Re: CTR 15/17
Hi Larry, The latest info I have is from about October last year. The status of each TBR at that time was that both TBR15 and TBR17 had been approved by TRAC at TRAC22 (02.02.96) but had not yet been approved by ACTE. Best regards, Dave Wilson ICC __ Reply Separator _ Subject: CTR 15/17 Author: MIME:lbarn...@magibox.net at INTERNET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:12/02/97 08:56 Need information on the status of these standards. What countries in the EU are accepting them? Are they still in preliminary form? Thanks - Larry Barnette Compliance Engineer Instrument Associates - InterConnect Communications Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1291 620425 Fax: +44 (0) 1291 627119 WWW: http://www.icc-uk.com/
EMC Directive
Dear All The EMC Directive involving any kind of electrical or electronic apparatus introduced many problems in the industry and caused the price for satisfy the quality to quite grow. But today anyone know really what percentage of producers in Europe, and especialy in Italy, met completely the Directive and append with certainty the CE mark ?? Best Regards Davide Ripamonti E-mail: tprb0...@cdc8g5.cdc.polimi.it
Re: EMC Directive
Davide Ripamonti wrote: Dear All The EMC Directive involving any kind of electrical or electronic apparatus introduced many problems in the industry and caused the price for satisfy the quality to quite grow. But today anyone know really what percentage of producers in Europe, and especialy in Italy, met completely the Directive and append with certainty the CE mark ?? Best Regards Davide Ripamonti E-mail: tprb0...@cdc8g5.cdc.polimi.it Actually, the advent of the CE marking did not represent anything new to most global manufacturers. The old VDE CISPR 22 requirements were not unlike the present harmonized EMC standards. Many European countries required products to meet IEC 950 or their equivalent before the Low Voltage Directive. So the CE marking is mostly a difference in required documentation, not a difference in the design of the products. It is my understanding that NO ITE products may now be accepted by EU member states without CE marking attesting to cconformity with the EMC and Low Voltage Directives. George Alspaugh Lexmark International [These are only my opinions and have not been officially certified by my wife.]
Re: EMC Directive
Davide Ripamonti wrote: Dear All The EMC Directive involving any kind of electrical or electronic apparatus introduced many problems in the industry and caused the price for satisfy the quality to quite grow. But today anyone know really what percentage of producers in Europe, and especialy in Italy, met completely the Directive and append with certainty the CE mark ?? Best Regards Davide Ripamonti E-mail: tprb0...@cdc8g5.cdc.polimi.it We do. Ciao, MP -- ESAOTE S.p.A. Ing. Massimo Polignano Research Product Development Regulatory Affairs Via di Caciolle, 15 50127 Firenze - Italy Tel: ++ 39 (0)55 4229 402 Fax: ++ 39 (0)55 4223305 e-mail regr...@esaote.it
RE:
If such a system is not easy to find, is there any reason why one can't use two systems to test an expansion card? One could be CE marked and declared for Class B ( a PC) and the other could be a system that is CE marked and declared for Heavy Industrial Immunity. In this way, you have shown the card to be compliant with both standards and do not need to search for one system that has all of the approvals. Is this acceptable? Regards, tony_fredriks...@netpower.com -- From: comp_lab To: EMC-PSTC List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 2:38PM Hello All, We are doing something out of the usual for us and have developed a product that is a card designed to go in a PC. For our normal products, with regards to the EMC directive, we do industrial immunity and Class B for emissions. We would like to do the same for the PC card. The problem is I haven't found a PC yet, that has been previously tested to the industrial immunity standard AND class B. If anybody knows of any systems that will pass these tests please let me know. Thanks for your help Regards, - Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Toronto, Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378 -
RE:
I have tested systems to the heavy industrial immunity specification which included class B PCs. Both HP Vectra computers and Dell computers faired well. Ocassionally the monitors sold with these systems are disturbed to the point of turning themselves off (a failure in most books). To date I've always been able to solve this problem by upgrading to an NEC multisync monitor. The key distinquinction of all these products is that they really do meet class B by wide margins and use very good shielding to get to that level. Once you have shielding that good and use digital techniques inside (as opposed to small signal, high impedance analog signals - thermocouples, etc.) heavy industrial immunity compliance is usually a given. Jon D. Curtis, PE Curtis-Straus LLC j...@world.std.com One-Stop Laboratory for EMC, Product Safety and Telecom 527 Great Roadvoice (508) 486-8880 Littleton, MA 01460 fax (508) 486-8828 http://world.std.com/~csweb On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tony Fredriksson wrote: If such a system is not easy to find, is there any reason why one can't use two systems to test an expansion card? One could be CE marked and declared for Class B ( a PC) and the other could be a system that is CE marked and declared for Heavy Industrial Immunity. In this way, you have shown the card to be compliant with both standards and do not need to search for one system that has all of the approvals. Is this acceptable? Regards, tony_fredriks...@netpower.com -- From: comp_lab To: EMC-PSTC Date: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 2:38PM Hello All, We are doing something out of the usual for us and have developed a product that is a card designed to go in a PC. For our normal products, with regards to the EMC directive, we do industrial immunity and Class B for emissions. We would like to do the same for the PC card. The problem is I haven't found a PC yet, that has been previously tested to the industrial immunity standard AND class B. If anybody knows of any systems that will pass these tests please let me know. Thanks for your help Regards, - Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Toronto, Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378 -
RE:
Hi Kevin, We Mitsubishi PC do test to those standard (EN55022 B and EN50082-2) for EMC. Our best PC (for EMC) is the LS660 mintower range, we managed to get more than 4dB margin (emissions) in a test house in Germany. We also supply high quality 17 Mitsubishi monitor that performs very well for immunity as well as emissions. We never have any EMC problems with this monitor. Our sale department contact as follows:- MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC PC DIVISION Apricot Computers Limited 3500 Parkside Birmingham Business Park Birmingham B37 7YS UK Tel +44 (0) 121 717 7171 Fax +44 (0) 121 717 3903 I hope the information is useful for you Best Regards Vi Van Snr. EMC Engineer -- From: Kevin Harris[SMTP:comp_...@dscltd.com] Sent: 12 February 1997 19:38 To:EMC-PSTC Hello All, We are doing something out of the usual for us and have developed a product that is a card designed to go in a PC. For our normal products, with regards to the EMC directive, we do industrial immunity and Class B for emissions. We would like to do the same for the PC card. The problem is I haven't found a PC yet, that has been previously tested to the industrial immunity standard AND class B. If anybody knows of any systems that will pass these tests please let me know. Thanks for your help Regards, - Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Toronto, Canada 416 665-8460 Ext 378 -
Re:
Jon, That's great information--I also anticipate a requirement for heavy industrial immunity in the future and have been wondering what problems I might be in for. With PCs (and computers in general), isn't it the case that if the cables are shielded and grounded to the cabinet there isn't likely to be a problem? For emissions, BTW, I have also had good luck with DEC. Max Kelson mkel...@es.com % %I have tested systems to the heavy industrial immunity specification which %included class B PCs. Both HP Vectra computers and Dell computers faired %well. Ocassionally the monitors sold with these systems are disturbed to %the point of turning themselves off (a failure in most books). To date %I've always been able to solve this problem by upgrading to an NEC %multisync monitor. The key distinquinction of all these products is that %they really do meet class B by wide margins and use very good shielding to %get to that level. Once you have shielding that good and use digital %techniques inside (as opposed to small signal, high impedance analog %signals - thermocouples, etc.) heavy industrial immunity compliance is %usually a given. % %Jon D. Curtis, PE % %Curtis-Straus LLC j...@world.std.com %One-Stop Laboratory for EMC, Product Safety and Telecom %527 Great Roadvoice (508) 486-8880 %Littleton, MA 01460 fax (508) 486-8828 %http://world.std.com/~csweb %On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Tony Fredriksson wrote: % %
Impulse levels of IEC664, follow-up
I received four responses to my question about the peak impulse test levels for Insulation co-ordination. Three of the four expressed that peak is peak, thus you do not add a rated impulse on top of the peak sine wave, but the total peak value is as defined. In the 1000 V CAT III example I proposed, the peak value will be 8,000 V and not 9,414 V as would be derived from adding the 8 KV impulse to the sine wave peak . The measured values for impulses has been expressed as many different tests over many years, thus no report to define methods or verify results. Thanks to the four for their input. Wayne Thomas Tektronix wayne.d.tho...@tek.com
Re[2]: frequency scanners low cost equipment
I recently reviewed the antenna factors for a commercially made overlapping bow tie style antenna and find the factors to be rather high (for example, over 30 dB at many frequencies over 300 MHz). However, it is still a very simple antenna to build, and maybe your scanner will be sensitive enough to compensate for such high losses. Good receivers can detect signals as weak as -15 dBuV. To improve the antenna factors, I would suggest that the overlapping bow ties should be combined with an ordinary corner reflector. I would expect the gain to improve (up to 10dB best case) at frequencies over 50 to 100 MHz for a reasonable size reflector, plus you would benefit from attenuation of unwanted ambient signals from the rear and sides of the antenna. The design requirements are: S = the spacing from the apex of the reflector to the antenna f = frequency (lowest for this case) in MHz. Rule is: minimum S = 0.25(300/f) maximum S = 0.7(300/f) / / -- reflector / / O -- S -- @ -- antenna (in this case, our bow tie antennas) \ \ \ \ The reflector is expected to be a full wavelength (300/f) long, but I suspect you can shorten this to some degree. For 50 MHz, minimum value of S is 150 cm, length is 600 cm. For 100 MHz, minimum value of S is 75 cm, length is 300 cm. For 200 MHz, minimum value of S is 38 cm, length is 150 cm. For 300 MHz, minimum value of S is 25 cm, length is 100 cm. This antenna is simple to build, but it is too large to be built for frequencies approaching 30 MHz. You could still incorporate a large bow tie to capture such frequencies, however. I believe the angle of the reflector should be about 90 degrees. A simple BALUN for this antenna would be just a few common ferrites over the coax near the antenna end of the cable. Still, be careful how the cable moves when moving the antenna. Try to use very low loss coaxial cable such as Belden 9913 to improve overall antenna factors. Other literature may be more helpful, such as the ARRL publications on this topic. Good luck. Eric Lifsey National Instruments
Re: low cost equipment
Hi Moshe, In addition to my previous scanner specification data, I like to add: You find scanners of all kind of sizes from handheld to topdesc models. ALL scanners do not have the same features, of course, but most do have following: The electronic SMD is smal and low power due to the actual technologie. Its able to run on internal batteries, from a external 12VDC or from AC mostly with a simple AC/DC cord adapter. Typical power consumption in normal opperation is 160mA, 110mA in standby and 20Ma in power saving mode (9 till 16 V DC External or 4.8 internal). I mentioned in my previous mail usenet and mail lists. You will find several vendors on the www, search on yahoo http://www.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Marketing/ (or any other web search server) with the keyword scanners in order to find them. A block diagram is rather difficult to draw, hope my previous mail and data specification helps. Drawings and allignment documentation can also be purshased at a very reasonable price from vendor. In this documentaion you can also find the spurious freq. spots, bandwith spec., sensivity , .. They have a good sensitivity around the 1 uV (180 kHz bandwith). Hope this helps you Moshe. moshe_vald...@isr-rhv-p1.ccmail.compuserve.com wrote: 1. How these scanners are built, any info like block diagrams preferably on the net. How big are they? Do they run on batteries? 2. Where I can buy the ones you recommend. Do the vendors have an internet page? Or at least an address or some way to make contact with them.-- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: LVD and 48VDC equipment
At 01:31 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote: I would appreciate your comments on the following thoughts/philosophy: The scope of the Low Voltage Directive excludes equipment with a voltage rating (means powered from) -48VDC (or -48 to -60VDC) sources (including ITE/Telecom equipment.) [Definition from EN60950 - Rated Voltage: The primary power voltage as declared by the manufacturer.] If the equipment is ITE, it is included in the scope of EN60950. EN60950 has no lower voltage limit and specifically includes equipment intended to be connected to a telecommunications network. If the equipment is ITE and not Telecom, the equipment could be tested to EN60950 as this is a relevant standard. Of course the equipment must be CE marked persuant to the EMC directive. The Declaration of Conformity (DOC) should refer to the EMC directive, but not the Low Voltage Directive. On what basis would you test to EN 60950 since it is referenced in the LVD? Possibly the General Product Safety Directive? Please clarify. If the equipment is ITE/Telecom hybrid, the TTE directive requires (Article 4) that the equipment satisfy requirements for user safety and safety of employees of public telecom networks operators. It also requires that the equipment satisfy requirements for the protection of the public telecom network from harm. Whether the LVD applies or not, safety is required. Therefore equipment should be tested to EN60950 as this is the relevant standard. CE marking would be required for the TTE and EMC directives, but not the LVD as the DOC would show. Same questions from above. In conclusion, 48VDC ITE/telecom equipment should be tested to EN60950, but CE marking, and the associated DOC, should not include reference to the LVD. Thanks, R. Grant Pinto grant.pi...@adn.alcatel.com Certification Engineer Alcatel Data Networks 703-724-2759 703-724-2132-fax Regards, Jody Leber j...@ltgservices.com http://www.ltgservices.com LTG Services Suite 103 11940 Alpharetta Highway Alpharetta, GA 30201 (770)772-4299 Fax: (770)772-4297
ENVs the last word
Is this the last word on ENVs ! ENVS.DOC Description: MS-Word document Regards Andy Griffin EMiSoft Limited - Test and Assessment Software Solutions Uk Tel +44 (0)468 188244 Uk Fax +44 (0)1793 522214 USA Tel/Fax +408 356 1980 Emailagrif...@dnai.com Compuserve 100653,2442 We write software - we don't sell equipment
CTE DIRECTIVE INPUT
TEXT ATTACHMENT SENT 02-13-97 FROM SMITH_JOHN_W @MAILE1 Greetings, Whatever happened to the CTE Directive as a replacement for the TTE Directive and all those 'orible national approval arrangements? Will it creep-up on us suddenly or is it gathering dust in someone's 'pending' tray in darkest Brussels? Is there good news if so what? Stewart Davidson of CEC DGXIII will be presenting the latest at the next AEA Standards and Certification meeting in Brussels on 5th March. In anticipation of the meeting please send ME questions, points of view, fears and proposed solutions. I will collate them and ensure that they are addressed. To get your thought processes going, issues covered before include: *The scope of equipment to be covered by the CTE Directive *Use of Conformity Modules, which ones for what *Extent of product information to be made available in the public domain *The relevance of non-Telecom aspects in the Directive *How innovative products/services are dealt with *Speed of adoption of the Directive into Member States' national laws. And here's some new ones: *Have DGXIII and DGIII reached agreed position? (My information is that they have). *Should Europe be looking for an FCC equivalent body governing EMC and RadioCommunications and dispose of the myriad of Notified and Competent Bodies and layers of Committees? *Where do the US/EU MRA negotiations fit with the Directive? This is an opportunity for you and your company to get some answers; please let me have your input by 28th February. Cheers JohnS. John W. Smith Tandem Computers Inc. Tel: +44(0)1494-557020Fax: +44(0)1494-450571 Home:+44(0)1582-767254EMail: smith_joh...@tandem.com
