charged voltages come within dielectric breakdown distances, a
>> >discharge will occur from one coin to the other in order to equalize
>> >the charge distribution (q1=C1V1 and q2=C2V2. When they touch, the new
>> >q1 will be C1V3 and q2= C2V3 where V3=(q1+q2)/(C1+C2)). Since coins
>> >are electrically small with very small capacitances, the expected
>> >discharge waveform has a very fast risetime hence the radiation at the
>> >GHz region.  There will also be discharges from the localized charged
>> >areas of the polymer to coins of different voltages. While separating
>> >two charged surfaces from each other, the voltage rises significantly
>> >since the capacitance is being reduced and the conservation of charge
>> >must be preserved which is the basis for tribolectric voltage
>> >generation.
>> >Hope that helps
>> >Hans Mellberg
>> >
>> >
>> >---b...@namg.us.anritsu.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Douglas,
>> >>
>> >> What you described is very interesting! But I cannot understand
>> >"Jingling
>> >> change in a ziplock bag produces very high levels of super fast
>> >transients
>> >> up into the GHz range." It seems to me that jingling coins, jangling
>> >keys,
>> >> and slamming metal door would certainly produce acoustic waves. How
>> >come
>> >> they also produced electromagnetic waves? If do, under what
>> >conditions?
>> >> What is the mechanism to produce "very high level" of transient EM
>> >waves?
>> >> Did that company incorporate those kinds of "Jingling change in a
>> >ziplock
>> >> bag" tests into regular ESD tests for their thereafter products?
>> >What is
>> >> the lessen we all should learn from this particular example?
>> >>
>> >> Hopefully you don't think it's offens

Fw: EN 50021 and the EX Mark

[ed . price]

Posted for Carl Newton :





  From: cnew...@xycom.com
  Subject: EN 50021 and the EX Mark
  Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:26:53 -0500 
  To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org


> 
> 
> Regarding Zone 2 Hazardous Locations compliance in the EU:
> 
> My understanding is that no harmonized standards have been listed in the
> Journal, and that the proposed EX Mark is still meaningless.  I've found an
> industrial product with the EX mark on it.  It's been a few years since I've
> studied this matter, but I believe that certification to a standard such as EN
> 50021 must still be done in each EU member nation.  Anyone up to date on this
> issue?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> 

---End of Original Message-

--
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
619-505-2780
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 03/15/1999
Time: 15:18:33
--



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).

Fw: Re: CISPR-11

[ed . price]

Posteed for Jeff Bailey 





  From: Jeff Bailey 
  Subject: Re: CISPR-11
  Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:20:44 -0500 
  To: "Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)" 
  Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org


> Daniel,
> 
> I am not sure about the open Vs anechoic chamber deal for CISPR11 but I have
> heard of
> a lab being told from a European body that 10m scans are not acceptable, 30m
> is the
> distance that must be used for CISPR11.  You would need a mighty big chamber
> for that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff Bailey
> mailto:jbai...@sstech.on.ca
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA) 
> To: emc-pstc 
> Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 1:57 PM
> Subject: CISPR-11
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> From: Biggs, Daniel (IndSys, GEFanuc, NA)[SMTP:bigg...@gemischova.ge.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 9:30:57 AM
> >> To: emc-pstc
> >> Subject: CISPR-11
> >> Auto forwarded by a Rule
> >>
> >Does anyone know if it is specific requirement to test radiated emissions
> on
> >an open air site for CE or is anechoic chamber data excepted also.
> >
> >DB
> >
> >GE Fanuc Automation
> >__
> >
> >Daniel W. Biggs
> >Test Engineer
> >Hardware Development
> >
> >GE Fanuc Automation
> >PO Box 8106
> >Charlottesville, VA  22906
> >PH:  (804) 978-6946
> >Fax:  (804) 978-5588
> >E-mail:  daniel.bi...@cho.ge.com
> >
> >
> >-
> >This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> >To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> >with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> >quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> >j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> >roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
> 
> 

---End of Original Message-

--
Ed Price
ed.pr...@cubic.com
Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab
Cubic Defense Systems
San Diego, CA.  USA
619-505-2780
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 03/15/1999
Time: 15:13:52
--



-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes).  For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).