Acoustic noise requirements
Hello again, I happened to find acoustic noise limits in the IEC 1010-1 (lab equipment safety). Do you know of other standards \ directives with acoustic limits? Are there standard ways of measurement? (sound power, sound pressure, spectrum..) thanks - Name: moshe valdman E-mail: mvald...@netvision.net.il Phone: 052-941200, 03-5496369 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 31/03/97 Time: 22:42:57 -
Re: Electornic standards UL SEBBS
Hi Terry, In my experience, I used the UL1950 on disk quite often. It's great for finding reference. I was signed up for the subscription on disk, but found that I did not use it, because the updates were usually minor. As far as having both UL1950 and EN60950, they were so similar, that I usually just worked out of one standard. Where there was differences, I would just add that note to my working copy. Good luck, Ray __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Electornic standards UL SEBBS Author: "Terry J. Meck" at Internet List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:3/27/97 4:45 PM Hi all: In an effort to get an easy way to reference the UL1950 / EN60950, with reference to the global market and USA as the highest % of our market, I came up with the dilemma do I get UL 1950 on disk, EN 60950 on disk or subscribe to a service like UL's Standards Electronic Bulletin Board System (SEBBS). The SEBBS has interesting attractions but tasting is best has anyone tasted it and would you be willing to review it. I also would like to the advantages of having the EN 60950 in addition to the UL 1950, if any. Since it is a harmonized standard is the CSA disk the same or better? I would like to benefit from your experience. Thank you in advance for any input you give! Best regards, Terry J. Meck Senior QA/Test Engineer 215-721-5280 tjm...@accusort.com Accu-Sort Systems Inc. Telford, Pa USA
RE: ITE approvals for Australia
George, You could not have said it any more eloquently. You did however leave out one aspect that should be included in your list. We have to understand all our companies products with respect to both functionality and real world application. All while the real world and design engineers obsolete what we currently know and develop new technologies for us to learn. The "compliance twilight zone" is reality for most of us compliance engineers!. Jim Wiese ADTRAN, Inc. -- From: owner-emc-pstc To: Grasso Charles (Chaz) Cc: 'Jason L. Chesley'; 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: ITE approvals for Australia List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 1:36PM This is why being into regulatory compliance is like being enrolled in a college from which you can never graduate. New courses are added and old courses must be repeated due to new content. There is no clear end in sight. Here is the challenge, 1. Know every country standard. 2. Know how to interpret the standard. 3. Know which standards are mandatory vs. optional. 4. Know which "mandatory" requirements are not actually practiced. 5. Know which countries require certification. 6. Know what aspects need certification (safety, EMC, environment,...) 7. Know the certification process(es). 8. Keep up with 1-7 while all are being changed. Who could not love a job like this? Are we having fun yet? George Alspaugh Lexmark International From: GrassC%LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 03/28/97 09:23:19 AM Subject: RE: ITE approvals for Australia Thank you for the information. This is interesting because there seems to be total confusion in the ITE arena. I have had various replies to the question of immunity from YES to NO to MAYBE. Indeed I have had a reply indicating that the requirement might be "several years away". I have checked with one major ITE supplier in the US and they are NOT declaring to the AS/NZS immunity standard. The background for the question came from the SMA. In a suppliers reference document issued by the SMA they do NOT specifically state that immunity is required AND in the same document they publish contradictory information. I cite specifically: Para 1.2 Table indicates Immunity is required. Table One: EMC Standards - refers to Immunity standard Para 2.3 No SPECIFIC indication that immunity is required. Section 3: No mention of Immunity timing at all. Note: Para 1.2 is in direct conflict with the SMA home page that does NOT shade in the Immunity portion. (This prompted my previous e-mail) Now I am in a quandary. In spite of the availability of information, there may be ITE equipment manufacturers innocently contravening the Radiocommunication Act of 1992. Who can I go to that can answer my question definitively?
