FCC 101 Equivalent
- Hello Everyone, Does anyone have an idea on what will be the equivalent for the FCC part 101 that describes the manner in which portions of the radio spectrum may be made available for private operations, common carrier, and local Multipoint Distribution Service fixed in Europe , or any country in Europe? Your help is highly appreciated. Sarmad Albanna Compliance Engineer Hughes Network Systems
RE: The Microvolt Story
Bravo! Jim --- Dr. Jim Knighten NCR 17095 Via del Campo San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: 619-485-2537 Fax: 619-485-3788 e-mail: jim.knigh...@sandiegoca.ncr.com -- From: ed.pr...@cubic.com [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:16 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: The Microvolt Story To All of Our 726 EMC-PSTC Members Let's start out by saying the obvious; a bogey got through our defenses and splatted us with a commercial ad. And, the penetration was done the good, old fashioned way; not by a high-tech gimmick, but by simply subscribing to our list and then posting the ad. The ad was worded to appear to be a public "thank you" for the tremendous success of their new software; so much in demand by "high tech professionals" that the incredible order flow was overloading their shipping abilities. (An interesting problem, since they claim that shipment is made by sending you a zipped file attachment via email!) The release was grammatically poor, lacking in content; altogether, not a confidence inspiring ambassador for Microvolt. But something amazing happened. Microvolt spammed 726 regulatory industry professionals in our list. And no one, ZERO, thought their post was even worthy of an insult! Everyone simply turned their backs toward this blatant spammer. Well, I am beyond being impressed. Remember a few days ago, when we had a short thread on "how many listmembers it takes to thoroughly chew up a short subject (1,392)"? Well, here's evidence that ignorant behavior doesn't always trigger an avalanche of rebukes and re-rebukes and So, speaking for your listowners and admins, may I say that we are proud, even inspired, by your example of this most professional and effective response! Unfortunately, Chaman Bhardwaj, Microvolt Corp., will not face this humiliating silence; Chaman was removed from the list about 2 minutes after the posting of his ad. But if our group's stoney silence is any indication of the success of Chaman's ad campaign, I would suspect that Microvolt will be catching up on its backlog real soon. I might further point out that, since Chaman WAS a valid member of our group (granted, for a very short time), it is possible for him to have requested a WHO listing from Majordomo. This would have provided him with a complete set of group email addresses. Should Microvolt contact me directly in the future, I know that I would be inclined to tell them that I do not appreciate their business practices, and that I especially dislike disingenuous advertising (Ed McMahon and Dick Clark; you mean this isn't a REAL check?). I don't buy from spammers. Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 Date: 07/16/1998 Time: 09:44:38 --
IEEE EMC Symposium
Folks, if anyone is planning to attend the upcoming EMC symposium in CO, would it be a good idea to have a little ( easy to find locally ) sticker on our badges that identified us as list members? It would be nice to get to know some of the faces behind the messages.. Just a thought, Derek.
The Microvolt Story
To All of Our 726 EMC-PSTC Members Let's start out by saying the obvious; a bogey got through our defenses and splatted us with a commercial ad. And, the penetration was done the good, old fashioned way; not by a high-tech gimmick, but by simply subscribing to our list and then posting the ad. The ad was worded to appear to be a public "thank you" for the tremendous success of their new software; so much in demand by "high tech professionals" that the incredible order flow was overloading their shipping abilities. (An interesting problem, since they claim that shipment is made by sending you a zipped file attachment via email!) The release was grammatically poor, lacking in content; altogether, not a confidence inspiring ambassador for Microvolt. But something amazing happened. Microvolt spammed 726 regulatory industry professionals in our list. And no one, ZERO, thought their post was even worthy of an insult! Everyone simply turned their backs toward this blatant spammer. Well, I am beyond being impressed. Remember a few days ago, when we had a short thread on "how many listmembers it takes to thoroughly chew up a short subject (1,392)"? Well, here's evidence that ignorant behavior doesn't always trigger an avalanche of rebukes and re-rebukes and So, speaking for your listowners and admins, may I say that we are proud, even inspired, by your example of this most professional and effective response! Unfortunately, Chaman Bhardwaj, Microvolt Corp., will not face this humiliating silence; Chaman was removed from the list about 2 minutes after the posting of his ad. But if our group's stoney silence is any indication of the success of Chaman's ad campaign, I would suspect that Microvolt will be catching up on its backlog real soon. I might further point out that, since Chaman WAS a valid member of our group (granted, for a very short time), it is possible for him to have requested a WHO listing from Majordomo. This would have provided him with a complete set of group email addresses. Should Microvolt contact me directly in the future, I know that I would be inclined to tell them that I do not appreciate their business practices, and that I especially dislike disingenuous advertising (Ed McMahon and Dick Clark; you mean this isn't a REAL check?). I don't buy from spammers. Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/16/1998 Time: 09:44:38 --
Re: EN61000-3-2, EN55022 and EN55011
Concerning the application of multiple EMC standards in the EU: Another point is that an EU Declaration of Conformity under the EMC Directive - the document that you have to have signed and ready for inspection in order to apply the CE mark - requires that you state that your product meets the "protection requirements" of the EMC Directive. Many companies are unaware of this requirement, and their declarations usually say something like: "Product XYZ meets the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC by complying with EN55022 and EN50081-2". This is strictly incorrect wording, but never mind - the statement that the product meets the EMC Directive is enough to mean that the manufacturer is declaring that he meets the essential legal EMC Protection Requirements. The Protection Requirements say little more than: apparatus must not have emissions that cause an interference problem with other apparatus, and must have adequate immunity to operate as intended in its intended environment when properly installed and maintained. Notice that the Protection Requirements make no mention of EMC phenomena, or of test limits or levels, or frequency ranges - they truly are DC to daylight. But what company would want to sell a product that was likely to cause interference, or might not be reliable enough in its intended operational environment? Enough background - the issue was whether to apply the discontinuous emissions tests of EN55014 even if the relevant emissions standard did not mention this. Our little look into the actual legal obligations of the EMC directive shows us that we need to apply all the standards that are relevant to the EMC phenomena that our product may emit, or be susceptible to, in order to be able to show legal due diligence in meeting the EMC Directive. Note that the phrase "apply all the standards" does not mean (when self-declaring to the EMC Directive) having a full test report from a 3rd party test lab, or even doing a test at all! More on the general topic - for those who have read this far: The problem is that, historically, countries have applied technical barriers to trade which required importers to meet the test requirements set by their own national test laboratories. But the EMC Directive is different, it effectively says: we leave it up to you to be an honest manufacturer using due diligence in meeting the essential requirements of the Directive, but if we find that you are not using due diligence or your products caue or suffer interference (whether they have met a harmonised standard or not) we reserve the right to suspend all sales of your product(s) from the entire EU market, including those in the distribution chain, and/or apply other legal remedies such as fines, product recalls, etc. This is known colloquially as "speak softly but carry a big stick". All the CE marking Directives include similar essential legal requirements which spell out the spirit of the Directive in terms that make it difficult for lawyers to argue about what the law is meant to achieve. All the CE marking Directives also include "routes to a presumption of conformity" - for example: self-declaration to EU harmonised standards, but it is very important to realise that IN THE EU, COMPLIANCE WITH A STANDARD IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF CONFORMITY WITH THE ESSENTIAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. Standards are always a compromise, and a good example is the generic immunity standards which specifically state that they do not cover situations where a mobile radio transmitter (such as a cellphone or walkie-talkie) or ISM equipment is used in proximity. Likewise the generic emissions standards, and EN55022 as well, state that they do not cover situations where sensitive apparatus is used in proximity. The words "sensitive" and "proximity" are not defined and it is up to the manufacturer to determine whether his product is likely to be used in such situations and take the necessary steps, maybe limiting the sales or use of his product, maybe giving it EMC performance that goes beyond the obvious harmonised standards, IN ORDER TO MEET THE DIRECTIVE! I hope this helps the discussion along, by explaining the reasons behind Richard's approach. EurIng Keith Armstrong Partner, Cherry Clough Consultants Member of EMC-UK phone: +44 1457 871 605 fax: +44 1457 820 145 Email: karmstr...@iee.org EMC-UK may be contacted on info.em...@btinternet.com WOODS, RICHARD wrote: > > Let's take an example - a motor operated business machine that contains > digital logic. In my opinion, it must be judged under the generic emissions > standard because it produces both continuous and discontinuous interference. > The applicable sections of EN55022 and EN55014 must be met. The same would > apply if you had a motor operated ISM device except that EN55011 and EN55014 > would apply. > > > -- > > From: F.Goto[SMTP:go...@a-pex.co.jp] > > Reply To: F.Goto > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 1998 6:11 AM > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > > S
Re: journal...
Find also some others: :-o "EMC Engineering Europe" Reader Service Department Miller Freeman plc 40 Beresford Street London SE18 6QH Great Britain :-o "EMC Journal" and annual "EMC Kompendium" (both in German) KM Verlagsgesellschaft Bestellservice Golierstrasse 23 80339 Munchen, Germany :-o APPROVAL Magazine M&M Business Communications Ltd Freepost MA1342 Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 1BR Great Britain :-o Compliance Engineering - European Edition The Lansbury Estate Lower Guildford Road Knaphill, Woking Surrey GU21 2EP Great Britain :-o Papers from International Wroclaw Symposium - Poland http://www.emc98.wroc.pl Have a nice reading, Krzysztof Sieczkarek Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques Institute of Logistics and Warehousing Estkowskiego 6 61-755 Poznan, Poland fax +48 61 8526376 http://www.ilim.poznan.pl/la/index_E.html | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: journal...
Find also some others: :-o "EMC Engineering Europe" Reader Service Department Miller Freeman plc 40 Beresford Street London SE18 6QH Great Britain :-o "EMC Journal" and annual "EMC Kompendium" (both in German) KM Verlagsgesellschaft Bestellservice Golierstrasse 23 80339 Munchen, Germany :-o APPROVAL Magazine M&M Business Communications Ltd Freepost MA1342 Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 1BR Great Britain :-o Compliance Engineering - European Edition The Lansbury Estate Lower Guildford Road Knaphill, Woking Surrey GU21 2EP Great Britain :-o Papers from International Wroclaw Symposium - Poland http://www.emc98.wroc.pl Have a nice reading, Krzysztof Sieczkarek Laboratory of Automatic Identification Techniques Institute of Logistics and Warehousing Estkowskiego 6 61-755 Poznan, Poland fax +48 61 8526376 http://www.ilim.poznan.pl/la/index_E.html Chong Chien Jin wrote: > > Can someone help me on this topic? > Is there any journal related to EMC? > Where can i find the journal? > Thanks. > >C.J.CHONG >Pusat Pengajian Elektrik dan Elektronik, >USM. | | | | | | | | | |
RE: Looking for Horror Stories
From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" Subject: RE: Looking for Horror Stories Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:54:13 -0600 To: 'emc-pstc list server' , "'Knighten, Jim'" , "'WOODS, RICHARD'" Cc: "'jav...@hsv.sverdrup.com'" > You will have to go back a number of years to find the first > non-EMEmissions standard. As I recall, the first EME standard was > actually VDE 0871 and the German government was concerned > primarily with emissions interfering with legitimate communication. > Largely as a result of that CBEMA released a document that finally > became > FCC CFR47 Part 15. And so an industry was born. > > > Thank you > Charles Grasso > EMC Engineer > StorageTek It would be interesting to know when the first VDE commercial emission standard was published. However, I know that the FCC Part 15 and Part 18 emission requirements were in place as early as 1968. I started out doing field measurements for Part 18 industrial stuff (like RF welding and RF industrial process equipment). I still have very vivid memories of measuring "field strength at a 1000 foot radius on each of 18 radials" and "at 1 mile on the strongest radial", whether in the middle of a cornfield or the edge of a river. I also did Part 15 CE and RE testing, and sometimes a manufacturer used the same FCC data and compared it to the existing VDE spec limits. It was my understanding that the FCC and VDE conducted emission protocol was based on the Military Mil-I-6181 spec (in which there was a design note on the construction of a 5 uH LISN). The use of an LISN traces back to a US Army Air Force WWII study on a medium bomber power bus interference. I don't have much factual basis, but my guess is that German regulatory activities suffered a bit of a discontinuity circa 1945, and that, by the time VDE got its first new issue of pencils, they decided to use the existing FCC and US Mil precedents. If I've been around since before the industry was born, does that place me among the undead? But, having been certified that I'm not a competent body, whadda I know? Ed -- Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA. USA 619-505-2780 List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 07/15/1998 Time: 15:36:45 --
