EU DoC and Australia DoC
I remember reading about a year ago a statement made by a then officer of a CB association, saying that is it not all that important where the DoC signatory is located, just that the person be empowered to sign such agreements. It implied tracability was the sole goal of the DoC. Maybe someone else knows where this came from - I can't find the article now (naturally). I have examples of DoCs carefully done with European signatories, and others done with US signatories. I also have a vendor DoC in my files that was made by a "European representative" that is missing information and cites passing criteria below severity level 2. No wonder the Germans are having a field day on DoCs. I've been signing our DoCs for about two years now. If the authorities ever demand a local signatory, I'll have one of our EU branches countersign the DoC on the company's behalf. Each of our EU offices can print an original-quality DoC from my networked database full of Adobe PDF files. Our UK office is listed as our "European Contact" on the DoC, but not specifically as the representative. However, the UK office is prepared to assume the responsibility if required. So far only one business firm lamented that we needed an EU signatory - they resell some of our products, but also sell their own EMC services. Maybe they wanted to be our lab/representative? We have over 220 active DoCs in our database now from a product catalog currently 2 cm thick. Lots of Dollars for an ambitious "European Representative" to latch onto, don't you think? In contrast, the Australians are far more explicit about the C-Tick DoC signatory - and the applicant for the C-Tick supplier code too. Both must be a resident of Australia, or an Australian citizen. Our Australia branch manager assumed this duty. For him I create an unsigned Australian flavor DoC and place it on the same networked database. Then our Australia branch manager prints, signs, and files them for SMA inspection (Which, in fact, just happened. I can assure you that the SMA does on-site random audits of "Compliance Folders"!). All EMC test reports applicable to C-Tick compliance are also on my database, printable on demand with a place to countersign the report if required. Eric Lifsey Compliance Engineer National Instruments USA I don't claim to be an expert, just a survivor.
reduction of leakage current
Hello all, Assuming the power supplies and line filter I'm using cannot be changed, and I have to reduce the input leakage current to ground, what are my options? (if any) thanks in advance - Name: moshe valdman E-mail: mvald...@netvision.net.il Phone: 052-941200, 03-5496369 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 15/07/97 Time: 22:04:40 You are most welcome to visit my homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5233/ -
Graphics in posts
I have noticed some past attempts, here and in other newsgroups, to describe electrical hook-ups or even simple schematics. I say attempts, as they tried to describe things either in text, or through use of clumsy ASCII character based line drawing. I can send an email, with a file as an attachment. This file can be a graphic created under MS Word 7, with a doc extension, or a graphic from any number of programs which produce either drg, bmp, tif or jpeg extensions. I could even zip the file, before attaching, to really crunch down the size. Now, I don't consider this graphic file usage to be either very exotic technology or a bandwidth hog. When I dl my email now (granted, through my company net connection, not a 28.8 modem), each post takes only maybe 1 second; a typical day's worth of posts rarely takes more than 30 seconds. When I dl private emails (which often have graphic attachments), I see no appreciable increase in dl time. If I find an attached file, I can open it with an associated viewer of a generic viewer, print it, and go back to read the text while I have the graphic hardcopy in hand. So, from my viewpoint, I see no burden from allowing attached graphic files in a remailer or newsgroup, especially if it allows you to convey your message more accurately. Are we arbitrarily catering to the oldest common denominator? If you feel attachments are inappropriate, then what would you propose? What are our present limits, and why? -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/15/97 Time: 11:37:38 --
RE: ESD Simulators
We also use the Schaffner NSG 435. At my previous employer (an independent test lab), I had the opportunity to use several different ESD simulators, and have to say that of all the guns I have used (including Keytek and Andy H.), I have found the Schaffner to be the best. The only negative I have found with the Schaffner is that over time the contact discharge probe seems to want to crack, and then finally, break. However, this has happened only after about 3 years of use, and new probes are easily obtained from Schaffner. - Randy Flinders EMC Test Engineer Emulex Network Systems Corporation -- From: Jon Bertrand To: emc-pstc Subject: RE: ESD Simulators List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Monday, July 14, 1997 4:06PM If talking about ESD guns is okay then: We've been using a Schaffner NSG 435 for about four years now. Three of us [engineers] use the gun, we all like it a lot. My impression is it's easier/faster to use on the IEC 1000 tests then the guns that the local test sites use. It's the best $8000 we ever spent. What would you like to know about it? Jon Bertrand j...@cirris.com
Re: Open Apology
--- On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:08:39 -0400 "Egon H. Varju" wrote: > > > A long-forgotten loved one will appear soon. > > > Buy the negatives at any price. > > > Hey, I'm a "long-forgotten loved one" and you're not being > > politically correct regarding my self-alienated sub-culture. > > Let me take this opportunity to grandstand to the whole user > > group about my holier-than-thou position and my inability to > > get along in a "names will never hurt me" society. > > SUPPORT HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION. > > The whiney nineties: a great time to be alive! > > XXXOOO > > Hear, hear! > > BTW, I deeply resent the implication that negative people can be bought for > just "any price." I'll have you know that we have our standards! > > :-) -;) > And don't you think I resent all references to "just any price"? Or nefarious implications (ie, "negative people ...bought for any price) that I might be the mastermind behind some form of slave trade? Disclaimer extended to the humor impaired; above are Class 3 yucks which I declare to be exempt from all extant standards of entertainment. -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/15/97 Time: 08:31:47 --
RE: ESD Simulators
Years ago I had the opportunity of working with a top flight consultant on ESD and the human-body model. The only manufacturer that produced an ESD simulator that ACCURATELY reflected the Human Body pulse was Andy Hish. The ESD simulators today produce a facimile of the true ESD event in the interest of test consistency. Of all the simulators I have tried, I like the Schaffner. I find the controls easy to use - it even has a counter. This is of most importance to someone as easily distracted as me!! Most of all I like that fact the 10cm separation between the EUT (tabletop) and the gun is built into the design. Very nice. Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 >-- >From: dmck...@paragon-networks.com[SMTP:dmck...@paragon-networks.com] >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 1997 7:06 AM >To:emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >Subject: Re: ESD Simulators > >dlo...@advanced-input.com wrote: >> >> My company is looking to purchase some ESD Simulators. There are basically >> three manufacturers worldwide of this type eqiupment, and ESD guns are not >> cheap. I am interested in hearing of any experiences or information, good >> or bad, anyone has had with particular models of ESD Simulators. Since >>this >> may not be an appropriate open forum discussion topic, responses can be >> off-line. >> >> Thanks >> Darrell Locke >> Advanced Input Devices > >Hi Darrell, >Long ago in a land far away when I first started compliance, I worked >for a company that used a homebrew ESD thing made from a flyback coil >from a tv set that could literally kill you. They had started using >this thing on products due to numerous complaints from customers >concerning ESD events in a carpeted office environment. Theory was >at the time (from the two gentlemen that ran the lab both had EE Ph.D.s) >if the product could survive that, it'd survive anything. > >I bought a Keyteck Mini-Zapper and things settled down. I changed jobs >and at the new company bought another Mini-Zapper. But, I soon ran into >trouble at that time for there was (at one point in time) the need for >three seperate guns (three seperate human models) for Bellcore, and >IEC-801 series testing. I stayed with the the MiniZapper arguing that >the IEC series was "more" valid than something from Bellcore due to >it based upon law. Bellcore is not based upon law. It is allowed >to be interpreted any way the two parties agree. Still not satisified, >the customer protested and I rented from GE rental a Schaffner NSG >ESD gun (the specific model number escapes me but I'm sure someone >will know exactly what it is) that was more in line with everyone. >Before I left that company, it was to be regular policy to rent >equipment as needed rather than buy. At the time I supported that >decision. > >Now, at yet another company, the lab I go to uses a Compliance Design >device (again the model number escapes me). I am still supporting >rentals and that falls into the Schaffner series when needed. >Calibration, >updating to any changes for another human model (I don't think this >will happen soon), and storage during downtime I incur upon the rentee. > >Regards, Doug >
Brazil stuff.
Chris Dupres wrote: > > G'day folk. > > Can anyone give me a quick review of the EMC/LVD/Machinery requirements for > equipment destined for Brazil? According to the Commercial Section of the British Embassy in Brasilia, their standards for EMC and safety are issued and enforced by the Brazilian Association of Technical Norms, ABNT. I was given the following addresses. ABNT Av 13 de maio, 13, 28 andar Rio de Janeiro RJ 20031-000 Brazil tel 021 210 3122 fax 021 532 2143 Contact: Sra Roberta Vasques Fadul (headquarters) or ABNT SCS Qd 1 Ed Central, sala 401 Brasilia DF 70304-000 Brazil tel 061 223 5590 fax 061 223 5710 Contact: Del Cleber Farias Pinto (Brasilia branch) Hope this is some help to you, though I faxed Sra Vasques Fadul in April and have not had a reply yet. If you find out more, could you share it with us? -- Regards, Phil Ford phil_f...@uk.xyratex.com tel +44 (0)1705 443255fax +44 (0)1705 499315 Xyratex, Langstone Road, Havant, PO9 1SA, United Kingdom
EU DoC
Horst Dierich wrote: > Sorry Phil, > > but I have learned in a seminar for Product Safety at the Leuven University in > Belgium by some expert Professors for European Rights that the responsible > company > or person must be a resident of one of the EU member states. This is stated > by the > term "established within the Community". Horst, I think, in practical terms, you are quite right. There will usually be a person or commercial body "established within the EU" who puts the product on the market. This person or body will be responsible for the DoC or the TCF. However, the text of the Directive does allow that neither the manufacturer nor his authorised representative is established within the Community. What then would be the status of an individual importing a product for personal use and not placing the apparatus on the Community market? The Directive does not appear to say much about this situation (probably rightly so). -- Regards, Phil Ford phil_f...@uk.xyratex.com tel +44 (0)1705 443255fax +44 (0)1705 499315 Xyratex, Langstone Road, Havant, PO9 1SA, United Kingdom
Re: ESD Simulators
dlo...@advanced-input.com wrote: > > My company is looking to purchase some ESD Simulators. There are basically > three manufacturers worldwide of this type eqiupment, and ESD guns are not > cheap. I am interested in hearing of any experiences or information, good > or bad, anyone has had with particular models of ESD Simulators. Since this > may not be an appropriate open forum discussion topic, responses can be > off-line. > > Thanks > Darrell Locke > Advanced Input Devices Hi Darrell, Long ago in a land far away when I first started compliance, I worked for a company that used a homebrew ESD thing made from a flyback coil from a tv set that could literally kill you. They had started using this thing on products due to numerous complaints from customers concerning ESD events in a carpeted office environment. Theory was at the time (from the two gentlemen that ran the lab both had EE Ph.D.s) if the product could survive that, it'd survive anything. I bought a Keyteck Mini-Zapper and things settled down. I changed jobs and at the new company bought another Mini-Zapper. But, I soon ran into trouble at that time for there was (at one point in time) the need for three seperate guns (three seperate human models) for Bellcore, and IEC-801 series testing. I stayed with the the MiniZapper arguing that the IEC series was "more" valid than something from Bellcore due to it based upon law. Bellcore is not based upon law. It is allowed to be interpreted any way the two parties agree. Still not satisified, the customer protested and I rented from GE rental a Schaffner NSG ESD gun (the specific model number escapes me but I'm sure someone will know exactly what it is) that was more in line with everyone. Before I left that company, it was to be regular policy to rent equipment as needed rather than buy. At the time I supported that decision. Now, at yet another company, the lab I go to uses a Compliance Design device (again the model number escapes me). I am still supporting rentals and that falls into the Schaffner series when needed. Calibration, updating to any changes for another human model (I don't think this will happen soon), and storage during downtime I incur upon the rentee. Regards, Doug
RE: ESD Simulators
Hi all,
We have three different guns here at MIKES Product Service.
This are an old one from Haefely (very good because works up to 35kV !!!),
the Mini-Zip from Keytec and 3 times the NSG435 from Schaffner.
For handling and testing the most popular gun is the Schaffner in our lab !
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask
Best regards
Harry Buchwald
Manager ITE/ISM Products
MIKES PRODUCT SERVICE GmbH
-
Original Text
From: jeich...@statpower.com, on 14.07.1997 10:59:
To:
Absolutely it is an appropriate forum topic! Please keep this topic out in
the open forum, not off line. We are considering the purchase ourselves in
the near future and would benefit from hearing the experiences of the
group.
Thanks,
Jim Eichner
Statpower Technologies Corporation
jeich...@statpower.com
Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend
--
From: dlocke@anetMHS{MHS:dlo...@advanced-input.com}
To: bceresne; ; JEichner
Subject: ESD Simulators
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Monday, July 14, 1997 10:54AM
My company is looking to purchase some ESD Simulators. There are basically
three manufacturers worldwide of this type eqiupment, and ESD guns are not
cheap. I am interested in hearing of any experiences or information, good
or bad, anyone has had with particular models of ESD Simulators. Since
this
may not be an appropriate open forum discussion topic, responses can be
off-line.
Thanks
Darrell Locke
Advanced Input Devices
Re: FAQ: Sources of EMC & Safety Compliance Information
FAQ: Sources of EMC & Safety Compliance Information This is to let you know that I have just posted in two parts the 16th issue of the above FAQ to the newsgroup for regulatory/compliance matters and EMC and safety specifications and testing, sci.engr.electrical.compliance The FAQ will also be available at the following URL: http://world.std.com/~techbook/compliance_faq.html Hope you find it useful: suggestions for additions or corrections are welcomed. -- Bill Lyons - b...@lyons.demon.co.uk / w.ly...@ieee.org = Claude Lyons Limited Brook Road Waltham Cross Herts EN8 7LR England Leaders in Voltage and Power Control - Precise Electrical Instrumentation Tel: +44 1992 768 888 Fax: +44 1992 788 000 Telex: 22724 CL LTD G email: i...@lyons.demon.co.uk URL: http://www.lyons.demon.co.uk =
Brazil stuff.
Chris Dupres wrote: > > G'day folk. > > Can anyone give me a quick review of the EMC/LVD/Machinery requirements for > equipment destined for Brazil? According to the Commercial Section of the British Embassy in Brasilia, their standards for EMC and safety are issued and enforced by the Brazilian Association of Technical Norms, ABNT. I was given the following addresses. ABNT Av 13 de maio, 13, 28 andar Rio de Janeiro RJ 20031-000 Brazil tel 021 210 3122 fax 021 532 2143 Contact: Sra Roberta Vasques Fadul (headquarters) or ABNT SCS Qd 1 Ed Central, sala 401 Brasilia DF 70304-000 Brazil tel 061 223 5590 fax 061 223 5710 Contact: Del Cleber Farias Pinto (Brasilia branch) Hope this is some help to you, though I faxed Sra Vasques Fadul in April and have not had a reply yet. If you find out more, could you share it with us?
re: Brazil stuff.
The latest info I have is NBR*, 1994 which is CISPR 11. I would recommend you confirm this with: Eng. Antonio Sartorio Brazilian national committee of the IEC Comite Brasiliero de Electricidade (COBEI) Rua Libero Badaro, 496-3 andar 02008.000 - SAO PAULO - SP Brazil Tel: +55 11 239 48 55 Fax: +55 11 239 48 71 Mike Windler Underwriters Laboratories Inc. International EMC Services E-mail: windl...@ul.com Fax:847-272-8864 Phone: 847-272-8800 (ext. 43409) - Original Text From: "Chris Dupres" , on 7/15/97 1:18 AM: G'day folk. Can anyone give me a quick review of the EMC/LVD/Machinery requirements for equipment destined for Brazil? The equipment is Automatic Machinery, packaging lines, and would be made in the UK to EEC Directives. Any information would be very much appreciated. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK.
RE: [EMC-PSTC] 72 Mhz model radio control equipment
_ __ To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org@INTERNET From: rampelberg...@euronet.be@INTERNET on Tue, Jul 15, 1997 12:11 AM >Other statements made by the same person Not dirrectly related to the > purpose of this discution group (info request): > - 72 Mhz will be no longer be used in the USA for model radio control. >In the near future the 72Mhz band will be relocated in the 75 Mhz band >(who can comment this?) I did some more checking since your first post on this subject. Band width in the 75.2 - 76 MHz spectrum has been allocated for RC use in the US (though I have not seen any equipment for sale in this band). Also, band width in the 49.6 - 50 MHz spectrum has ben allocated for "radio controlled toys". Once FCC allocates a band fo a particular use it does not recind it, so 72 MHz will continue to be available for RC use. Dave Clement
Re: Open Apology
> > A long-forgotten loved one will appear soon. > > Buy the negatives at any price. > Hey, I'm a "long-forgotten loved one" and you're not being > politically correct regarding my self-alienated sub-culture. > Let me take this opportunity to grandstand to the whole user > group about my holier-than-thou position and my inability to > get along in a "names will never hurt me" society. > SUPPORT HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION. > The whiney nineties: a great time to be alive! > XXXOOO Hear, hear! BTW, I deeply resent the implication that negative people can be bought for just "any price." I'll have you know that we have our standards! :-) -;)
RE: Japan safety standards
>Could someone help me out with regards to some conflicting information I >have about Japanese safety requirements. > >I have been told 3 different things by 3 different testing organizations >regarding IEC-950 CB scheme requirements. > >1.) Japan accepts only amendments 1 & 2 >2.) Japan accepts amendments 1, 2, or 3 but not amendment 4 >3.) Since it is a CB scheme report, Japan must accept amendment 4 > >All three stated there are specific Japanese deviations. According to CB Bulletin No. 89Al dated DEC. 96 Japan accepts ammendments 1 & 2 and there National Deviations are in Miti Ordinanace No. 85. Dave Clement Motorola ISG
RE: System Integration
You need to be careful talking to the European Commission. You've got to remember that the European directives have to be transposed into national law. It is all very well and good the European Commission continually backtracking and re-defining what they really meant in the EMC directive but it has already been transposed into national law in each member state and some of what the Commission is saying now, particularly in the respect of CE+CE = CE does not tie up with the legal interpretation in most Member States. The EMC directive (and national law) clearly indicates that the responsibility is for supplying compliant (final) products onto the market. The European Commission guidance document does state that under certain conditions CE+CE=CE should give confidence in the final system but the supplier of the final system still takes responsibility (and must sign a declaration of conformity) for that system.(Important Note: The first drafts of the guidance document did not have the requirement that the final system supplier produce a declaration of conformity but this was thrown out following review and comment by the Member States!) It is also stated in the guidance document that suppliers of modules and sub-assemblies should provide adequate installation instructions in order to allow their products to be installed whilst maintaining compliance. This guidance document has to be taken with a pinch of salt.Technically, the CE+CE=CE argument is significantly flawed in many situations. Also our experience with surveillance authorities (particularly in the UK) is that argument "but the module was CE marked!" may be OK for a backstreet PC assembler whose resources are limited but would not be OK for a multi-million dollar organisation who would be expected to at least do some testing on final products. The key principle is "due dilligence". It has to be recognised that sub-assembly manufacturers can only do so much themselves in terms of testing in representative host systems and providing installation instructions. It is unreasonable to place all of the burden on sub-assembly manufacturers. What you are saying is that these manufacturers would need to take responsibility for any installation of their products into any host system and would legally be bound to this responsibility. System Integrators have to take some responsibility, particularly if installing sub-assemblies in non-standard applications where installation instructions could not be expected to be valid. The European Commission is not the final authority in this matter. Their guidance is just that, "guidance" and often it is initially hasty and technically flawed. Talk to people responsible for enforcing the EMC directive and relevant national legislation in each country and see what they have to say about your particular company and situation! Also talk to some Competent Bodies and Notified Bodies and see what they have to say. Of course, this may all be a bit of a moot argument given the limited resources applied to enforcement in most Member States but that is another discussion. Nick -- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Arthur Poolton (MEPCD) Sent: 14 July 1997 10:19 To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: System Integration Ladies & Gentlemen, I thought that you may be interested in the outcome of a meeting between a well-known PC manufacturer and the European Commission, DGIII (Elena Santiago) concerning the legalities of System Integration :- 1. An integrator of a "Core PC" (motherboard, power supply, case & drives - 6.4.2 para. 4 of the EMC Directive Guidelines) need only follow the Conformity Assessment Guidelines (10.1 or 10.2 of the Directive, 8.1 or 8.2 of the Guidelines). This entails using CE Marked modules, following module instructions exactly, providing a Declaration of Conformity, and providing a CE Marking on the product. If he/she does this, then the resultant product NEED NOT BE TESTED. Further, if an enforcement organization later tests the product and it fails the emissions limits, the System Integrator will still be considered in compliance! The enforcer is then supposed to turn his/her sights on the module suppliers for not providing sufficient instructions, and leave the System Integrator alone. Accordingly, if the System Integrators under prosecution in the UK followed the Guidelines but did not test, they should not be prosecuted. 2. EMC auditing of production is not mandatory. Even though EN55022, in describing the 80/80 rule, indicates that auditing is mandatory, the European Commission views this as not a standards issue and beyond the scope of CENELEC to specify. They also consider this requirement in conflict with their guidelines and are taking steps to have CENELEC remove this wording from EN55022. 3. We also brought up an issue regarding the use of prototypes for evaluation and demonst
CE Mark
Hi! All, Noticed that Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic will be the next enlargement to be considered as member of the European Union. Would appreciate if anyone can confirm that, the 3 above-mentioned states will recognise the CE Mark and no additional submission to their respective bodies for certification is necessary. If yes, when will be the effective date? Thanks in advance. Regards. Loh Weng Wah Creative Technology Ltd.
Brazil stuff.
G'day folk. Can anyone give me a quick review of the EMC/LVD/Machinery requirements for equipment destined for Brazil? The equipment is Automatic Machinery, packaging lines, and would be made in the UK to EEC Directives. Any information would be very much appreciated. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK.
intrinsic safety requirements
Hi Mel. You asked: Intrinsic Safety is pretty well as you suggested, devices operating at such low power that they are 'intrinsically safe'. It's related to ignition of flammable atmospheres, primarily in the Oil and Gas industries, but also on any system which uses flammable materials such as flour dust, alcohol, etc. etc. The rationale is that you keep the maximum possible energy dissipatable in a fault to below that necessary to cause ignition of a flamable atmosphere. This is done by things called Zener Barriers and Safety relays which have very low excititation circuits. Zener barriers are essentially a network via which EVERYTHING in the flammable area is connected through (the ZB's are in the safe area). The ZB's limit the maximum voltage on the hot side, and series resistors limit the maximum current such that in an Open Circuit or Short Circuit fault the let-through energy is limited. High Voltage stuff, motors etc. are cabled up in high quality cables and conduits which are gas proof etc. and have cast junction boxes with wide metal/metal joint faces such that inthe event of an explosion within the motor/box the flame propagation is limited by the gas having to squeeze through a very small gap between cooling metal, and the cases so thick that they won't burst. In the UK etc. these things are built to Baseefa requirements, and have labels marked Ex or EEx. People such as Measurement Technology Ltd. in the UK specialize in such equipment and have an excellent set of (free) Application reports that describe things much better than I. I'm sure others on the group will give you much more information, hope that helps a bit. Chris Dupres Surrey UK.
[EMC-PSTC] 72 Mhz model radio control equipment
Have been informed during official meeting between manufacturer rep's in Belgium and rep's of model users (airplane and buggies): Graupner manufacturer rep. in BELGIUM (Mr Engelen) made following unbelievable statements subject 72 Mhz radio control equipment rigs: - radio control rig's in general, and specially 72 Mhz rig's, are unable to meet the new ETSI 300-220 spec. constrains (is this true?, who has experience on the subject with other brands?) - CE EMC requirements are not applicable to Radio Control equipment in addition to type certification (what's your opinion?) Other statements made by the same person Not dirrectly related to the purpose of this discution group (info request): - 72 Mhz will be no longer be used in the USA for model radio control. In the near future the 72Mhz band will be relocated in the 75 Mhz band (who can comment this?) Plse replay preferably by EMAIL to rampelberg...@euronet.be Thanks on beforehand for your collaboration. Best regards PAUL -- Paul Rampelbergh (Belgium) -
RE: alternate test sites -Reply
In response to the second question as well: The following exerpts are taken from the Procedures For Assessment of the Conformity of Products Intended to be Placed on the Market (from a guide on the EMC Directive): "Paragraph 5.1: This article describes the procedure whereby the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community ensures and declares that the products concerned conform to the harmonized standards applicable to them. The manufacturer (or his authorized representative established within the Community) affixes the CE marking and draws up a written declaration of conformity. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community keeps this conformity declaration at the disposal of the competent authorities for inspection purposes for a period of ten years after the equipment was placed on the market. Where neither the manufacturer nor his authorized representative is established within the Community, the obligation to keep the conformity declaration available is the responsibility of the person who places the product on the Community market, this means the importer as defined in paragraph 2.5 of this document Paragraph 2.3 Manufacturer: This is the person who accepts responsibility for the design and manufacture of a product covered by the Directive with a view to placing it on the Community market on his own behalf Paragraph 2.4 Authorized Representative: This is the person who is expressly appointed by the manufacturer and acts on his behalf in respect of certain obligations laid down in the Directive. The extent to which the authorized representative may enter into commitments binding on the manufacturer is determin accordance with the mandate conferred on hime by the latter. Comments: If a manufacturer appoints an authorized representative, the latter must be established within the Community. Articles 10(1) and 10(2) of the EMC Directive define the obligations incumbent on the authorized representative established within the Community with regard to the conformity assessment procedures, CE markings, EC declaration of conformity and the arrangements for holding this EC declaration of conformity, together with the technical file, at the disposal of the competent authorities. Paragraph 2.5 Importer This is the person who places on the Community market a product covered by the Directive and imported from a third country. Under the terms of the Directive (Article 10(1), third paragraph, and Article 10(2), third paragraph), the importer must keep the manufacturer's declaration of conformity and the technical file at the disposal of the authorities, where neither the manufacturer nor his authorized representative is established within the Community." C. Johnson, CSA Note: These opinions were overheard when whispered by the invisible playmate of JE's invisible friend only >>> Mark Briggs 07/11/97 10:04pm >>> In reply to your second question, I would agree with Richard Woods that, as far as I am aware, there is no requirement for the person signing the DoC to be resident in Europe. I believe the DoC must be held in Europe, however, and so either the manufacturer's European office or distributor/Importer should have the original. The DoC must be held for 10 years after the last product is placed on the market. Secondly, there is no requirement to present any data to the European community with respect to EMC testing. The latest version of the guidelines to the EMC Directive state that there is "...no requirement for a technical file to demonstrate the steps taken to show compliance with the Directive." (Section 8.1 of the Guidelines) when using the self certification route (as opposed to either the technical construction file or type-examination routes). In the same section, however, the Guidelines suggest that you should retain documentation to support your claim of compliance. Thus, the manufacturer only has to assure him/herself that the unit will comply with the relevant standards before applying the CE mark and signing a Declaration of Conformity. In answer to your first question the manufacturer can do as little or as much testing as they like using whatever facilities they like. If a product is taken for sample testing by an enforcement body in Europe it will test at an accredited OATS/EMC facility against the letter of the applicable standards. As for EN55022 allowing the use of a SAC for performing tests, section 11.3.5 of the 1994 version states that tests sites not having the physical characteristics of an OATS (as defined in 11.3.3 and 11.3.4) are suitable if they meet the site attenuation characteristics when measured in accordance with annex A of the standard. Regards, Mark "...opinions expressed are opinions etc etc etc." >From: jim.nado...@amp.com >To: emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: alternate test sites >Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 10:55AM > > >Greetings,
RE: ESD Simulators
If talking about ESD guns is okay then: We've been using a Schaffner NSG 435 for about four years now. Three of us [engineers] use the gun, we all like it a lot. My impression is it's easier/faster to use on the IEC 1000 tests then the guns that the local test sites use. It's the best $8000 we ever spent. What would you like to know about it? Jon Bertrand j...@cirris.com
Re: EU DoC
Phil Ford wrote: > > Jim Nadolny wrote > > > I was told that the responsible person must be a resident of the EU. > > A company in the States could not self certify and place the CE mark on > > equipment with "only" the head of quality signature, assuming the head > > of quality lives in Anytown USA. I also heard that less than reputable > > companies in the States find "some European guy" who will sign anything > > and can vanish if the need arises. > > Article 10 of the EMC Directive states: > 1. ...shall be certified by an EC declaration of conformity issued by > the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the > Community. > ... > Where neither the manufacturer nor his authorised representative is > established within the Community, the above obligation to keep the EC > declaration of conformity available shall be the responsibility of the > person who places the apparatus on the Community market. > > The same requirements are then applied to the Technical Construction > File. > > Unless there is something else I have missed, the manufacturer, his > authorised representative and the person who keeps the DoC could all be > resident outside the EU. > -- > Regards, > Phil Ford phil_f...@uk.xyratex.com > tel +44 (0)1705 443255fax +44 (0)1705 499315 > Xyratex, Langstone Road, Havant, PO9 1SA, United Kingdom Sorry Phil, but I have learned in a seminar for Product Safety at the Leuven University in Belgium by some expert Professors for European Rights that the responsible company or person must be a resident of one of the EU member states. This is stated by the term "established within the Community". If there is no company involved for the import of the good into the EU, it is the person who brings the good to the EU - be it on his/her own benefit. The company/person/authorized representative, or whoever imports the good into the EU must be residing within the EU. -- Kind regards/mit freundlichen Gruessen, Horst Dierich, Germany EMAIL: dier...@ibm.net
RE: Re[2]: alternate test sites -Reply
I think Tania was right on. Good for you Tania. We need to keep cute remarks out from our technical discussions. >>> "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" 07/14/97 12:52pm >>> Hey keep this technical will you?? Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 >-- >From: tania.gr...@octel.com[SMTP:tania.gr...@octel.com] >Sent: Monday, July 14, 1997 11:51 AM >To:emc-p...@ieee.org; Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921 >Cc:jim.nado...@amp.com >Subject: Re[2]: alternate test sites > > Regarding your "cute footnote": > > The same could be stated for certain husbands. > > I suggest that you show greater consideration to people; it has been > many many years since polygamy was outlawed by Mormons. > > Tania Grant, Octel Communications Corporation > A non-Mormon. > > >__ Reply Separator >_ >Subject: Re: alternate test sites >Author: "Alan Hudson +44 (0)1383-821921" at >P_Internet_Mail >Date:7/14/97 10:12 AM > > >If I remember correctly, it's the Competent Body - the person who approves >(hopefully!) and signs the Technical Construction File - who must be >resident in the EU. > >Mind you, this is probably a moot point, now that the EU/USA have signed a >Mutual Recognition Agreement, I assume the USA can now test/approve their >own gear themselves. > >-- >Alan > >Mormons can have more than one wife. This is called polygamy. >Christians can have only one wife. This is called monotony. > > >> From: jim.nado...@amp.com >> To: emc-p...@ieee.org >> Subject: alternate test sites >> Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 10:55AM >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> These 2 questions may seem rather naive, but I never really had to >> address >> them. Any help by those who have direct experience would be greatly >> appreciated. >> >> 1. I heard the statement "The EU does not accept emissions data from a >> semi-anechoic chamber (SAC)" Since I deal mostly with ITE, I looked in >> EN55022-1987, para. 10.3.3 and see no mention of the use of anything but >> an >> OATS. The question is "Does all testing to EN55022 have to be performed >> at >> an OATS or can I use a SAC which has a "good" normalized site >> attenuation >> (<+/- 4 dB)?" It would seem to me that if you are self certifying, you >> would want to be confident the equipment passes with enough margin that >> it >> would pass anywhere. If you felt confident using a current probe and a >> scope, then go ahead and self-certify. >> >> 2. My second question deals with the famous person who signs test >> reports >> and is the responsible person (i.e. jail time) should the data be found >> to >> be bogus. Again, assume we are self certifying ITE equipment. I was >> told >> that the responsible person must be a resident of the EU. A company in >> the >> States could not self certify and place the CE mark on equipment with >> "only" the head of quality signature, assuming the head of quality lives >> in >> Anytown USA. I also heard that less than reputable companies in the >> States >> find "some European guy" who will sign anything and can vanish if the >> need >> arises. >> >> Some of this sounds like urban legend to me, but I appreciate any >> comments >> you may have. >> >> Thanks in advance... >> >> Jim Nadolny >> AMP Inc. >> jim .nado...@amp.com > > >
