Re: IATA Regulations

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message <45d087ad.9090...@sun.com>, dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Monrad 
Monsen  writes

>In fact, 49CFR only has the forbidden magnetic levels in the 
>regulations (deviate the compass by 2.0 degrees at a distance of 15 
>feet).

Do modern aircraft still rely on a lodestone, then? (;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Re: IATA Regulations

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Don,
The "air eligible" label went away.  In fact, the announcement for this label
requirement came in one IATA edition, but the very next edition had te
requirement removed prior to the original implementation date.  Therefore, the
requirement has never been in effect.

I'm glad you raised this Dangerous Goods issue.  Very few companies
(especially in the information technology line of business) actually seem to
know about the IATA 902 requirement to test products and then appropriately
mark those products that meet the definition.  A product does not have to be
an intentional magnet to be deemed magnetized material for air transportation.
 Instead, a product just needs to be made of steel or some other ferrous
material (containing iron).  A product may possibly not be an active magnet
but still disturb the earth's magnetic fields (causing the fields to go
through the large hunk of steel found in the product).  Examples I have heard
of include steel wire fencing, automobile bodies, etc.  In fact for the
information technology arena, I find that every 19-inch rack has enough steel
to exceed the limits of IATA 902 to be called magnetized material.  Hence,
19-inch racks must be air transported as Dangerous Goods and have the UN label
2807 applied to the outside of the packaging.

By the way, only IATA 902 and air transportation has this Class 9 Magnetized
Material requirement.  This does not apply to US-DOT ground transportation or
surface ship transportation.  In fact, 49CFR only has the forbidden magnetic
levels in the regulations (deviate the compass by 2.0 degrees at a distance of
15 feet).  If the product exceeds this level, then both IATA and 49CFR forbid
the product from being transported by air.  But IATA 902 adds a requirement to
air transport products as Class 9 Magnetized Material if it deviates the
compass by more than 0.5 degrees at a distance of 7 feet but not exceeding 2.0
degrees at a distance of 15 feet.  By law, the shipper that introduces the
product for air transportation must have a trained person sign the Dangerous
Goods documentation.  All flights outside of USA use the IATA Dangerous Goods
Regulations, and many carriers use IATA for flights even within USA.

Although this issue does not normally fall within the domain of
ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) society, the EMC community is best suited
for performing the testing of products and for assisting in mitigating the
magnetic properties of the products (especially for those that have active
magnetic components like motors or have steel structures that has been
magnetized through the bending & welding process).  I pass on the requirements
to fill out Dangerous Goods shipping documentation to the shipping department.

NOTE:  For those who don't already know it, IATA is the acronym for
International Air Transport Association.  The IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations
is an "easy to use" manual based on the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous
Goods by Air.

Thanks for raising this issue.  


Monrad L. Monsen
Product Compliance Program Manager
Storage Group
Sun Microsystems
monrad.mon...@sun.com
303.673.2438 Office


Hall, Ken wrote: 

Hello Don,



There is an IATA 902 requirement and a outdated CFR49  requirement. CFR49
removed the requirement about 1984.



What are you referencing?



Regards,



Ken 





From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of UMBDENSTOCK,
DON

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:59 PM

To: emc-p...@ieee.org

Subject: IATA Regulations



A magnetic product within certain field strength bounds requires a packaging
label indicating contents to be magnetic.  I have found a reference that
indicates an additional "air eligible" labeling requirement, and another that
indicates this is not required.  Anyone familiar with labeling requirements
for shipping of magnetic devices?



Don Umbdenstock

Manager Compliance Engineering



Tyco Safety Products / Sensormatic

6600 Congress Avenue

Boca Raton, FL 33487 USA

Phone:  561.912.6440

djumbdenst...@tycoint.com



-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/



To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org



Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html



List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html



For help, send mail to the list administrators:



 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net

 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org



For policy questions, send mail to:



 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com



All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:



http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



-



This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society

emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/



To p

China CNCA 2007 Notice No. 5 (issued Feb 1, 2007)

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

To those who are interested in:
 
For the following standards, starting the effective date, testing and
inspection must base on the new version of the standards.
 
GB 10963.1-2005 (identical to IEC 60898-1: 2002)
Effective Date: August 1, 2006
 
GB 20044-2005 (Modified IEC 61540: 1997)
Effective Date: August 1, 2006
 
GB/T 13539.4-2005 (identical to IEC 60269-4: 1986?)
Effective Date: April 1, 2006
 
The certificate holders of CCC certified products with complete test reports
should transfer to new version of standards before the following follow-up
inspection, no later than December 31, 2007.
 
A new certification process is required for a product certified through CCEE,
CCIB, etc, and with an imcomplete test report.
 
Best regards,
Grace
-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 


For help, send mail to the list administrators: 


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 


http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Re: DoCs After July

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

In message 
, 
dated Mon, 12 Feb 2007, chris.dup...@elekta.com writes

>All essentially ending up on the same machine with the same model 
>number, but with possibly very different EMC footprints.

It's up to the manufacturer to determine whether a change affects the 
EMC footprint significantly, and if it does, or is likely to, carry out 
further tests to ensure continuing compliance.

This has been established practice in Europe, in respect of safety 
standards, for around 40 years.
>
>So..  Assuming no design or component changes, how long should a Cof C 
>remain valid? 1 year. 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

A DoC remains valid indefinitely, because it is a *continuing* assurance 
by the manufacturer that the referenced product complies with the 
Directive(s).

If DoCs should have an arbitrary, fixed expiry date, how about degree 
diplomas? (;-)
-- 
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Re: EN55014 & EN55022/24 test & limit similarities?

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Clause 4.1.3 of EN 55014-1:2006 covers radiated emissions for toys from 30
MHz to 1000 MHz. This test is restricted to toys otherwise disturbance
power is measured on an extended power cord (5.6 m) with an absorbing clamp
in the range of 30 MHz to 300 MHz.

The test is run now using actual auxiliary loads.

Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel:  651- 778-6336
Fax:  651-778-6252
=


   
 Bob Richards  
  To 
 Sent by:  emc-p...@ieee.org   
 emc-p...@ieee.org  cc 
   
   Subject 
 02/11/2007 08:33  Re: EN55014 & EN55022/24 test & 
 PMlimit similarities? 
   
   
   
   
   
   




Bob,

You are right, that is why I said:

"I believe that if your module passes 55022 class B limits, and also the
next higher level in 55024, your module will probably not contribute to a
failure in the end product."

;-)

I never tested any "toys" so I am not familiar with that. Is that part of
55014 now (or then)?  I do remember there was a section in 55014 covering
internal vibrators, and what was to be used as the auxillary "load" for
test purposes. :-O  And, no, I never had the chance to test any of those.

At the time I was performing tests to 55014, there was a separate standard
for immunity, I believe it was 55104.

Cheers,

Bob Richards, NCT


rehel...@mmm.com wrote:
 There is a "radiated" emissions test for toys and I would advise doing the
 test for all products. The radiated test for 55014-1 is a disturbance
 power
 test mush as you described but I would not come to the conclusion that
 passing EN 55022 Class B would be all right.

 Also EN 55014-1 covers emissions and EN 55014-2 covers immunity.

 Bob Heller
 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
 Tel: 651- 778-6336
 Fax: 651-778-6252
 ===

 Bob Richards
 m> To
 Sent by: David Heald
 emc-p...@ieee.org ieee
 cc

 02/09/2007 11:08 Subject
 AM Re: EN55014 & EN55022/24 test &
 limit similarities?


 David,

 It has been a few years since I tested anything to 55014, and I don't have
 access to 55014 now, so what I say may be dated.

 IIRC, Unless the product is a power tool, 55014 has similar conducted
 emissions limits. I believe the average limit is actually higher at
 150kHz,
 but pretty much the same as class B 55022 limits. Power tools have higher
 limits.

 In 55014, there is no "radiated" emissions test. However there is a
 disturbance power test, which covers 30-300 MHz using an absorber clamp to
 measure the emissions on any cables exiting the product. This test is what
 some labs refer to as the "track test", since the absorber clamp has
 wheels, and is moved along some sort of track to maximize the emissions.

 There is a "click" test, or discontinuous disturbance test. This is an
 additional conducted disturbance test for very short duration spikes in
 the
 conducted emissions, due to switching transients that may exist in
 products
 with relays or contactors. It is basically a relaxation of the normal
 conducted QP limits for these transients. The amount of relaxation of the
 limit is based on the click frequency, the fewer clicks the more the limit
 is relaxed.

 Conducted immunity covers up to 230 MHz instead of 80 MHz. There is no
 radiated immunity.

 I believe EFT and surge tests are similar.

 I believe that if your module passes 55022 class B limits, and also the
 next higher level in 55024, your module will probably not contribute to a
 failure in the end product.

 I hope this helps.

 Bob Richards, NCT.


-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/


To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html


For help, send mail to the list administrators:


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org


For p

Re: IEC 62321

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Does anyone have any idea the reason(s) of rejection?
 
Following is a list of test methods mentioned in the Chinese test standard,
SJ/T 11365-2006:
 
XRF: Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr, Br
Soxhlet Extraction + GC-MS + Calculation: PBB, PBDE
ICP-AES/OES, ICP-MS, AAS: Pb, Cd
CVAAS, AFS, ICP-AES/OES, ICP-MS, AAS: Hg
Colorimetric Method: Cr(VI)
 
Best Regards,
Grace

 
On 2/10/07, Ronald R. Wellman  wrote: 

>From what I hear, 111/54/CDV was rejected by TC 111. However, China has gone
ahead and adopted 111/54/CDV as a standard anyways. 

Ron Wellman


From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 6:39 AM 
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: IEC 62321


In message
<2a93eb060702090550m17bff523ucb2e6939c55e0...@mail.gmail.com >, dated
Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Grace Lin  writes
>Can someone share the latest status of IEC 62321? This (more accurate:
>111/54/CDV) is the reference standard of Chinese industrial standard 
>SJ/T 11365-2006. I would like to learn/study it, especially
>terminology used. I did Google search. It seems IEC 62321 doesn't
>exsist at this time. I only found a similar document in Chinese, which 
>is 111/24/CD.

Since it's a CDV, it's not in the public domain. The Chinese National
Committee should not have referenced it yet in a national standard. The
only way you might have been able to get a copy is by asking your 
National Committee for a copy so that you can comment on it. But the
comment date has passed and the votes are in. (This is from the public
part of the IEC web site.) So you can't get a copy that way.

The document was also designated as of interest to TC108, so I can tell
you that the document appears to have failed its vote. I'm not sure,
because there is an anomaly about access rights on the IEC site which
I'm going to take up with the Central Office.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. 
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:   http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:    
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to: 

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 

   http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society 
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

   http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



-  This
message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org 


Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 


List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 


For help, send mail to the list administrators: 


Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 


For policy questions, send mail to: 


Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: 


http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Re: DoCs After July

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi Bob.

You wrote:



The intention is, of course, to confirm that the device sold and covered by
the CofC, is the same as the device tested around which the CofC was
generated.

I have always put Manufacturer, machine part/model number, revision, and a
'from serial number' entry onto a CofC,  that covers the past, but how long
is the future?

But your points bring up the old question of Evaporation of Compliance.
i.e. how long does a C of C remain valid, even without a model revision
there are all sorts of changes that may creep in to a design.
- Changes to chip suppliers bith the same generic part number.
- Technology 'improvements' e.g. faster clock edges, higher slew rates,
on the same chip part number.
- Change to sub contract manufacturer.
- Change to lead free components.
- Changes due to obsolescence.
- Changes to case materials.

All essentially ending up on the same machine with the same model number,
but with possibly very different EMC footprints.

So..  Assuming no design or component changes, how long should a Cof C
remain valid? 1 year. 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?

Chris Dupres



***Internet Email Confidentiality Footer***
The contents of this e-mail message (including any attachments hereto) are
confidential to and are intended to be conveyed for the use of the
recipient to whom it is addressed only. If you receive this transmission in
error, please notify the sender of this immediately and delete the message
>from your system. Any distribution, reproduction or use of this message by
someone other than recipient is not authorized and may be unlawful.

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__

Questions on IEC 62305 lightning protection

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

A couple of questions on lightning protection as per IEC / EN  62305:2006 :
-

   Where to download the risk calculator program shown in IEC 62305-2?
   Has anyone experience of using the reinforced concrete foundations of
   extended structures ( e.g. overhead railway line ) for surge protection
   earth? The traction supply is 650V DC

Regards, Bob Edwards, Product Compliance Technical Authority
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd., Chippenham, Wilts, U.K.





Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection 
software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check 
before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or 
loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and 
any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential 
use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not 
be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written 
consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the 
following address:  Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, 
Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd  is a subsidiary of  Invensys Plc.  Registered 
office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. 
Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas   emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwell   mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:

 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
 David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:

http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__