Hi John,
Quartz Watches are exempted from the EMC Directive, according to the guide
for the EMC Directive, see Guide for the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC page 14 -
15:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/electrical/files/emc_guide__updated_2
0100208_v3_en.pdf
Best regards
Helge Knudsen
Denmark
In message
<7b3d1875a9a53142ab5d421ee97d0e6003bbb...@ccsexchange.ccsdomain.ccsemc.co
m>, dated Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Michael Heckrotte
writes:
Years ago I recall discussions about electronic wristwatches and FCC
compliance; the power drawn from the watch battery was less than the
output power of
From Part 15:
Section 15.103 Exempted devices.
The following devices are subject only to the general conditions of
operation in Sections 15.5 and 15.29 and are exempt from the specific
technical standards and other requirements contained in this Part. The
operator of the exempted device shall
Years ago I recall discussions about electronic wristwatches and FCC
compliance; the power drawn from the watch battery was less than the
output power of an emission that would just pass the Class B limit
therefore compliance was inherent and no EMC testing was required. I
don't know if this was ev
In message
m>, dated Wed, 25 Jan 2012, "Crane, Lauren"
writes:
With regard to the EU EMC Directive, can anyone recommend a rule of
thumb for when it can be said that equipment is a) incapable of
generating or contributing to electromagnetic emissions which exceed a
level allowing radio and
I don't follow the SWR thing at all, since I wouldn't expect it to be an
issue at such small fractions of a wavelength. (but I'm no transmission
line expert)
I can see how -40dB level of any harmonic well past 150kHz could a
challenge. Audio amplifier of old (Class AB analogue with one that o
i.e. basic insulation remains after failure of the grounding means. (e.g.
a metal chassis still touch-safe)
___
Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA |
Regulatory Compliance Engin
With regard to the EU EMC Directive, can anyone recommend a rule of
thumb for when it can be said that equipment is a) incapable of
generating or contributing to electromagnetic emissions which exceed a
level allowing radio and telecommunication equipment and other equipment
to operate as intended;
In message ,
dated Wed, 25 Jan 2012, "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen"
writes:
No. Has no ground in French sockets.
That projecting pin is the ground. Or should be.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associat
Oh I forgot:
“single fault” refers to a safety test where the test agency voluntarily removes
ground from an EUT to verify that the EUT still complies with the safety
requirements.
(but with only 1 safety layer remaining)
Gert Gremmen
Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]
In message
<1327520440.74806.yahoomailclas...@web1109.biz.mail.sk1.yahoo.com>,
dated Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Bob Richards writes:
Is that the same gallium alloy used in the turbo entabulator? ;-)
No, it's 99.99% pure gallium. Otherwise it wouldn't melt when you put it
on.
--
OOO - Own Opinions
This makes me realise how boring my reply was.
I'm sorry.
I'll try harder next time.
I don't want to be one of those guys in the red shirt who only turns up for
one episode and you know he's going to get killed.
Michael Derby
Regulatory Engineer
ACB Europe
From:
Hello,
Please note that not all of these wireless chargers would be Part 15
(47CFR15, as stated). Some might be Part 18, depending on the operation.
I think you'd need to look at the operation of the charger and see if any
form of 'handshaking' is taking place; even if it's just a recognition
s
No. Has no ground in French sockets. Creating a single fault on purpose… what
do you think :<) ???
http://img.hisupplier.com/var/userImages/old/qingtai/qingtai$722162956.jpg
this is the socket in France.
I’d go for the cee7/7 , suitable all over Europe for Class I
but some non-
Is that the same gallium alloy used in the turbo entabulator? ;-)
--- On Wed, 1/25/12, John Woodgate wrote:
From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: FCC requirements for Inductive Chargers
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2012, 2:18 PM
In message , dated Wed, 25 Jan
2012
Don,
1% does sound extreme to me, but I am not familiar with the intent of this
requirement.
This does remind me about my experience years ago during an audit to the
automotive tri-plate immunity test. We had to run an artifact that was supplied
by the auditors at two levels, 50v/m and 200 v
In message , dated Wed,
25 Jan 2012, Brian Oconnell writes:
When human exposure mentioned, I think about Star Trek's 'subnucleonic
radiation' - will CISPR32 address these limits?
Yes, in the 6th edition, published in 2042. I've already commissioned a
supply of gallium foil helmets to screen
ICNIRP
29CFR1926
29CFR1910
ANSI C95.x
47CFR15
CISPR 11,12,14,22
When human exposure mentioned, I think about Star Trek's 'subnucleonic
radiation' - will CISPR32 address these limits?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Moshe Henig
Sent:
Thanks group,
But what are the FCC requirements for wireless chargers that does not
comply with WPC?
Thanks
Moshe
2012/1/23 Moshe Henig
> Dear Group,
>
> What are FCC requirements for Mobile Phone Battery Inductive Charger and
> what are the conditions?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Moshe Henig Dipl. Ing.
Can you sell CEE 7/4 outlet in France?
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
Ken-
I have not only one, but two amplifiers that start at 10 kHz: an AR 25A100
(25 watts) and an AR 150A100A (150 watts). I only need 15 Vrms (4.5 watts)
into a 50 ohm load from the 50 source impedance of the amplifier, so what
is the problem?
Well, the standard also requires the that source
21 matches
Mail list logo
