Dear John
Sorry to be so late replying.
I am pleased that you now understand the situation that I attempted to
describe earlier, where an HCMOS inverter with an unterminated input was the
cause of surprisingly powerful radiated emissions at 200MHz, due to an
unfortunate, unlikely, but not impos
Dear Bob
Sorry to be so late replying.
Thank you for this reference, I was unaware of it.
I shall add it to my list of "EMC-related safety" references.
If anyone wants a copy of my list, I'll be pleased to email it to them in
Word format.
If anyone knows of any books, articles, or papers on the
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond wrote (in <3c438c09.7e606...@alcatel.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Mon, 14 Jan 2002:
>A loop can indeed radiate harmonics, if it is a reasonable fraction of a
>wavelength long. A very small loop, tuned to
>resonance by some capacitance, is
The latest IEC "Just Published" points to an article on this subject
http://www.iec.ch/etech/etech-live/frames-prod-e.htm
It discusses the application of IEC 61000-1-2.
Also of related significance when talking about safety of complex
systems and the impact of outside influences like EMC is IEC 6
A loop can indeed radiate harmonics, if it is a reasonable fraction of a
wavelength long. A very small loop, tuned to
resonance by some capacitance, is less likely to do so.
Cortland
(The firm i work for, and my boss,
Don't know what I may write;
They don't stand by what I might say,
Which is p
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <14b.7351131.297
42...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 14 Jan 2002:
>I'm sure I said in my original posting on this example, that the HCMOS was
>'hard switching' and not producing a sine wave. A hot device was, o
Dear Ken
Sorry to be so late replying, but I have been unable to read any of the
correspondence in this thread for a week.
In an attempt to spare the emc-pstc more of our arguing I will not reply in
detail to three of your emails, one from the 6th Jan, and two from the 7th
Jan, because they all
Dear Ken
Sorry to have taken so long to reply to this.
I haven't been able to read any of the contributions for a week.
I have to say that I don't recognise myself, or the IEE's guide on EMC and
Functional Safety or the 30+ respected and senior engineers who contributed
to it, or the IEE itself
Dear Ken
Sorry to have taken so long to reply to this. Pressure of work has kept me
away from the thread for a week.
I don't know where you get your maths from.
The usual formula (commonly available in a number of variants) for the
radiated emissions E in V/m at 10 metres due to a common-mode c
Dear John
Sorry to have taken so long to reply.
We were talking about safety-related systems.
The general approach is to add additional back-ups to the safety related
system to provide it with necessary reliability as far as safety is
concerned, as I had hoped the examples in the full version
Dear John
Sorry to have taken so long to reply.
We will have to disagree over the educational value of the EMC + Compliance
Journal's "Banana Skins" column.
If you haven't seen anything that was CE marked but which was obviously not
compliant, then I think you must be lucky.
As I mentioned ea
Dear Ken and John
Sorry to have taken so long to reply to your emails about my 200MHz
oscillating HCMOS example. I hope it is OK to reply to you both in one email,
too.
Replying to Ken...
My example was not an urban myth, it was a real example (although I didn't
measure its RF field or estimate
I read in !emc-pstc that Wan Juang Foo wrote (in
) about 'EMC-related
safety issues', on Tue, 8 Jan 2002:
>EMI from the ASMD (anti ship missile defence) radar had cause
>the communication equipment to be inoperable. During this brief period, an
>Exocet missile was not seen homing in on HMS Sheff
Alas! at last, I am tempted to throw in a bit to stir the muddy waters
after what I have read on this thread that had hunderds of postings!:
I belive George Alspaugh's posting is refering to USS Forrestal if it is
the US Navy and it is 1967.
134 dead: (July 29, 1967), the carrier USS Forrestal
I read in !emc-pstc that Crabb, John
wrote (in ) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 7 Jan 2002:
>Any suggestions how to overcome this ? My previous antique datalogger
>didn't have this problem, but it eventually had to be scrapped due to lack
>of spare parts - and the expectat
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in <846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6ABC4FEA@flbocexu05>) about 'EMC-related safety issues',
on Mon, 7 Jan 2002:
>John, I have to disagree with your statement, "As far as CENELEC is
>concerned, it was a conscious decision not to incorporate 'EMC
Regarding the snip below. The fact that it is a radio that is the victim is
still the salient factor here. The emissions in close to the lamp are
higher than at three meters, but only enough higher to affect a radio,
nothing else. Regarding the thermocouple based incubator issue (sensitivity
on
: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
Hi Richard, Group
I agree that those requirements look safety related, but they
are strictly functional. The difference is subtle:
As this standard is concerned with equipment used
for safety purposes, the
-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of cherryclo...@aol.com
Sent: maandag 7 januari 2002 12:49
To: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
Sorry everyone!
When I
afety) but this abbreviation has already been taken...)
Gert Gremmen
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
richwo...@tycoint.com
Sent: maandag 7 januari 2002 14:13
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC-relate
Seeing that we have got round to the subject of thermocouples, etc, I often
use a Solartron SI3535D datalogger with thermocouples for measuring
component temperatures, and find quite often that it does not give "correct"
readings when thermocouples are placed on transformers in switching
power sup
ated.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:49 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo.
Dear all
I have to retire from this correspondence for a few days.
I look forward to reading what you have all decided by the end of the week.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
Sorry everyone!
When I replied yesterday to Ken's posting I didn't spot an error he had made.
He had assumed an incubator compliant to 1V/m close to a laptop, whereas the
question I originally posed concerned an incubator such as the one I had
tested that had full-scale temperature errors at 1V/
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in ) about 'EMC-related
safety issues', on Sun, 6 Jan 2002:
>Quote : "Who would have expected an unterminated HCMOS gate to be
>able to emit 2W at 200MHz?"
>
>Not me - 2 Watts of effective radiated power implies over 2.5 V/m
>at 3 m! I
The question of ethics or morality is at the heart of this discussion which
makes it much more important than technical discussions about
electromagnetism, which is the ONLY reason I have pursued this so far. I
was critical of the IEE safety guide on MORAL grounds. It is part of the
morality whic
I do not recall a single example or argument to show what you claim. On the
other hand, I have given physical and numerical arguments to back up my
common sense position.
on 1/6/02 10:51 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote:
Ken, I believe other postings on this topic this week
Quote : "Who would have expected an unterminated HCMOS gate to be able to
emit 2W at 200MHz?"
Not me - 2 Watts of effective radiated power implies over 2.5 V/m at 3 m! I
guess I have a hard time believing that was transmitted from an HCMOS gate.
I think a little common sense will go a long way to
QUOTE: "And I don't think that 92dBuV/m is a high field strength to be
emitted by a PC placed nearby, or for a non-compliant laptop at 10 metres."
You may not think so, but I am sorry, the numbers just don't add up. 92
dBuV/m at 10 meters implies an effective radiated power of 5.3 mW. Consider
t
I abstracted the physical process and did not attach numbers. 80 dBuV/m is
orders of magnitude above RE limits. That is 10 mV/m.If you use the
worst case assumptions of IEC 1000-4-6 and associate an open circuit drive
potential numerically equivalent to the field intensity, but with a 150 Ohm
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <14b.6d4a617.296
9c...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Sun, 6 Jan 2002:
>Dear John
>The incubator I described was already on the EU market in the latter half
> of
>the 1990s, when I helped to test and fix it.
>
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <162.6b92ca5.296
9c...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Sun, 6 Jan 2002:
>Yes, John, you are quite right in both your comments as far as you go:
>
>1) You are not the only person who can dramatise an issue so as to
>
Ken, I believe other postings on this topic this weekend clearly show that
electronic circuits which were not designed as radio receivers can possibly
be interfered with by the emissions from products which meet FCC/CISPR 22
limits, for a number of possible reasons, especially when the product i
Taking Toms' calculations a little further
Typical thermocouple sensors have output voltages in the range 3 - 50
microvolts per degree C. So to create a 60C error in a thermocouple-based
temperature control system (see my recent posting about the RF immunity of a
blood sample incubator) all
Yes, John, you are quite right in both your comments as far as you go:
1) You are not the only person who can dramatise an issue so as to encourage
people to debate it;
2) If you sold a single electronic safety-related circuit with a failure
probability of 10^ -9 to 100,000 customers the cumula
Ken, replies below.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
In a message dated 06/01/02 06:56:46 GMT Standard Time,
ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
> Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
> Date:06/01/02 06:56:46 GMT Standard Time
> From:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
> To:cherryclo...@aol.co
A) I don't agree with Ken that: "Emissions from a laptop are naturally
(without suppression) on the order of 10 uV/m to 100s of uV/m."
Maybe IBM PC clone laptops use similar enough architecture and chipsets and
design techniques to be this consistent (I don't know) but I have seen the
following
Dear John
In previous postings from Ken Javor and myself, I believe that Ken (who I was
replying to in the fragment below) has made it clear that what he is really
concerned with is "the kinds of emissions controlled by CISPR 22 and Title
47, part 15B of the US Code of Federal Regulations" (I h
Dear John
The incubator I described was already on the EU market in the latter half of
the 1990s, when I helped to test and fix it.
And I'm sorry to disappoint but I have already experienced several similar
examples I could quote, such as the electric blanket that would change its
heat setting
Ken, can we take it that in the posting below you are agreeing that
interference with non radio-receiving circuits from what you meant by
"unintentional emitters" is a possibility, albeit a worst-case one?
If my reading above is correct, how can you then go on to say that
"...unintentional emis
Thanks for the correction. Medicine is not something I know much about.
The point remains that a huge benefit was derived from these vaccines which
were discontinued due to a very small fraction of bad reactions. Forum
members: when it turned out that a small number of people were killed or
hurt
What an EMC engineer who understands the physics of field-to-wire coupling
would say is that the operation of non-antenna connected electronics
associated with one subsystem will not be degraded by close proximity with
the non-antenna connected electronics of another subsystem. Forget 10
meters.
The analytical portion of this post is, as the author stated, worst case. A
cable attached to a susceptible circuit picks up a common-mode potential,
which most likely drives a current on a shield if the the circuit is
sensitive. Then only the current multiplied by shield transfer impedance
actu
My point was that only radios are sensitive to rf fields at the levels
controlled by FCC/CISPR22 and indeed, as Ing. Gremen pointed out, levels
well above the limits. Which means that the only rationale behind
FCC/CISPR22 is protection of radio broadcast reception. Period.
on 1/5/02 12:10 PM, ch
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <132.6f59d2b.296
89...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Sat, 5 Jan 2002:
>Dear Cortland
>People can't simply say: "ordinary semiconductors won't demodulate RF
> levels
>produced by an unintentional radiator" ev
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <92.1f676722.296
88...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Sat, 5 Jan 2002:
>I am truly sorry if I irritated you by misunderstanding your words, but I
>took your posting to imply that electronic circuits which are not des
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in
<43.47bb025.29689...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on
Sat, 5 Jan 2002:
>The "one in a billion" John refers to sounds very dramatic and difficult.
More dramatic than you 'infant daughter' and '40 mph past a school'?
I exp
The "one in a billion" John refers to sounds very dramatic and difficult.
So it may be helpful to refer to IEC 61508 which is a recently-published
'basic safety publication' covering "The functional safety of electrical /
electronic / programmable safety-related systems"
IEC 61508 uses the con
In a message dated 04/01/02 19:31:51 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
writes:
> >The trick, I believe, is not to be in that position in the first place.
> >Design your products using the latest safety knowledge and test them well
> to
> >discover if they have any weaknesses you did not
Dear Cortland
People can't simply say: "ordinary semiconductors won't demodulate RF levels
produced by an unintentional radiator" – even the smallest amount of RF can
be demodulated – there are no hysteresis or threshold effects in a PN
semiconductor junction or FET that is biased into its condu
Dear Ken
That is exactly what I am saying: under the EU's Product Liability Directive
a company can be held liable for unlimited damages with no proof of
negligence on the manufacturer's part.
It is of course a valid management decision to ignore a market that is almost
as large as USA/Canada
Dear Ken
That is precisely the point I was trying to make: all companies (and people)
always weigh up all the costs and risks that they know about and act
accordingly.
The problem arises when certain risks are unknown or ignored, for whatever
reasons.
I see it as part of every engineer's job t
Dear Ken
I am truly sorry if I irritated you by misunderstanding your words, but I
took your posting to imply that electronic circuits which are not designed as
RF receivers would not respond very well to radio frequencies.
My example was not intended to be a full answer to your example (there a
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor wrote
(in ) about 'EMC-related
safety issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>My take on it is that rather than appease ridiculous demands, a
>company ought to look at the profit vs. risk vs. cost to consumer
>and decide, heck, it ain't worth it. Case in poi
I read in !emc-pstc that John Shinn wrote
(in <002401c19584$35f73660$0b3d1...@hadco.comsanmina.com>) about 'EMC-
related safety issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>So where do I drill the hole in my fuel injection system?
You don't. You put a pint of water in the tank and a spoonful of liquid
detergen
Hi Ken,
The reason that those companies stopped was because it was found
that there was mercury in the formulation of the vaccine. The mercury
had no other use other than stabilization. The mercury is known to
cause brain damage. Prior to around 1980, DPT was not given to infants.
The rise in
Interesting to note that this country (USA) got started in part because of a
tax on tea. I think you are saying here that a company can be held liable
for unlimited damages with no proof of negligence on the manufacturer's
part. If I were a manufacturer I would simply not market to the EU.
on 1/
My take on it is that rather than appease ridiculous demands, a company
ought to look at the profit vs. risk vs. cost to consumer and decide, heck,
it ain't worth it. Case in point on the news today I heard that DPT shots
are in short supply, because two companies quit making it. They quit making
nyone really see this as a remotely
possible mechanism? I don't.
--
>From: "Robert Macy"
>To: "Pettit, Ghery" , "'James Collum'"
,
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 3:25 PM
>
>
> Perhaps, it
We need to separate specific regulation from general. The FCC does not care if
a radio front end is wide open, though
it now requires scanning receivers to have 38 dB image rejection. This does
not mean they have narrow front ends,
however. A SW receiver with a 75 MHz If may well have nothing
So where do I drill the hole in my fuel injection system?
John
-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Doug McKean
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related
nuary 04, 2002 2:37 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
RE: EMC-related safety issuesKyle Ehler wrote:
>
> Another point of trivia is that a fresh oil change and new air
filter
> prior to having your vehicle smog tested will improve the emiss
"Cortland Richmond" wrote:
>
> AIrbag testing? Well, since it costs about $US 1500 to replace them
(here),
> I suppose there WOULD be a price hike!
A couple of kids were caught by the police in a parking lot.
Seems the fun thing to do to people's cars was to walk
around the parking lot with baseb
RE: EMC-related safety issuesKyle Ehler wrote:
>
> Another point of trivia is that a fresh oil change and new air
filter
> prior to having your vehicle smog tested will improve the emissions
> results. At one time there was available OTC a fuel additive that
one
> could deploy to further skew the
I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill wrote (in
<004801c1955f$fe610f10$7e00a8c0@MENHADEN>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>The semiconductor may switch the relay due to external EMC - but it is
> more
>likely that the semiconductor or the relay will fail and pro
.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute
>>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:09 PM
>>To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
>>Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi John:
>>
>>
>>>
I read in !emc-pstc that Cortland Richmond wrote (in <3c35ec35.5d1a...@alcatel.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>I don't believe this is what people are saying here. What they are
>saying is, ordinary semiconductors won't demodulate RF levels
>produced by
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200201041623.iaa13...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>So, I am acting unreasonably by using a
>CFL and a radio on my bedside table.
If we're being very meticulous, it is not unreasonable to use a CFL next
ordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Cortland Richmond
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:54 PM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I don't believe this is what people are saying here.
tit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:28 AM
>To: 'James, Chris'; 'Ken Javor'; Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
>Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
>
>
>
>Chris,
>
>Annual inspections of motor vehicle
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <167.698dddc.296
70...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>As my paper at the IEEE's EMC Symposium in Montreal and my recent article
> in
>ITEM UPDATE 2001 show - at present EMC standards don't address
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <131.6a66623.296
70...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>As I recall, the EU's Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC amended by
>99/34/EC) requires manufacturers to produce products that are: "as safe as
>p
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17d.1b28bc2.296
70...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Fri, 4 Jan 2002:
>Does anyone else think that ordinary semiconductors doesn't respond to RF?
Your experience has been shared by thousands. The demodulation normally
occu
January 04, 2002 1:02 AM
To: 'Ken Javor'; Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
Sorry disagree about turn and brake lights not being in the same class.
Their very failure is often the reason for very serious accidents. I have
long wished that all
At 8:34 AM -0500 1/4/2002, Keith Armstrong wrote:
Does anyone else think that ordinary semiconductors doesn't respond to RF?
I agree that commonly used semiconductors have responses well into
the 100's of MHz.
How much of a problem this is will depend on the nature and function
of the ci
I don't believe this is what people are saying here. What they are saying
is, ordinary semiconductors won't demodulate RF levels produced by an unintentional
radiator.
Cortland
(What I write here is mine alone.
My employer does not
Concur, agree or else endorse
These words, their tone, or though
There is a difference between extending a warranty and being liable for
failure. If your seat belts fail some time
after the warranty is up, the manufacturer won't pay for fixing them on your
car. But the manufacturer may well be
held liable for the failure.
Cortland
"Andrews, Kurt" wrote:
AIrbag testing? Well, since it costs about $US 1500 to replace them (here), I
suppose there WOULD be a price hike!
One of the tests run on a modern, computerized auto when the ignition is
turned on is for airbag activation
circuitry.
Cortland
"James, Chris" wrote:
> I don't
"Warranted" parts for a car is a whole other discussion.
Warranties are simply for as long as the mfr/dealer want
to do the contract. I'm not sure if there's a law concerning
minimum time of warranty or if it's simply driven by the
free market.
Supplying a parts inventory by the car mfr is
to be milked.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 04 January 2002 02:40
To: Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
A signal light is easily replaceable in terms of time and money. Most
people don'
> No, it's simply that it isn't considered reasonable to have a radio and
> a CFL in close proximity. If you want a lamp and a radio close together,
> use an incandescent lamp.
That's the bottom line, isn't it?
Somebody has decided for me (in terms of
what is "reasonable") that if I u
ice: 614.846.6175
toll free: 800.848.4525
fax: 614.846.7791
http://www.tracewellsystems.com/
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@auspex.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety iss
As I understand the way the civil law section of the EU's Product Liability
Directive operates (I am not a lawyer) it does in fact place the burden of
proof on the manufacturer, who is effectively considered 'guilty until proved
innocent'.
I also understand that any number of manufacturers can
Hey, Ken, let's try to be realistic here!
Sure - we should try to get laws we don't like changed, but that isn't going
to happen overnight and in the meantime we have to operate within the law as
it stands.
Or are you suggesting immediate insurrection by product manufacturers?
(Outlaw manufactu
iety is headed. If
> people want technology they will have to accept some of the pitfalls that
> come with it, within reason, else where will it end?
>
> >> -Original Message-
>> From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
>> Sent: 03 January 2
y: 1 mV/m will generate far less than 1 mV signal in the
> electronics, and this at rf. Does anyone really see this as a remotely
> possible mechanism? I don't.
>
> ------
> >From: "Robert Macy"
> >To: "Pettit, Ghery" , "'James Co
rend rather than opposes
> it.
>
> --
> >From: Cortland Richmond
> >To: Andrew Carson
> >Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
> >Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 12:22 PM
> >
>
> >
> > As engineers, we should consider
Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: 04 January 2002 02:40
To: Doug McKean; EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
A signal light is easily replaceable in terms of time and money. Most
people don't use them (well, in good old Huntsville, AL, anyway, w
I must disagree. The wording of Part 15 requiring users of Part 15 devices to
accept interference, does not reduce
complaints; hardly any users actually know it is there, or what it means. Fewer
care. If they are receiving one's
signals, they consider them intrusions to which they must react. T
. Schanker, P.E.
65 Crandon Way
Rochester, NY 14618
Phone: 585 442 3909
Fax: 585 442 2182
j.schan...@ieee.org
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Rich Nute"
Cc: ;
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
|
|
|
| I think the issue is that the l
I read in !emc-pstc that Kevin Harris wrote (in
) about 'EMC-related
safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>If the BSI site says that, then it is yet another proof of you can't always
>believe what you read. :) My Aug 2001 version of the BSI electronic catalog
>shows a publication date of 1996 for
I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute wrote (in
<200201032108.naa11...@epgc264.sdd.hp.com>) about 'EMC-related safety
issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>Whine mode on: I want both on my bedside table, and
>I want both to do all of their functions. This IS
>not the usage contemplated by 3 m separation
I read in !emc-pstc that david_ster...@ademco.com wrote (in <2DF7C54A75B
dd311b61700508b64231002c5a...@nyhqex1.ademcohq.com>) about 'EMC-related
safety issues', on Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>My copy of BS EN 50140-4:1996
50140-4? ENV50140 was an early version of EN61000-4-3 and is withdrawn.
--
Regards,
I read in !emc-pstc that geor...@lexmark.com wrote (in <200201032132.QAA
24...@interlock2.lexmark.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on
Thu, 3 Jan 2002:
>I think the issue is that the lamp is not an EMC regulated
>device.
Yes it is. EN55015 applies to emissions from lamps.
>In fact, in E
irbag
deploying at the wrong time or not deploying, or ditto for brakes.
--
>From: "Doug McKean"
>To: "EMC-PSTC Discussion Group"
>Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
>Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 7:00 PM
>
>
> Point taken Ken, but consider signal l
o.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Doug McKean
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
"Rich Nute" wrote:
>
> EMC? Ha!
You raise a good point since the FCC legally can but
hasn't
Point taken Ken, but consider signal lights. They're
essentially safety devices and they're supposed to
be maintained on cars which have been transferred
amongst several owners and are decades old.
Same idea with windshields, I guess also.
- Doug McKean
--
that the pollution controls are supposed to work. That kind of
makes sense, except pollution controls are not safety devices and their
failure isn't an opportunity to fleece a car manufacturer.
--
>From: "Doug McKean"
>To: "EMC-PSTC Discussion Group"
&
I have it from a message on the r...@contesting.com list that Phillips bulbs
produce less RF noise than others.
I can't vouch for that, however.
Cortland
(What I write here is mine alone.
My employer does not
Concur, agree or else endorse
These words, their tone, or thought.)
Rich Nute wrote:
The answer is in the original posting, the new lamp saves energy. Which
translates into "saving the planet." That trumps all, these days.
--
>From: geor...@lexmark.com
>To: Rich Nute
>Cc: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: EMC-relat
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
